Talk:Buck-Tick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
Buck-Tick is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Japan To-do:
|
|
[edit] Correct name
Pardon the mess. Buck-Tick is the correct typography, and the new page can be edited at Buck-Tick/Temp. It's there because the original version was a probable copyvio. Please don't recreate BUCK-TICK - Buck-Tick will soon be reactivated. Tearlach 19:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why lower case when the official BUCK-TICK website has it in all capitals? --J Bush 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Because any native english speaker have monopoly over latin alphabet and can dictate entire world how they must write in it, obviously. Sorry if it may sound rude, but considering all of the abuse of "we know what proper typography is" I can think of no other reason. --Rowaa[SR13] 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Could someone organize the albums better as well? If possible, I'd like it to hold their relevent LPs and EPs in one section. Live, remixes, compilations and et cetera should be put in another section beneath. - Shadowolf 18:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
To copyvio editors: new page - please reinstate. Thx. Tearlach 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Album merges
Sorry for the merge mess at the top of the page, but I wanted to get people's comments before taking action. I think I can present a layout that will allow all those track listings on the main article but not make it so long. I'll throw something together in my sandbox for you guys to see in a bit. But considering how the main article is so small, I don't see how it's a good thing to split track listings into different articles. Even with all the listings in one place, the article itself is still a stub, since lists do not a good article make. But it will make it better. Remember, Wikipedia is not our own fan-site. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The merge suggestion looks at first sight to be unwise: you have nominated 17 albums to merge into this article. WP:NOT paper: if someone is likely to want to link to an individual album, it is better to have an article on that; you can organise them using a category if you like: see WikiProject Albums for information. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- it's ironic that you linked to WP:NOT. These are lists, not articles. Not a single one of these albums count as articles according to Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, I dunno. I can't imagine pulling this off - but if you can do it, then cool. But we'll have to see it first. With that many albums, I feel its more wise to keep them as individual articles. The albums can be expanded upon after all (in the bands history and response in recording the album, record sales, synopsis of the album's sound in comparison to their others, and whatnot). So my doubts hold... I'm generally against the idea. Shadowolf 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
