# Talk:X Japan

Hi, I'm your GA Reviewer.  I can see this article's been at WP:GAN for over two weeks now.  Must be that backlog, I've got one tied up myself in there.  Anyway, I'm going to look over the article and tell you what I think.


### General Overview
The prose looks really good, and I'd say you've met criterion 1 from the article.  I have some sourcing issues, though.  I'll list the issues in a checklist under this general overview.  The article is broad in its coverage, neutral, and stable, meeting criteria 3, 4, and 5 all in that way.  I've got some issues with 6, but we'll address that below.


### Issues
For organizational purposes, I'm going to make a quick checklist of things that need to be fixed before I can pass the article:

The 1993-1997 section needs more sources.  A large part of the first paragraph is unsourced.
There's an unsourced paragraph in the 1982-1992 section.  That paragraph needs sources.
Can you source the statement about X Japan forming while the two members were in high school?
I would be careful about using an IMDb reference, many people consider it an unreliable source.
The rest of the sources look good, but all the sources from jrockrevolution.com don't link me to any information about what is being cited.  This needs to be fixed.
I don't think you've got a legitimate claim of fair use for the four music samples.  There needs to be context within the article that justifies each individual music sample.  My recommendation is this: create a Musical Style section with text and sources, and use the samples (as few as possible) to show the musical style.  As it is, you don't have any justification in the article for these samples.
Given these issues, I've decided to put this article on hold for a week so the issues can be resolved.  When you are finished, please feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will take another look.  If you have questions or comments, you can contact me at my talk page.  Thanks. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


### Sound samples
I suggest putting the sound samples in the body of the article, alongside the relevant text. This makes the samples more informative and strengthens the fair use rationale. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That might just work. I'm in the middle of fixing all the verifiability issues and once I'm done, ask Red Phoenix about that option. The samples are down for now, but I have backups and will see to re-uploading them, if they are deleted in the meantime. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


### GA Hold Review
I'll take another look tomorrow when I've got time, unless you guys need more time. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the WP:V and WP:NFC related issues you listed earlier have by and large been resolved. I have added a to-do list above, in order to facilitate future improvements, so if you have any ideas for the article beyond the GA review, your two cents would be appreciated. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys need a Musical Style section to meet criteria 3a of the good article criteria.  I know you guys have been talking about it, and if you need more time today, I'll extend the hold for a couple more days.  But yep, It looks like the WP:V issues have been taken care of, at least.  I'll take another look at the images and tell you about any WP:NFC issues I find. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you consider the style section necessary for GA level already, an extension of the hold would be nice, yes. Shall we say next Wednesday? – Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll extend the hold. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For personal reasons I have to delay the assessment until tomorrow, sorry but I've been busy in real life. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


### One More Thing
This article looks so much better, but one more thing needs to be done before I can pass it as a GA.  In the Musical Style section, someone needs to at least mention both songs used as samples in the prose.  One was mentioned but the other wasn't.  After this is done, contact me on my talk page and I'll be happy to pass the article. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, guys, GA passed. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 05:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

X Japan Korea Tour has been cancelled. Main reason lack of ticket sells. Saturday date 900 tickets sold, Sunday date 800 ticket sold.
Full capacity of Olympic concert stadium is 20,000 ( full house). Only Heavy Metal band that sold full house Olmypic concert stadium
has been Metallica, Oasis, Ozzy Ozbourne, Linkin Park. Greater Seoul population of 20 million. X Japan ticket sells hasn't really
been popular for political and historical reasons. Future X Japan won't be touring Korea. Korean X Japan fans buy a ticket and fly to
Tokyo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kp-korea (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC) 

