User talk:Kuro Banpaia

Image tagging for Image:Arena806-alicenine35.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arena806-alicenine35.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:LacunaCoildark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LacunaCoildark.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Myspace ancafe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Myspace ancafe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese music articles

Hello there! I just wanted to drop a note, because I appreciate a lot of the work you are doing on the Japanese music articles, which is my main focus on Wikipedia (assuming I can take time away from work to spend time around here). You seem to show a good understanding of how Wikipedia works, and if there's ever any questions or ideas you'd like to share, feel free to get in contact with me (contact info on my user page)! Good luck and happy editing :) –Jacob ^Talk 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Kei

After Boowy became a huge success there was that whole JP band boom with record companies looking to find the next big thing. But there were all these bands influenced by a bunch of crappy foreign music - stuff like metal, industrial, and punk - a bunch of loud noisy crap. Horrible foreign music. A journalist lumped the bands together and called it "Visual" as an insult to downplay this horrible infringement on good Japanese music like pop and enka. The first visual bands were "any band influenced by modern western rock music accompanied with the clothing and hair styles associated with those styles" but it evolved. If you study Music History you'll find that the influential important musicians for a style don't actual meet the "qualifications" of being that style, because they transitioned the old popular style into a new one. Later musicians would "perfect" that style. (I'm talking Romanticism, Baroque, and other historical musical styles). Visual was the same way - the originals were pretty much copying foreign music styles, the later groups formed to "be" a visual band. The current rise in Visual kei was labeled "Neo Visual" by Oricon (another reputable source).

As far as "Japanese rock" not being a genre, check what the All Music Guide says. Sources are more important than "truth" or "opinion". Denaar (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Common Sense isn't Common." Anything that seems straightforward, commonplace, etc... someone else will not see the same way. Wiki is made to Regurgitate what "reliable" sources state about a subject, down to every detail.

Compare two words: "genre" and "style". Style is a word used to describe something with a similar look (graphic design, fashion) or in music, a similar sound. Genre is a word that describe the storyline in literature, movies, or other story based media. When it was applied to music, it was used as a way to describe the non-stylist parts of musical movements. "Rock" applies to Punk, Rockabilly, and Metal and no one would claim those styles sound the same. When rock and roll first appeared it was pretty much in line what most would call "pop" today - it was only a drum beat that made it different musically. People preached against the evil of the back beat. What really set rock and roll apart was the lyrics and the "rebellious" image portrayed by the musicians. "Style" or "sound" alone didn't cover the difference. That is why a new word (genre) was needed that would take into account things like lyrics, image, public perception, etc.

I have no opinion on j-rock, I'm just stating we can't "decide" or use "common sense" - it is all what do reliable third party sources publish. Anything that is controversial will have sources with more than one side, and both sides should be represented in the articles as appropriate. Denaar (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the genre thing. There has always been some undefinable appeal in a lot of visual bands, just something about the drums and base and such I like. I could never put a word to it. Then I was reading articles about Cali Gari where they were described as a mix between "Rockabiliy" and "Techno". Let me tell you, I would have never picked those words to describe them. However, I do hear a lot of rockabily (which - I grew up listening to as a kid) in visual now, which has definite appeal for me.

If go to an album, listen to it, and learn something by listening to it, you are doing original research. Original Research is one of the things we can't do. Most of the time it wouldn't matter, except, that little place in the genre section of the pages causes edit wars to the points of moderators stepping in, giving temporary suspensions, and locking the page. All over 2 - 10 words. If it were up to me, we wouldn't have the genre box at all and the sound would have to be a paragraph, because most bands in this decade don't fit into neat genre traps.

Visual is hard to source in general, but if we can find sources that describe bands sound we can use that as genre. That way it isn't your opinion or my opinion, but an informed opinion. I'm pretty loose with what I accept as a "source" - some of the other editors are much more strict. Denaar (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean actually putting a source after every individual genre we add? --Just to clarify something, I was in no way saying that "this band or this band isn't this genre," I was saying that I don't think that visual kei is a musical genre, but a style. So I removed visual kei from bands' genres', because I don't think that visual kei is a musical genre; not for a certain band, but in general. I believe this because bands that are labeled visual kei don't sound exactly like another visual band per se. As in, there wouldn't really be much to go on, because in the visual kei scene there's never a consistency of what the music sounds like. Another thing; You only need a reference for something that could be challenged or questioned. So we don't need references for the bands' genre sections that are removed, because I wasn't challenging them. I'm sorry If it looked like I was, but I wasn't. I was challenging if visual kei and j-rock were actual genres in general. And if they belonged in the genre section. I'm sorry If I made you misunderstand. I think the genre sections should be added back, because that's not what we were disagreeing about. Kuro Banpaia (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at the article for Electronica and all the fights and discussion about if it is a valid genre or not. My answer is "no duh it is a term that was used widely to describe a certain kind of music in the United States in the late 90's" - but that doesn't hold water unless it is sourced. That article is more controversial then the visual kei article. The conclusion for visual kei is "some people consider visual kei a genre, some people do not". Since that is the case, the genre should be sourced for each band (some articles will describe their genre as visual kei, some will not). I do consider visual kei to be a genre, because genre does not mean "sound". The writing style of an author does not define a piece of literature's genre, the contents of the plot do. I agree with this article: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3526163 (sorry that the full article is not there). Denaar (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

You may want to review the policy at WP:OVERLINK before linking too many words in the lead section of articles. Many articles, instead of falling short, actually go overboard in this respect. Cheers. --Jacob ^Talk 07:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

In the Sadie (band) article, the removal of your citation was per WP:SPS, in case you would like further explanation. --Jacob ^Talk 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dates

Hi, I noticed that you linked a date or two when you created Buck-Tick discography. This practice is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]