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] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope 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 assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
Japan To-do:
|
|
Contents |
[edit] The description is missing Cosmos and Sexy Steam Liner
The newly added description to buck-tick goes from six/nine to one life one death, and somehow the information about the cyberpunk didn't show up in the description. I checked the text page and the info is there, it just isn't appearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minamoto1989 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fixing the Albums
Super Value Buck-Tick is not a real album, a fake one. I'm fixing it to make it correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minamoto1989 (talk • contribs) 19:53, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
[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)
- I would say no - simply because this band has such a huge discography. I'm generally against album pages in general, so I would say keep the most important albums and delete the rest (like best of albums - but others may not agree with me on that). I'm actually gathering sources for this page, so it can at least be sourced. [1] [2] [3] There are some album reviews on those sites too. Denaar 20:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Edit - didn't see the dates, I see that was already resolved, just saw the update to the page. Denaar 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've done a huge update, but the big error was the confusion over the 'Special' albums counting to the other 'Album' list. The other thing is, the singles are not linked, should they be merged within the Albums pages connected to the album it derived from, or have their own page? They do have a huge dicography, so it would be difficult. Just wanted to see any comments before I do anything further. Does anyone have any ideas for a proper layout of the synopsis of Albums pages? Should they be more detailed and in what way? (I am completely new to this, so it is tiring and confusing to try and add something without knowing how to and the reaction of others) Fukakutei 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Once this article gets too huge to manage, then a separate discography article should be made. At this time, the article isn't big enough to do that yet. I would be against making pages for the singles unless someone has good, multiple, (non-fanbased) sources that are specifically about that single. There needs to be more than a single cover and a song list. Denaar 03:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
If you are going to add English articles that duplicate the information here, go ahead and leave the Japanese sources as well. Having things double sourced couldn't hurt. There is a lot more information on this band out there - for instance they have done a lot of anime sound tracks we can find references for. Denaar 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Links to unofficial websites
There used to be a number of unofficial Buck-Tick related sites linked off this article, and I'm wondering while all those links seem to be consistently removed. Is it a copyright issue? Unofficial sites are usually the best English-language resources for Japanese bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.214.239 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Check out the guidlines at WP:EL. From the section - Restrictions on linking: Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Most fan sites have magazine scans or lyrics on them. Also check Links normally to be avoided - which includes blogs and personal web sites (fan sites). Denaar 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Albums are messed up
Buck-tick has only released 15 albums. Some reason this forum is including specials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.210.241 (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
Hey guys, I finally rewrote this article to make it complete! This is all original text so there is no copyvio. I know there was discussion about this before but I've used "BUCK-TICK" instead of "Buck-Tick" throughout because the band have used the former typography on every release they've ever made, and all the magazines use it too, so I really think it's the correct one. I left the discography sections intact, I just refined the translations of the album titles a little. For the paragraphs with citations only at the end, it's not that the beginning sentences lack citations, it's just that all the info in the paragraph came from one source so I just cited it at the end. If anyone takes issue with this, feel free to put in more citations. I'm sorry about the large number of Japanese-language sources but it's just impossible to find quality English-language info on BUCK-TICK. I've provided English translations wherever possible. Enjoy!Numode (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Numode
[edit] fixed missing section
a typo was preventing the section regarding Cosmos and Sexy Stream Liner from appearing. This is now fixed :) Numode (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Numode