Does this really have any relevance to the article? It doesn't demonstrate any illustration of said topic matter nor is there any X Japan related material in the image at all. ~Ambrosia- talk 02:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. While it is always nice to have free images for an article, the relevance of this particular one is tangential at best. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A debate which is often taking place here is over the validity of the the pre-1987 members in context to the article. It's clear that satisfying both sides of the debate is not a particularly easy thing to do within this article, but I propose that this is where we create a breakout article or section to cover the fairly large amount of ground in the bands pre-1987 history. Articles such as Guns N' Roses have applied a similar idea to good effect, and perhaps it is time that we do the same here - else this debate is going to continue to arise in the future and potentially, as it has done before on several occasions, disrupt the quality of the article with poor edits and edit wars.
As often topics of discussion like this are sadly ignored by some of the most persistent offenders in regard to this issue I am going to give a period of several weeks for people to air their views. If there is no objection or discussion about this topic I am going to go ahead and create the new article myself regardless, so be warned - if you intend to disrupt the creation of this breakout article at a later date without having first aired your views here I will be enlisting the support of an Administrator as I have no intention of wasting my time with disruptive users who refuse to discuss and work with each other in situations like this.
--Cerise soldier (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why only former members as an article? there should be a member history or a list of members that extends on the topic further than the main article can like you said. 137.124.9.20 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, definitely - the only problem is that the opinions of the more stringent editors of the article will no doubt cause friction in whatever breakout section which we try to implement. As can be shown by this talk page, there have been a very different set attempts to justify the removal of information regarding the older band members and the early band history - everything from discrediting the existing references to claiming the information has a lack relevance to the article. This kind of behaviour when placed in context to the chronology of events comes across as being inherently un-objective and merely a set of attempts to disguise an opinion by using Wikipedia guidelines to contest the article content. I'm hoping that we can satisfy both our and their opinions in making this breakout article, as otherwise we could see the article plunged into another unstable state of flux due to edit wars and unconstructive behaviour. --Cerise soldier (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Prior to the completion of the proposed probably is 'wiser' to first complete the current members articles, ( correct errors, find someone musically educated, in the case of 'Yoshiki' to find - read(translate, or to discuss with fans) his autobiography. Their articles should be(!) worth and respected as bands itself. ) In more than twenty years of career probably has more to do even more to write, as a group and individually. Perhaps someone good/neutral, with vision, close to the information, pictures should work on this article, in the end to discuss about future events. Don't forget this is 'The Free Encyclopedia'--Shurin (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed, if you look at bands sales, (including Oricon, selling certifications, and best yearly singles-albums), simply does not reach, or even much less, exceed 20 million, or like U.S. journalists currently reports, over 30 million. According to my research, they sold 8,5 million for sure. If calculating, could be up to 10 million copies, but not further than that. I stand firmly behind my words, as they have not crossed over 12 - 15 million copies. Understand to could be wrong, but if you also take into account that metal music wasn't fully accepted in Japan.. It should be (at least) recovered the information they sold over twenty million copies.--Shurin (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the sales figures part in attempt to state the sales figures claims in a more neutral way, with appropriate citations.  The previous version said "as of 2010, the band has sold over thirty million records and over two million home videos," while citing a source from 2007 that states the band has sold "more than 20 million combined albums and singles".  I am not at all sure where the uncited 30 million plus 2 million figure had come from.
However, given the hyperbole and exaggerated claims in X Japan's press releases, I too see good reason to doubt even the original "20 million" figure.  This article would greatly benefit from a neutral source (someone other than the band's marketing company!) for the band's album sales figures.  I know your comment is a year old, but if possible could you provide links for the sources you mention? Ibanez100 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I counted certifications from X Japan's (Japanese wikipedia) album and (even two indie) singles articles, most probably by RIAJ. Studio albums and singles sold 7,203,500 copies, with compilation albums reach 8,403,500. But note that few last singles and some compilations don't have any certification noted, which could mean they didn't sold enough to be certified at least Gold (200,000 copies). While videos (at least those with certification) sold at least 200,000 copies. As well according to the RIAJ List of 50 Best Selling Artists of All-Time in Japan, they aren't in the top 50, and the 50th sold 13,400,000 million copies.--Shurin (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and sources, I appreciate it. That's a good idea about the RIAJ certifications. When I get the time I'll check them and see if I get the same sum when I add them together - we could then state that X Japan has sold "more than" (to account for the non-certified releases) whatever the sum of the certifications is. (Of course, feel free to add info to the article yourself, it's not like you need to wait for me or anyone else.) I'm not sure about the List of 50 Best Selling Artists of All-Time in Japan article however, because while it certainly looks reasonable, I can't tell if the source it cites [1] directly includes that information. I downloaded the 2011 "year book" and didn't find any top 50 list in it. Is the list in one of the other "year books"? Ibanez100 (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I edited our replies, could we continue this discussion "straight", and second part to be about if to use or not those citations how much band sold? Surfing, this list were shown on TV. While per my new investigation (in short), per certifications (without Vanishing Vision), they sold 2,8 million copies of studio albums at least. If we add the difference what found at biglobe.ne.jp is 3,277 million, and plus 800,000 copies of Vanishing Vision according the reference is 4,077 million. There are only three compilation albums certified (because the minimum gold cert. is for 200,000) so that three make at least 1,166 million, with those from biglobe.ne.jp (and difference) make 1,869 million copies. Sold singles per certifications are 4,8 million, if we add the difference found at generasia.com/wiki from Oricon Top 100 Singles 1994, 1995, and 1996 (for Rusty Nail, Longing ~Togireta Melody~, and Dahlia) is 5,208,170. There only two videos of five certified and they make at least 400,000, with those from biglobe.ne.jp (and difference) is 793,000 copies. In the end, per certifications are sold 8,766,000 copies of albums and singles, that "difference" and certified compilations make 9,651,170, plus uncertified compilations make 10,349,170, and plus Vanishing Vision make 11,149,170. If we count videos either is 11,942,170 and that's not even more than 12 million.--Shurin (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
By "straight", do you mean without indentations? Sure, that's fine. I'll go ahead and remove the Herfitz PR sales figures from both X Japan and X Japan discography, since per your investigation I now believe that they are "unduly self-serving" and that there is "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (WP:BLPSPS).
Now the question is: what parts of your research can we include, and how can we cite it? Per WP:CALC we can certainly add up the figures from one single source, but per WP:SYNTH I am not sure if we can add the figures from multiple sources together to create one figure. I would say the most reliable of the single sources is the RIAJ certifications, and including the videos that would total "over 9.16 million" - a lowball estimate, since of course it doesn't count anything that sold less than 200,000 units, and if there isn't one list on the RIAJ site of all of X Japan's certifications then we may have to cite each one. Is the biglobe.ne.jp source considered reliable? If so, we might be able to use that one exclusively and add up everything from there. (As for generasia.com/wiki, we can't cite another wiki, but if it lists it source then we could look at and consider that source.) Another option would be to simply not include anything about sales figures. What do you think is the best thing to do? Ibanez100 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Could X Japan sold 20 million or 30 million copies? Yes, but then they became two times more popular when disbanded. This number seems only Yoshiki knows, and as an musical act their copies had to be counted by RIAJ or Oricon. Well, for now wouldn’t include anything about sales figures, because there few problems. Those certifications can only(?) be found on X Japans article at Japanese Wikipedia, but not on RIAJ website, so their validity is questionable. Sales figures on Biglobe.ne.jp (as I see) are the yearly Oricon sales (in short) only for albums and video recordings, and all together they contrast each other in several occasions:
1) Per Biglobe, Blue Blood sold 715,000 copies, per RIAJ is certified a million seller, while per this site RIAJ never certified it a million seller, but X Singles. But, on X Japans Oricon profile album sales ranking list Blue Bood is the second, behind Jealousy, while X Singles is at fourth place, behind Dahlia. This list is correct even per Biglobe sales figures, and if charted overall 108 weeks it could reach a million, question is - who to trust.
2) Per Biglobe, Jealousy (released in July 1st, 1991) sold 1,113,000 copies, although on Oricon yearly list was 12th best-selling album with 828,000 copies, is questionable where they got the information. RIAJ certified it a million seller (can see in the site prior), and because charted overall 50 weeks it could be a million. 3) Per Biglobe, X Singles sold 592,000 copies, although on Oricon yearly list sold 427,860 copies, second time is questionable where they got this information. Per RIAJ is  certified a platinum (400,000).
4) Per Oricon yearly list, single "Tears" (released on November 10, 1993) sold 380,150 copies, while RIAJ certified it a double platinum (800,000). 5) Per Oricon yearly list, single "Forever Love" (released on July 8, 1996) sold 509,920 copies, while RIAJ certified it a double platinum (800,000). 6) Per Oricon yearly list, single "Rusty Nail" (released on June 10, 1994) sold 712,390 copies, while RIAJ certified it a platinum (400,000). This three are interesting because per RIAJ two singles are certified double platinum, while the one with the most copies sold isn't. If they are certified with new criteria from June 2003 (Gold 100,000 and Platinum 250,000) sounds plausible for the first two, but the third doesn't.
If decision is to add the figures, on their discography page can be put a list of (unofficial, questionable) RIAJ certifications, and near "Total Shipments" from Biglobe for albums and videos, while on singles articles can be said something like "until the end of the year it sold xxx copies, becoming the # best-selling single of the year." (depending), "and later to be certified double platinum by RIAJ".--Shurin (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
In that case I agree, better to leave the sales figures out of the article unless a definitive, reliable source can someday be found. By the way, what do you think about the statement (from the same press releases) that X Japan sold out Tokyo Dome 18 times? Have you done any research regarding that statement? I'm curious whether that's true or not. Thanks for all your research on the sales figures! Ibanez100 (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
About the 2 currently used; the "30 million" one includes videos, the "20 million" one doesn't. It seems to me Shurin was also only talking about albums and singles. And anyway we personally cannot add up different numbers or compare different sources and use that as sales figures for the article (that would violate Wikipedia:No original research). Even if the numbers are "exaggerated" by the band's company and the media just copies that, we cannot have two different sales statements in the article. We should only use the 30 million one as it is the most recent and widely used. Xfansd (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
We can have two different sales statements if both are verifiable.  For example, we can say that Herfitz PR stated 20 million and then 30 million, but (insert verifiable third party source) states (however many they state).  Provided, of course, that we can find a verifiable third party source.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine that such a source for this information is out there somewhere.
Considering WP:BLPSPS, I now wonder if, given that the statistics can be traced back to press releases, they should be included at all.  Can we honestly say that Herfitz PR's claims about X Japan's sales are not unduly self-serving and that there is no reasonable doubt as to their authenticity? Ibanez100 (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The photo in the infobox should be changed to a recent photo with the current line-up. The current one should either be moved into the 1978–1992: X section or I believe a better one can be found. I feel the X Japan logo photo is not needed, the same goes for hide's grave photo. Xfansd (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is a good idea to use a photo of the current lineup, however, we must be aware that many of the high quality photos in the US tour were taken by professional photographers, which means that in order to avoid copyright infrigement we must have their authorisation to use their photos on the article, unless of course that one of our editors took a high quality photo and is willing to use it in the article.
Personally, I don't think that there is problem with hide's grave, if I'm not mistaken, cliff burton's memorial site in Sweden and bruce lee's grave photos are used on their respetive articles, for me, I feel it complements the article even though it does not add any relevant information unlike the afromentioned examples. NeruX LV (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking if someone could find a recent promo pic or even a good live one, under the same fair use guidelines as the one used in Luna Sea's infobox, that would be the easiest way. And of course the hide grave pick works for hide's own article, as does Bruce Lee's and Cliff's. But X Japan's article is significantly smaller than Metallica's and I just felt seeing hide's grave, then seeing hide's hologram right below it made it a little too focused on him and I just lumped it in with the useless logo one. But I'm now thinking it will balance out when more info on recent events (without hide) is added as long as X Japan keeps going. Xfansd (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else think there should not be a mention of Taiji Sawada's death in the history? He was not a member of the group at the time of his death. If we let his death stay then we have to add all the other former member's histories to the article. Xfansd (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you but upon editing the infobox to correspond with wikipedia infobox guidelines, which state that all former members should be listed in the "past members" section of the infobox regardless of their contribution, I was informed that none of the band members besides Taiji and Hide should be included due to them being members of X and not members of X Japan. If we're going to go by that logic, then the inclusion of Taiji's death in the band history means the only other former member who needs his history mentioned on the page is Hide, and that is already done to some extent. If we were to include information on all former members within the page, and thus accept that X and X Japan are essentially the same band, then all of the former members needed to be included in the infobox again. Burbridge92 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That's false Taiji was only in X, when he left is when they changed their name to X Japan. And I know Hide's death is mentioned to some degree, but I have doubts as to whether that whole section of the article (1998–2007: The Solo Years) should be here. Why should the article tell what the members did solo/after/on the side separate from the band that the article is about, when each member has their own article for that?
If whoever "informed you" of that false info wants to share their reasoning here they are welcome to. But if you and I agree, with no objections, we can edit the Taiji death out. Otherwise we have to add the other member's info. It was an unregistered user who edited out the older members from the former members section, I added them back. Also see my response to the question below. Xfansd (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, X Japan only changed their name once they became internationally well known, which was after Taiji had already left. The individual who removed all the names from the former members section didn't argue with me as per se, but justified their actions with "1993–1997: X Japan". The only members they left were Taiji and Hide. It wasn't properly justified. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The infobox section for former members has been changed again, this time according to the page history on account of being "too long". That doesn't meet the criteria set by the guidelines. Therefore a link from the infobox to the former members section will suffice, as it does in other such cases. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

