Talk:Lareine

The references tags I'm using are at WP:FN under "citing a reference more than once" - and are completely acceptable. Changing them is nitpicking - either one is acceptable, therefore why change it. Please remember that "The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge. An increasing number of articles reach this standard over time, and many already have. However, this is a process and can take months or years to be achieved, as each user adds their contribution in turn." It does not need to be perfect in one go. This article is clearly a stub, which is ok. I am not done working on the article, but if anyone wants to contribute with reliable sources, please do. Denaar 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember why I used the references that I do: An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system[6] to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain. From the WP:FN page. Denaar 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I've been using those tags for a long time and use them somewhat blindly. Thanks for noticing! --Jacob 17:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the kinds of edits I keep getting - they don't do anything to make the article look better, read better, or conform with any policy. You and your friend keep quoting random policies at me, that I read, and none of the information I'm being told is in there. You note I don't tend to worry about things like punctuation or capitalization, I am looking at sources and keeping articles from being deleted. Denaar 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The only problems I personally have with some of your sourcing is citation of the "Grass Thread" page (which is technically unofficial), and some citations to Japanese pages, which could be updated with English pages, as not everyone on Wikipedia can browse through a Japanese page and understand what they are looking for. This edit for the references was just a mistake on my part, and I commend you for having done research to cite reason for your edits. --Jacob 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." The thing is, people remove every English source as being "non-verifiable" - so sometimes the only thing to do is to quote the Japanese source. I try to quote a really reliable Japanese source (such as a magazine) and have an english source that backs it up, but may not be as verifiable or reliable (such as JAME). Most older "pre-internet" bands have no reliable information on them. Denaar 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Visual Kei

I think a good solution to this to put the term "Visual Kei" into the article, while leaving it up to the interpretation of the reader as to its status as a musical or visual genre. I would hope this could equal out the debate, as either side of the point could read the statement as pertaining to their opinion. As this type of music is a very common type of music played by visual kei (utilizing harpsichord, synthesizers, and dramatic vocals), it is often seen as a solely "visual kei" style. This strategy could even be worked into articles similar such as Malice Mizer or Moi dix Mois.

I would be pleased if this is a common middle ground, is there any input on this? --Jacob 06:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the wording you used. Denaar 06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, that the "movement" wording already offers readers exactly this scope, as it clearly (and intentionally) avoids referring to a genre of a specific form of art. Given what we (verifiably) know about visual kei, it could very well be deemed to be "just" a genre of fashion, but a lot more people than Denaar might take offense in that. It is also quite limiting, since certain artists within the movement might actually combine sound and visuals (maybe even alongside other forms of expression, i.e. acting) in pursuit of a larger, artistic concept. In that light, having Wikipedia state "it's fashion and nothing else" would be just as erroneous as "it's its own kind of music".

Regarding giving a certain treatment to articles about bands with a certain, "typical" sound, I believe that's inherently problematic, as per WP:OR. The correlation of musical characteristics to a collective phenomenon is the task of professional press and academics, from which we in turn draw our sources. - Cyrus XIII 11:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So far Consensous is the wording is ok. The wording "part of the visual kei movement" is akward, and would not be used when talking or writing an article. The Japanese and English sources call these bands "visual kei bands" therefore it goes against references sources to call them something else. Denaar 11:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

File:KAMIJO.jpg Deleted

An image used in this article, File:KAMIJO.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by ZooFari for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:KAMIJO.jpg

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lareine. 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/20110930153140/http://www.visunavi.com/artist/preview.php?id=968 to http://www.visunavi.com/artist/preview.php?id=968

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)