Talk:Buck-Tick

message: 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)
thread_title: The description is missing Cosmos and Sexy Steam Liner

message: 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)
replies: text: Why lower case when the official BUCK-TICK website has it in all capitals?  --J Bush 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Correct name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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.    There are some album reviews on those sites too. Denaar 20:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I think as of right now, the Buck-Tick discography needs a makeover. It needs to be more organized. It's obvious the discography is pretty big and should be put on a seperate page. Thoughts? Kuro Banpaia (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Album merges

message: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links to unofficial websites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Albums are messed up 

message: 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)
thread_title: fixed missing section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Buck-Tick. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120222121654/http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_1994ongakutohitosaissayinterview.html to http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_1994ongakutohitosaissayinterview.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016220347/http://v-music.ch/interviews/int071.html to http://www.v-music.ch/interviews/int071.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608002856/http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007vmc_saihinterview.html to http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007vmc_saihinterview.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608071721/http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007upsound_sainterview.html to http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007upsound_sainterview.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527083908/http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007upsound_sainterview2.html to http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007upsound_sainterview2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am gradually rewording the text and try to find more references to use... I'm guessing this article is written based on fansites. Xia  talk to me  14:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting 

message: Atsushi is still a member even if only in spirit so stop putting him in previous members! And stop talking about the band in the past tense! They haven't officially disbanded! It has only been a week for F's sake! Give people time to grieve! This is so disrespectful! 2600:8807:4400:345E:21AD:BD3F:6586:CDE1 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: With due respect, unfortunately he passed away and as such is not anymore member of the band. Nobody beats death in that sense. It is a shock to everyone, but that's sad and harsh reality. The band cancelled all activities and most probably will have a hiatus or even disband after a tribute concert this or next year. There's a very small chance they will continue after 35th anniversary without a frontman who was so integral to the band. At the moment, if you read between the lines the official news and how were given and handled, practically all members are past members already...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The band has stated that Atsushi remains a member. Kami from MM and others are still listed as current members of their respective bands on wikipedia, so stop removing him from the members list. 
Edit- some truly petty individuals have been tampering with other bands' pages on how they identify deceased members so how about we propose this-- the Japanese page for this article is obviously the main article for this artist. The moment the Japanese editors decide to put Sakurai into a past members box, then so can we. Until then, I recommend he go back as a current member as, again, this has been stated by his bandmates as being the case and we also do not know what as yet unreleased material may come out in the coming years and months that Sakurai will feature vocals on. 
2603:7000:8240:EC00:F9D5:167C:E51:C84C (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop taking Acchan's name off members! 

message: He may have passed but he is a member Fairylina (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atsushi is a member. Stop that 

message: Do not move Atsushi Sakurai to past members. He is not a past member, he is an eternal member. Having him be a "past member" is incredibly disrespectful to his passing. Siriashe (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Liu1126 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023 

message: Just a question I know it says buck tick has evolved over time but should new wave be under the genres because of their early albums having a new wave pop feel in early era just a question and also the sputnik source says it too just a question if not then that’s ok 2600:381:CBA0:28CA:2981:ACCB:A696:E875 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the sputnik source says that they have incorporated new wave that’s what I meant hehehe sorry and what I meant by their early albums is that how they sound it’s basically what they call positive punk but it feels new wave just a question if anyone feels the same if not that’s ok 2600:381:CBA0:28CA:2981:ACCB:A696:E875 (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  question