After editing the infobox to follow the guidelines (see Template:Infobox musical artist# past_members), it was asserted that all former members besides Taiji Sawada and Hideto "hide" Matsumoto should not be included due to them being members of X and not X Japan. If this difference is to be accepted as accurate in the infobox, it should also be pointed out in the members section, otherwise there is a contradiction on the page. Burbridge92 (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Same as above, that is simply false. The band changed their name to X Japan after Taiji left. No distinction should be made between X and X Japan, the band is the same, they just changed their name. Xfansd (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I was merely stating that if a distinction is to made in one part of the page it should be made everywhere else on the page, but agreed. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me that the band members' birth names are overemphasized in both this article and most of the individual members' articles.  Seeing phrasings like "Hideto 'hide' Matsumoto" dominate these articles is as strange and out of place as would be "Farrokh 'Freddy Mercury' Bulsara" or "Richard 'Ringo Starr' Starkey".  Repeatedly calling Yoshiki "Yoshiki Hayashi" is like repeatedly calling Prince "Prince Rogers Nelson".
My suggestion would be to remove birth names from the main X Japan article, and then use them only sparingly on the individual members' articles.  The Heath article has got it right: I think it is entirely appropriate to mention the subject's birth name once and refer to him only by his professional name thereafter.  This would also be far more congruent with WP:SURNAME.  Also as per WP:SURNAME, the only X Japan member whose birth surname would possibly bear repeating later in an article would be Taiji (Sawada), as he is the only one of them to have used his full birth name professionally.
I also do not agree with the "Hideto 'hide' Matsumoto" naming format in general, as it could mislead readers into believing that "Hideto 'hide' Matsumoto" - the whole thing - was his stage name, when in fact his stage name was only "hide".  Again, could we mention "Hideto Matsumoto" as his birth name once in the hide article and then refer to him as "hide" both in subsequent mentions in that article as well as in all of the other articles?  I have never seen the "Hideto 'hide' Matsumoto" style construction for X Japan members' names anywhere other than here and English fan sites.
De emphasizing birth names would be a far more accurate representation of how these people are actually referred to, both in Japan and in US press releases.  To quote WP:SURNAME, they are most definitely "best known by a pseudonym". Ibanez100 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't see where you're saying their birth names are overemphasized. They should not be removed from here all together like you suggested; they are given once in the history section when that member joined and once more in the member's section.
Besides hide's (which sometimes refers to him as Matsumoto because of the capitalization dispute), each individual member's article is fine too. Where is the over emphasis?
And what do you mean about disagreeing with "the Hideto 'hide' Matsumoto naming format in general"? The quotations show that hide is his nickname, which the beginning of his article clearly states. If someone speaks English then they would understand that. Xfansd (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
We seem to agree on the hide article then - I think that one is the worst offender due to all the "Matsumoto"s.  Personally I think even a capitalized "Hide" is more accurate and far more in line with WP:SURNAME than "Matsumoto".  However, as per WP:MOSCAPS, is there still even an issue with the lack of capitalization?  Do you mean the issue of how his name has been posthumously modified back to HIDE by his management?
By disagreeing with the "Hideto 'hide' Matsumoto" naming format in general, I mean that there are musicians and others who use the "Given Name 'Nickname' Surname" format where the entire thing is the person's professional name.  For example, Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal is credited in GNR's Chinese Democracy album as Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal.  Pata on the other hand is always credited as Pata, never as Tomoaki "Pata" Ishizuka.  I speak English, and if I were to read the X Japan article without knowing the band members' names beforehand, I would think Tomoaki "Pata" Ishizuka - the whole thing - is the name he uses professionally.  It even says as much here, where it states that Tomoaki "Pata" Ishizuka et al are their stage names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Japan#Members
This naming format also causes a serious problem for Yoshiki's name.  Yoshiki "Yoshiki" Hayashi is of course redundant, but how is the reader to guess that the person referred to in the article as "Yoshiki Hayashi" never calls himself that professionally and is far better known as only "Yoshiki"?  Especially when the members section linked to above explicitly and incorrectly states that "Yoshiki Hayashi" is his stage name?  This naming format creates far more confusion than it eliminates.
The former members section furthers the problem.  I don't know who the majority of these musicians are, and based on the naming format I can't tell what names they use on stage.  Kenichi "Eddie Van" Koide, for example.  Does he call himself "Eddie Van", "Kenichi Eddie Van Koide", or "Eddie Van Koide"?
Also, where are the sources for the former members' stage name and birth names?  For that matter, other than Japanese Wikipedia, are there credible sources for the current X Japan members' birth names?
The naming format is not even consistently applied throughout the article.  To apply it consistently, shouldn't we say that Yoshiki collaborated with Queen drummer Roger Meddows "Roger Taylor" Taylor and Sir George Henry "George Martin" Martin, Wesley Louden "Wes Borland" Borland played at an X Japan concert, and Takamasa "Miyavi" Ishihara was in S.K.I.N?  I would say all of that would be unnecessary, possibly misleading, and not in line with how band articles are commonly written on Wikipedia, which is the same way I feel about the X Japan members' names being introduced in the same fashion.
See for comparison the articles on Kiss, The Beatles, Queen, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses and the like, all of which are bands where one or more member is better known by a stage name.  None of the bands' main articles mentions those band members' birth names at all. Ibanez100 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
By "the capitalization dispute" I meant how Wikipedia previously didn't allow people's articles to be stylistically written how they want (all caps or all lowercase); therefore years ago someone went though hide's article and used Mastumoto so the edit wars would stop. However, currently it seems they are more relaxed with such stylizations (see k.d. lang and will.i.am), so I think it would be fine to go through and add hide where his last name is used.
I see what you mean by having the members section say "usually credited with their given or stage names" it doesn't specify which member is credited which way. Possibly leading to wrong assumptions (people might incorrectly think "Heath Morie" or "Yune Sugizo" are acceptable). And when you say that this "format is not even consistently applied throughout the article", you are absolutely correct. In this case I think I agree with removing birth names from the bands' articles, while leaving them in the member's individual ones.
However, when talking about the lesser known former members, who don't have their own articles, it gets way more complicated. For instance, from what I can gather it seems Yuji "Terry" Izumisawa used both Yuji and Terry. And while in X, Kenichi "Eddie Van" Koide was credited simply as Eddie, but it seems in his recent band he uses Eddie Van Koide. When Hisashi Takai was first in X in 1985 he went by Jun, he then left but came back in 1986 using the name Shu, later he released solo material under his full real name. So if we don't give these guys' birth names and all possible nicknames, who are we to choose just one of these for use here in the article? As for sources of most of these former members' stage names, there most likely isn't any reliable ones accepted by Wikipedia. Except one; Yoshiki's biography, which comes with a pretty complicated diagram of each member and their previous and later bands.
I think removing birth names of the main member's who have their own articles is a good idea. But we should leave the birth names of the less notable former members who don't have their own articles. We should wait for other editors to give their opinions on this before changing it. Xfansd (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree on basically all of these points, including leaving in the birth names and other names of less notable former members who don't have their own articles.  I believe they should be sourced however.  If they're all mentioned (birth names and all) in Yoshiki's biography, it would great if someone who has access to that could confirm and cite it as a source.
I didn't realize that's why Matsumoto was used in hide's article.  That's actually a novel way to end the capitalization edit wars, though I'm glad that it seems it could now be changed to "hide" without controversy.  Dare I ask: should it now be hide or HIDE?  I personally can see good rationale for either and therefore don't have a strong preference. Ibanez100 (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen hide's name "posthumously modified back to HIDE by his management" like you said, plus all caps are currently not accepted on Wikipedia (even though all lowercase is), so writing it "HIDE" here is not an option. But shouldn't his name be written "Hide" in X Japan's article, because while with X it was all caps?
I don't know about in the actual reading of the book (although I doubt it), but the former member's full birth names are not mentioned on the diagram from Yoshiki's biography. Just whatever name they were credited by then (stage or first). Also you put an unreferenced section tag there, how would one add a reference to that? Put one after each member (which seems way too much) or just one all the way at the end after hide? Xfansd (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I may have slightly misspoken when I said "by his management".  More correctly, the posthumous change was placed into effect by whoever was responsible for the content of X Japan's official site around 2008 or so.  He was referred to on the official X Japan site as HIDE at the time and that seems to be where all the recent HIDEs came from.
As for the general history of hide vs. HIDE: he started out in X as HIDE, but once he switched to hide, he was hide across the board, including in the X Japan context.  Media of the time spelled his name as hide even when discussing his early activities with X.  Here are the covers of two issues of Rockin'f magazine for an example.  The first is from 1994 - note the "hide (X)" in the lower left.  The second is from 2000 and I think is self explanatory.
http://www.trio-magazine.com/zoom/38812
http://www.trio-magazine.com/zoom/54591
Do you know of a source which states that his name should be capitalized as HIDE in an X Japan context?
As for the less notable former members, if their full birth names really cannot be cited then those should be removed.  I would say that whatever can be cited from Yoshiki's biography (or another good source) should be listed there - if that means only whatever name they were credited as at the time, so be it - with the citation at the end of whatever it applies to.  It could be after whoever is last before Taiji.  Ibanez100 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That is simply incorrect, throughout X/X Japan's whole career it was HIDE. The first magazine (obviously 1994 by the cover) is probably an interview specifically about hide's "new" solo career therefore its spelled that way. Anyway instead of media we should go by the spelling that X Japan actually used. For instance 1996's "Crucify My Love" still spelled it HIDE (seen here [2]). And the re-release of "Scars" in 1998 specifically for hide's death, which had new covers from the original 1996 one, didn't change it to lowercase either (seen here [3]). So again, I think his name should be written "Hide" in X Japan's article, because the whole time he was with them it was all caps. Xfansd (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
For better or worse, regardless of the spelling on the covers of those two singles, the capitalization used by Japanese music magazines at the time (not just Rockin'f) was uniformly "hide".  Actually, WP:MOSCAPS says that lower case personal names may be used "if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources", so it would seem that on Wikipedia, what it says in magazines and such would carry more weight than what the band or even the man himself may have preferred.
I don't think Hide is the best option.  There is a case to be made for both HIDE and hide, but given that HIDE is not an option as per Wikipedia's policies (a double standard in my opinion, but nonetheless), we are down to hide or Hide.  Of the two, hide - a spelling which was and is extremely widespread in Japan's big name rock and visual kei magazines, and is currently used by his official site (www.hide-city.com) - has more precedent and more verifiability than Hide.
Interestingly, there does seem to be some precedent for Hide, namely at least one of the Herfitz PR press releases and English language media.  Based on that I don't think Hide would be unacceptable, but I do think hide is far more established and therefore would be preferable.  Ibanez100 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a double-standard. You can use all lowercase, but not all uppercase.陣内Jinnai 23:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree.  Whatever I think about HIDE vs. hide nonwithstanding, it doesn't make sense to me why one of those stylizations would be allowed while the other is not. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To whom it may interest, there is a discussion regarding Wikipedia's name capitalization policies, particularly (but not exclusively) as they apply to Japanese musicians with names in all caps, which began here [4] and has progressed to here [5].  There has been a request for comments at the latter, so I have posted this here as I suspect there are editors reading this who may have an opinion on the issue.  Cheers. Ibanez100 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It became clear to everyone that X Japan´s members didnt like being classified as a heavy metal band. So it should be changed to visual kei rock or just rock, no labels. Everytime someone try to change this article it get changed back to the heavy metal thing, dont understand why Ladyslime (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they want, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not change just because the subject of the article doesn't want their genre to be labelled. X Japan is reported in reliable sources and media as metal, therefore Wikipedia lists their genre as metal. Xfansd (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
O if it doesnt matter blabla whatever, let see the facts, how can u classified VANDALISM changing to ROCK BAND????  Inst X Japan a rock band???Tell me what the hell is wrong with this afirmation? Your the one who is vandalising! 13:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyslime (talk • contribs) 
Here the very first link that is show here on the x japan wiki describe them as a JAPANESE ROCK BAND!  http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936
Oh the second link on this x wikipedi ALSO SAYS THE SAME THING! "X Japan was one of the most influential rock bands in Japanese history. " http://www.allmusic.com/artist/p320432
The 5th link says they area VISUAL KEI BAND! http://www.hmv.co.jp/news/newsDetail.asp?newsnum=309240055
Other article linked in this wikipedia saying" One of Japan’s most renowned rock bands," http://www.tokyohive.com/2011/04/x-japans-world-tour-to-extend-into-south-america/
reference 13- "On August 14th, legendary rock band X JAPAN" http://www.tokyohive.com/2011/08/x-japan-puts-on-a-spirited-show-at-summer-sonic/
reference 25 - "Toshi was a vocalist in a rock group "http://web.archive.org/web/20071215071407/http://www.iyashi-no-concert.com/interview.html
reference 39 - "According to a posting on the GUNS N' ROSES fan site Here Today... Gone To Hell!, GUNS N' ROSES guitarist Richard Fortus will joining reactivated Japanese rockers X JAPAN for their three shows at the Tokyo Dome in Tokyo,..." http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=93306
reference 40 -"　昨年１０月、約１０年ぶりに再結成したロックバンド「Ｘ　ＪＡＰＡＮ」のＴＯＳＨＩ、"  http://web.archive.org/web/20080121063521/http://www.chunichi.co.jp/chuspo/article/entertainment/news/CK2008012102081032.html
reference 42 - "Fans of the legendary X Japan got more details of the rock band's long-awaited comeback yesterday. " http://www.japan-zone.com/news/2008/01/21/x_japan_announce_concert_details.shtml
reference 47 - "Professionally filmed video footage of reactivated Japanese rockers X JAPAN's "http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=93928
reference 49 - "The newly reunited X Japan rock band " http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-04-03/x-japan-to-play-nyc-madison-square-garden-this-fall "
reference 53 and 55- " According to Tokyograph, reactivated Japanese rockers X JAPAN" http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=98863
reference 63 - "Rock band intends to hold concert in Los Angeles venue before Lollapalooza" http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-27/x-japan-to-move-to-l.a-hold-simple-concert-there
reference 70 - "Fondé en 1982, X Japan est un groupe légendaire de la scène rock japonaise." http://www.japan-expo.com/fr/contenu/yoshiki-toshi-from-x-japan-au-je-live-house_168.htm
reference 71 - "Yoshiki, the drummer and pianist of the rock band X-Japan" http://abcnews.go.com/WN/yoshiki-japans-bono-ready-us/story?id=11358722#.T3xqdvBSR2A
reference 73- "attempt by a Japanese band"   http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2010/08/x_japans_yoshiki_on_lollapaloo.php
reference 75 - "X JAPAN, one of Japan's biggest rock bands," http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=144495
reference 79 - "X JAPAN, the most successful rock band in Japanese history" http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=152924
Reference 81- "Yoshiki, leader of the Japanese rock band X Japan" http://www.ampmagazine.com/10682/x-japans-yoshiki-to-auction-off-his-crystal-piano-to-aid-japanese-quake-tsunami-victims/
Reference 84- "It’s been announced that rock band X Japan" http://www.tokyohive.com/2011/10/x-japan-cancels-beijing-concert/
References: 37,43, 45, 50,52,54,57,65,77,  are on a website (http://www.tokyograph.com/ )which describes X JAPAN as a Japanese visual-kei band .
Well i just proved to you that ALL THE LINKS USED AS REFERENCE TO BUILD THIS X JAPAN WIKI PAGE SAYS X JAPANS ITS A ROCK BAND OR VISUAL KEI, most said ROCK, and NOTTTTTTTT HEAVY METAL! So say it again why its is wrong and vandalism change from heavy metal to rock band?
This is not about whatband members want anymore, its about the facts, and this are the facts right there!Well u needed "reliable sources" right? if the links used as reference to create this whole wiki page are not realiable, you are saying this whole wiki page is false, lie, and all the informations about everything are wrong. :P
No excuse anymore to keep changing to heavy metal ¬¬ Ladyslime (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not denying that some sources use the word "rock band" (and variations such as "rockers") in articles about X. But rock band is a multifaceted term that is not exclusively used in reference to a group's music genre. This is nothing new, it is pretty common, for instance you will find A LOT of articles referring to Lady Gaga as a rock star, yet her genre is not rock. Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five and Al Green are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, yet their genres are not rock. I could also list sources that do refer to X as metal. Actually several of the sources that you posted, which by the way are mostly the same 3 websites, use the term rock band only to refer to them as metal later. Allmusic is a clear example, as right after the "one of the most influential rock bands" sentence, it says "speed metal band". Nearly all of those that you listed do not discuss the band's music, they only talk about the band itself using the "rock band" term. Sources discussing the actual music are usually the ones used in determining an article's listed genres.
And actually some of the sources used in this article are not reliable, all Wikipedia articles are forever works in progress. You say it "is not about whatband members want anymore", yet before Yoshiki Tweeted about Wiki there was no dispute over the genre. And hypothetically, even if we decide their genre can be labelled as rock, Wikipedia would list both rock and metal, it would never remove metal all together. (Also please try and keep your replies tidy.) Xfansd (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If your are not denying that most sources refers to X as a ROCK band, what is the problem of letting the wikipedia too, discribe them as a rock band, since is a right affirmation , the way u r charging as vandalism is like we are changing from something wrong like change to pop music or whatever, say they are a rock band is right, wrong is say this is vandalism!
I didnt really notice what was written in wikipedia until people start talking about it,  me and the fans trully belive they are not to be labeled ad heavy metal, based on their music and on what media say.
90%of the references used to make this wiki pages say X Japan is a rock band! You wanted proofs and facts and i showed them. Everybody know x japan is a rock band not heavy metal, so if u hypothetically finaly let the rock genre stay and wikipedia list as rock AND metal ,not HEAVY METAL, and on the first line of wiki pedia says "X Japan (エックス ジャパン?) is a Japanese rock band" i think everybody will agree is ok, so please think about consedering it. 18:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyslime (talk • contribs) 
The edits are vandalism because they were made by new accounts created that day just for the sole purpose of changing the genre, and because the artist Tweeted about it. And I already said that what you, other fans, or I personally believe doesn't matter. You just ignored the part where I explained those sources were only calling X a "rock band" and were not describing the actual music. I have no problem leaving rock in the opening sentence, but not in the genres. Xfansd (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
What we are discussing here is not about vandalism.  We are talking about "genre/classification" of music.  Period.  It's NOT about what I believe, you believe... It is based upon facts, i.e. what we see on various sources. Articles do not normally give us lengthy explanation as to what kind of music one plays. Rock band plays rock.  Otherwise, they will not be called a rock band generally speaking.  There are over 1 billion hits on the subject "X Japan" on google.co.jp (in JAPANESE) (as opposed to only 143 million hits on google.com), citing they are a rock band - which, in your opinion, is not good enought to justify the music genre/classification is rock.  If this is the case, I did not see a single article in Japanese explaining X Japan's genre/classification being HEAVY METAL, per se.  If the genre/classification of heavy metal+++ is not mentioned typically in Japanese article as well as in many articles in English, how can we validate and conclude the genre is heavy metal (ONLY).  It should be also said "Rock" to say the least.
Definition: What is a music genre (classification) to begin with? We should not be rigid when it comes to the term “genre” as “genre” can be explained in many different ways.  People’s interpretation of genre/classification may vary depending on persons, personal background, knowledge, education, culture, etc. etc.  Therefore, we want to have a broad interpretation especially since there seem to be many new genres being establishe
See links below concerning “music genre”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre: “Music can be divided into different genres in several ways. The artistic nature of music means that these classifications are often arbitrary and controversial, and some genres may overlap. Some[who?] do not believe that generic classification of music is possible in any logically consistent way. They argue that doing so sets limitations and boundaries that hinder the development of music. It is possible to note similarities between musical pieces, but it is difficult to do so in a systematic and universal manner.""In the West, nearly all music except traditional music arises from fusion.[dubious– discuss]"
http://www.jazzyjoe.com/music_genres.html “Attempts to pigeonhole particular musicians in a single genre are sometimes ill-founded as they may produce music in a variety of genres over time or even within a single piece. Some people feel that the categorization of music into genres is based more on commercial and marketing motives than musical criteria.”
X Japan in fact was described as: http://www.barks.jp/artist/?id=52004612 “後にヴィジュアル系と呼ばれる全世界的な社会現象を伴う音楽ジャンルを新たに確立した。” = ((Yoshiki) later established a new music genre called “Visual Kei” which has become a social phenomenon.)
CONCLUSION: I beileve the subject “music genre/classification” is mistreated in a way. Music should probably not be categorized in “one way.”  Music created by people evolve constantly.  It will be, therefore, probably inconsiderate for us, the general public, to define one’s genre/classification as “one” ironically.  If we could just leave it (as the subject musician himself says) as… “unclassified”….  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk • contribs) 02:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for at least leaving the rock on the first line , i still think should be changed on the genre too , but thanks! Ladyslime (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ladyslime (who started this discussion) asked "So say it again why its is wrong and vandalism change from heavy metal to rock band?", therefore we (her & I) WERE talking about vandalism and I was responding to that. "It's NOT about what I believe, you believe" I literally JUST said that right above you, so I'm baffled as to what you were getting at there. It also doesn't matter if there are no articles in Japanese classifying their genre, cause their are ones that do (in English or any language). "Articles do not normally give us lengthy explanation as to what kind of music one plays" this is straight wrong, most musician articles on Wiki have "Musical style" sections (X Japan's included) that do just that. And, I said this twice here (this is the 3rd), but I'll give examples; a source simply stating something like "X Japan, one of Japan's most influential rock bands, is going on tour." is not used to determine what genre of music an artist plays. A source saying something like "X Japan's Kurenai embodies the perfect blend of symphonic metal with pop sensibility." is the type of source we would use.
When discussing/determining how to work on articles we do not look at regular Wiki articles like music genre or other websites like "jazzyjoe", but at articles that are titled "Wikipedia:xxxx" (unrelated example; Wikipedia:Notability (music)). Your conclusion contradicts your introduction by saying "I believe" (our beliefs are irrelevant), and "leave it as the subject musician himself says" my very first comment explained that Wikipedia does not care what the subject wants. Your comment added nothing to the discussion, I will not keep commenting here just to repeat myself over and over. Xfansd (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI only:  I was writing that particular text simulaneously as you were writing your last text. (You just happened to publish it only slightly earlier than me.  As a result, I had to modify what I was writing (as I got interuppted) by deleting all the relevent & reliable links explaining X Japan as a rock band.  Please rest assured... I am not going back to the argument as it won't get us anywhere.) In short, my text was not in reply to what you were saying earlier (about vandalism, etc), but more to support what LadySlime was saying earlier about how X Japan should be classifed as a rock band.  She thanked you for letting X Japan be explained as a rock band at the beginning.  AND I do thank you, too, for allowing us to edit it that way ^_^  But as LadySlime also mentioned, we believe the word "rock" should be added under "genre."  (BTW&FYI only:  I cited other links (even though they were insufficient sources as per your discussion) merely to give us a wider/general view as genre could be interpreted in different ways, i.e. it cannot be relied on limited sources. "Genre" could be controversial - this is why we are having those discussions. As a result, it doesn't sound legitimate to conclude the genre with just one dimention, i.e. "metal" in this instance.) Now, IF we locate many "reliable" sources which explain X Japan as having a music style that of "rock," would you then ADD the word "rock" under "genre?"  Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It’s been explained that Music Genre is a type of music performed by the artist.  Can someone then explain how we classify the following songs of X Japan’s in terms of music (genre):  Alive; Crucify My Love; Endless Rain; Forever Love; Longing～跡切れたMelody; Say Anything; Tears; The Last Song; Unfinished; Voiceless Screaming; Without You…, for instance???
If Music Genre of a band should describe the type/style of music performed by the artist (as it’s described for 紅 as an example), this means all types of songs performed by the same artist have to be explained equally in terms of genre.  Then my question is:  Are those songs mentioned above classified as “metal” music with no other music elements? Thank you…  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk • contribs) 23:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with you thanking me (I understand what you meant by it though), I personally just decided not to revert that part based on what I said about the term rock band not referring to genre. The article does not have "one dimension", it lists symphonic metal, power metal, speed metal etc., these are all different genres. If you find reliable sources (notice this is plural) that describe X Japan's music (not just one or two songs, but their music in general) specifically as being rock, then rock can be listed in the genres. However, as you are new to Wikipedia, get to know Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before even attempting to list sources.
From those songs you listed I'm guessing you're referring to power ballads. They are categorized just like every other song, by what reliable sources label that specific song. Those songs do not have to have the same genre as listed on the band's page. A genre of a band is determined by what sources label that band's music in general, while a song's genre is determined by what sources label that specific song. For instance, The Beatles' article lists their genres as rock and pop only, yet articles on their songs like Eleanor Rigby (baroque pop), Helter Skelter (hard rock) and Norwegian Wood (Folk rock, raga rock) have many, many, different genres. Xfansd (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify this so we can research sources correctly.  When you earlier gave me an example of reliable source, you referred to KURENAI, which is a song, not a band:  (your own quote) "A source saying something like 'X Japan's Kurenai embodies the perfect blend of symphonic metal with pop sensibility.' is the type of source we would use."  However, you are now saying we cannot refer songs to describe the genre of the band.  It seems contradicting.  I gave the list of X Japan's songs because of the example you gave me.
All songs composed by X Japan represent X Japan. In fact, because of types of songs an artist composes, therefore, there is a music genre.  Without songs, there will be no music genre, i.e. nobody can label the genre without hearing a song.  Music genre of a band cannot exist before a song is written. Hearing the song, people lable if the song is rock or heavy metal.  As a result, every single song should be accounted to describe a music genre of the band. It should not be biased.  As there have been always a controversy when it comes to a music genre as our own Wikipedia explains so on "Music Genre," (I believe people with different education, knowledge or cultural background view the same band differently (as I had mentioned before, people in general do not explain X Japan's "music" as heavy metal in Japan), can we COMPLETELY leave out "rock" to describe the music of X Japan...? Anyway... we'll be researching sources IF you still cannot add the word "rock" under music genre.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that example wasn't perfect to use in determining a band's genre as a whole, I used it more so just to show how the "rock band going on tour" one is no good (the same example just replacing "X Japan's Kurenai" with "X Japan's music" would be good). As for the second half, it was all your opinion (which I think we know by now doesn't matter) on how a song's article shouldn't be able to be labelled a different genre than the artist. I understand what you mean, but I didn't start that convention, I just have to follow it. This isn't the place to discuss and try to change that, I don't where the right place would be, but it is not here. (Also, I posted something to your talk page, please take time to look at everything and familiarize yourself with how to use Wikipedia. Because quite frankly I should not have to explain what reliable sources are to you and your comments on here don't follow the proper format, for instance you are not signing your comments.) Xfansd (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The author cites the following source when listing the genres:
X Japan: Best Review
http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936
The article lists numerous genres beyond just “metal.” For instance, the headline itself reads, “Reliving the Height of Japan’s Superlative Visual Rock Band.” Later in the article, you will find “…most revered Japanese rock band” and “fleeting genre known to fans as “Visual Kei” (aka “Visual Rock”). 
Thus, we are asking to acknowledge ALL genres listed in this article if this is what the author will base the genre selection on. 
In order for your contributions to be accurate, you HAVE to include the following genres:
“Visual Rock” 
“Rock”
“Visual Kei”
We are using this article as the main source indicating X Japan’s “genre,” so all genres listed in the article HAVE to be included.
Thank you.
Leslieulm (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


### Page protected
Hi there. Following this dispute, I have fully protected the article for three days. It's good to see that discussion is taking place, but I would urge everyone involved not to edit the contentious part of the page while discussion is under way - that undermines the point of discussion. I suggest this issue is taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard where uninvolved mediators can help to get this resolved. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

??????????????????? what happened? Was agreed to let the beggining be as " X Japan is a japanese ROCK band" why is changed again to Heavy metal band?  Ladyslime (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the recently added timeline depicting when each member was in the group and what position they played for the following reasons:

1. It used specific (and in some instances obviously incorrect) dates for each member that are not given in any reliable source; such as claiming Pata joined on April 1, 1987.
2. It made unverifiable claims about who played lead and/or rhythm guitar when there is no way to determine who played what back in those early days.
Do not add it back until such claims can be reliably sourced. Xfansd (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, those seem like minor referencing issues, and not a major reason to remove a useful portion of the article. It's not possible to specify "ballpark" dates in a timeline. If the exact date is not available, an estimate, although not stated directly in the text (which would then require referencing) is reasonable to approximate in order to make the timeline as useful as possible. (I did not create this timeline.) The issues with the timeline you stated are actually caused mainly by the timeline template, since we cannot specify two members as both "Guitarist", you cannot have two members with the same role in the timeline template. Hence making assumptions for lead and rhythm must have been done instead. Vortiene (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the timeline. I understand your claims, I should have cited the pages I used. I'm adding the timeline back, with the citations added. Fudobrain (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable references. Vortiene (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I removed the blogs. I think that the timeline is a useful aspect of the page, for displaying who was in the band when. Even if we don't have exact dates, we still know who was in the band before who, and based on various bootleg footage of concerts from their early days, combined with known tour dates, we can make estimates on the time period when a certain member joined/left. As for roles of lead guitar/rhythm guitar, X Japan has almost always had a tendency of mixing the roles up. Pata played leads just as much as Hide did. All in all, judging by what you said in reply to Xfansd, I don't think the timeline should have been removed in the first place. Xfansd seems obsessed with having exact dates and verifying lead/rhythm roles, which I think is completely unnecessary as a requirement for having a timeline that helps showcase how the lineup of X Japan changed over the years. Fudobrain (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Why does the member text for Toshi say (1982–1997, 2007–2018, 2023-present), with a gap between 2018 and 2023? His timeline is the same as Yoshiki's, from 1982 to 1997 and from 2007 to 2023. Clarification would be great. 2A02:8070:487:5860:4473:624C:6DE:8555 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Are there any verifiable sources for the long list of past members? I think this section could be significantly trimmed to include only those who have been verified as official members of the band.
I'd also like to remove anyone who just "played with the bad for a little while", as that doesn't fit the accepted definition of a band member.
Any thoughts or objections? --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Two sources here are tagged as being unreliable. Could one of the regular editors look into it, maybe finding replacement sources. It would be a shame to delist the article for this issue. AIRcorn (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Before the 2008 concerts, X Japan only played in the Tokyo Dome 13 times. These were:
1991.08.23 <Tokyo Dome> Violence In Jealousy Tour, 1992.01.05 <Tokyo Dome 3 Days>, 1992.01.06 <Tokyo Dome 3 Days>, 1992.01.07 <Tokyo Dome 3 Days>,
1993.12.30 <Tokyo Dome Returns> X Japan Returns,
1993.12.31 <Tokyo Dome Returns> X Japan Returns,
1994.12.30 <Tokyo Dome> Tokyo Dome 2 Days,
1994.12.31 <Tokyo Dome> Tokyo Dome 2 Days,
1995.12.30 <Tokyo Dome 2 Days> Dahlia Tour 1995-1996,
1995.12.31 <Tokyo Dome 2 Days> Dahlia Tour 1995-1996,
1996.12.30 <Tokyo Dome> Dahlia Tour FINAL 1996,
1996.12.31 <Tokyo Dome> Dahlia Tour FINAL 1996,
1997.12.31 <Tokyo Dome> The Last Live  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.209.250.56 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on X Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130524154907/http://blogs.suntimes.com:80/music/2010/08/x_japan_theyre_huge_really_and.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2010/08/x_japan_theyre_huge_really_and.html
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011140930/http://asiaarts.ucla.edu:80/article.asp?parentid=7936 to http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I nominated the article on We Are X for featured article status a little while ago but I've not got many replies to it. If anyone wants to help out please feel free to do so. ISD (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on X Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.extasyrecords.co.jp/eng/company.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oricon.co.jp/search/result.php?kbn=ja&types=rnk&year=1991&month=7&week=3&submit5.x=20&submit5.y=7
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oricon.co.jp/search/result.php?kbn=ja&types=rnk&year=1993&month=9&week=1&submit5.x=20&submit5.y=7
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oricon.co.jp/search/result.php?kbn=ja&types=rnk&year=1996&month=11&week=3&submit5.x=20&submit5.y=7
Added archive https://archive.is/20120604145309/http://www.kissfaq.com/discography/kma.html to http://www.kissfaq.com/discography/kma.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tokyograph.com/news/id-1917
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tokyograph.com/news/id-2834
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tokyograph.com/news/id-3116
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tokyograph.com/news/id-3490
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bravewords.com/news/100431
Corrected formatting/usage for http://movies.jp.msn.com/news/article.aspx?articleid=355188
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sanspo.com/geino/news/100820/gnj1008200508012-n1.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ampmagazine.com/10682/x-japans-yoshiki-to-auction-off-his-crystal-piano-to-aid-japanese-quake-tsunami-victims/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtviggy.com/articles/metal-legend-yoshiki-of-x-japan-gets-his-ovation-at-the-grammys/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Although hide and Taiji have died, I think that it is not an old member because it is enrolled as a member on the official website 匿名希望利用者さん (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I posted two by mistake. 匿名希望利用者さん (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The band member timeline graphic shows a bunch of extraneous diagonal lines. Does anyone know how to fix this?
matt kane's brain (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the X Japan genre description is due for an update. "Heavy metal" as the main descriptive genre is too limiting and doesn't reflect the majority of their pre- and post-hiatus work. (We should still keep metal in there as a historical reference, just not as the predominant genre.)

Current description: X Japan are a Japanese heavy metal band from Chiba, formed in 1982 by drummer Yoshiki and lead vocalist Toshi. Predominantly a power/speed metal band with heavy symphonic elements, they later gravitated towards a progressive sound with an emphasis on ballads.

Proposed revision: X Japan is a Japanese rock band from Chiba, formed in 1982 by drummer Yoshiki and lead vocalist Toshi. Starting as a predominantly power/speed metal band with heavy symphonic elements, they later gravitated towards a progressive rock sound with an emphasis on ballads.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GimmeChoco44 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 

Note: reading back on the 2012 discussion, it looked like there was a previous consensus on this topic to use rock as the main genre. Not sure what happened since to revert back to metal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:X_Japan#X_Japan_music_genre  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GimmeChoco44 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 
A "progressive sound with an emphasis on ballads" doesn't, I say, does NOT make this metal band "rock". And sure they have their influences from glam rock, but they've mixed those glam influences and appearances with their metal. There are many sources for this band that say they're a "rock band", but that doesn't mean they should be considered just "rock". I don't think "rock" should be a specific genre when you have all these other genres (all metal genres, by the way) in the infobox. It's an umbrella term, people! This is the opposite of Motörhead's dilemma; they want to be called "rock 'n' roll", we call them metal. X Japan are closer to metal and don't mind be called metal, yet we call them rock. I swear if I'm in a band driving our touring van, and we end up in a debate over whether X Japan is a rock or metal band, I would be like Den from Bad News and pull the van over, refusing to go any further until we all agree that X Japan is metal. Anyway, I just wanna say my two cents and thought I'd get it off my chest. I can't really do anything to change it. Have fun editing, all....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that "associated acts" has been replaced by "spinoffs", I think some of these groups need to be removed from this section of the infobox.
Ex: Luna Sea is not a "spinoff" based on the current definition of "Groups which have spun off from this group. For example, sub-units."
GimmeChoco44 (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If we are to treat "spinoffs" as a slightly more specific version of the old "associated acts" then I agree. I believe the old parameter also had a rule where an act needed at least two members in common to be listed (this article never followed that tho), so that would remove all entries except The Last Rockstars. Unfortunately the people who removed the associated acts parameter did/do not provide an explanation as to what qualifies something as a spinoff (aside from "sub-units" which is only a term used with Asian idol groups). S.K.I.N. was formed before Sugizo was a member of X for example, so that doesn't seem to qualify with the two member rule. I also really dislike the term "spinoff" as calling all subsequent bands that include members of X Japan a "spinoff of X Japan" comes off as derogatory in my opinion. So for those reasons, I personally would like to see all acts removed until the title of the parameter is changed. Xfansd (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. Let's give this a little more to see if any other editors want to chime in. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Following up -- removing spinoffs from infobox.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I figured we sould have a section to discuss, and which we can link to later, in regards to X Japan's status as an "active" band. Putting aside any speculation as to the reason(s) why, they simply have not been active since 2018. Seven years is more than enough to declare them inactive. As far as the 2023 release of "Angel" is concerned, the song was recorded years earlier and therefore I believe it should be looked at in the same way as "Now and Then"; no one would try to claim that the Beatles were active in 2023 just because that song was released. Xfansd (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

What other bands can we look at as case examples of long hiatus/performer changes? Led Zeppelin might be a good start. Do we need a formal announcement to cite an end date in the infobox? GimmeChoco44 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how Zeppelin is comparable. I can't think of many; the Van Halen article lists them as being inactive between 2000 and 2002 even tho there was "no statements made" and the brothers were writing material, and even recorded demos with Roth in 2000 for a new album. And that's a significantly smaller period than 7 years. After reuniting a member of Flower Travellin' Band said they had never "officially" disbanded, but I don't think anyone can take that seriously with decades in between. I'm pretty sure Pata mentions in his autobiography or an interview I saw that X "hasn't moved since 2018" or something like that, which I can try to find if we want something to support stopping at 2018, but I personally feel it's obvious. There are also articles like these, 1, 2 and 3, that mention how they haven't been active since 2018. Xfansd (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I brought up Led Zeppelin because of the way the "Years Active" listing is formatted in the info box, with side notes for "one off reunions". How do you propose to amend the current listing for X Japan? GimmeChoco44 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't propose any changes to what is currently in the years active parameter on X's page. I simply removed 2023 in my last edit to the page and explained why above in case people want to discuss it, currently or in the future, since it is an odd situation. Zeppelin and X's years active are not comparable because Zeppelin's reunions were always planned to only be for one or two nights. If X becomes active again, we can simply add "20xx–present" after what is currently there. Xfansd (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)