Talk:HIM (Finnish band)/Archive 3

message: So they're the only Finnish love metal band to hit gold in the US? Seems a little bit stupidly narrow. Might as well say that they're the only Finnish love metal band featuring Ville Valo and calling themselves HIM to hit gold in the US. Also, I absolutely love how under genres, Love Metal links to the album Love Metal, because the genre itself appears to only involve HIM so far. 69.220.0.55 02:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm

message: I started wpHIM yesterday and if any one wants to help this project will help all of the page about HIM inculding members, albums and anything else. JOIN TODAY!!!!WikiProject HIM Razor romance 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW!!! WPHIM!!! 

message: Debated is NOT an encyclopedic genre, Alternative Rock is, and people are going to read the entire article anyway, so you don't need to link to a further part of it right at the beginning. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative rock isn't the only genre though, it makes since to link to the 'genre' section of the article, and list it as debated, then assert that alternative rock is the only genre. I think you need to read up on what the word 'encyclopedic' means too. — The Future 13:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't seem to understand, Debated is NOT a genre. You CANNOT put Debated as a genre, you can put it in the opening paragraph but not in the genre section. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 13:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand. It may not be a genre per se, but when there is an entire paragraph describing what the genre has been called, it is perfectly fine to link to the section rather than list a genre that you think it is. What about heavy metal, gothic metal and gothic rock, why wouldn't they be listed too? — The Future 13:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a fair descision. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Implemented the third option that was decided. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull crap that was decided. Theres no reason to add the genres twice. — The Future 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You just said why wouldn't they be listed to, so I added them to the list. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never meant that "Hey, maybe we should add them". I meant that You only added one, when there was four and I asked you why you just added the one. I don't give a crap when all four are listed up there with sources, but youre random assertion that they were alternative rock without justification was wrong. — The Future 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: AltRock encompases most of those other sub-sub-genres. If you want people to understand what you are asking/implying when commenting try to be less subversive and you won't have any problems in the future(haha). ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 09:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you remove sources again, I will see you are blocked. There are verifiable sources stating they are. Wikipedia doesn't care about your POV. — The Future 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know stylistic elements of a music style? HIM is definitely no GOTH music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.122.5.247 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you honestly know stylistic elements of a music genre? You obviously don't considering you just made up the term Dark rock in the above paragraph. And since there are verifiable sources saying they are goth rock and goth metal, then we represent a neutral point of view saying that they are. — The Future 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Verifiable isn't the same like reliable. Btw: The english Wikipedia is almost the only Wikipedia which categorized HIM as a Gothic rock or Gothic metal band. --Diluvien 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You calling All Music Guide and Rockdetector unreliable? It doesn't matter what other Wikipedia's call them. We have reliable, verifiable sources stating otherwise. — The Future 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV, guy --Diluvien 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF are you talking about? Those references that are used all over Wikipedia, not just this article. — The Future 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're adding not reliable sources. Reliable sources are books and scientific treatises of Gothic rock as a music style with genre-typical elements. It's your POV if you think that web magazines are reliable sources. --Diluvien 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no fucking books and scientific treatises of Gothic Rock. If we waited around for books and treatises to be the most accurate source, every article would have a  tag. They are reliable, per WP:RS, not per my POV. — The Future 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not true. There are different books of Gothic rock, published by Mick Mercer and Dave Thompson. --Diluvien 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, it would be an editors POV to define an band's genre by reading one of those books. Now if there was a book on the musical styling of HIM, then it would suffice since it's specifically about HIM. That's why it's debated as to what genre they really are, because we have sources, reliable and verifiable that state heavy metal, alternative rock, gothic metal and gothic rock are the genre's. It's your POV to read the book on Gothic metal/rock and state HIM is not based on what you read. — The Future 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Genre elements are not POV, genre elements are scientific. It's the same like Jazz music or Heavy Metal. All of those styles are defined by stylistic elements. Gothic rock is a genre with strong punk and psychedelic rock influences. It's not Hard rock or Sleaze rock or HIM's "Love metal"... --Diluvien 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, love metal isn't a genre. Second, HIM isn't Hard Rock or sleaze rock. You're dead off. Unless you're a music expert, and I trust you're not and you're some teenager, I suggest you get sources that state what they are. And the fact is, there is nothing stating that Rockdetector and All Music Guide are unreliable and you are incorrect in labeling them as such. — The Future 21:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read on rockdetector the explanation on the creator, he is a self proclaimed metal head and says he is interested in "all things metal". Hehe, well guess what you cannot define all of music by the standpoint of metal and many of his categorizations are sloppy at best. Why should we do it just because "everyone else" is using rock detector as a source. Why should we use THIS GUY's POV!!! He seems to have no real credentials other than listening to a lot of music like the rest of us do. See here,"No, not some corporate giant (surprising how many people think it is!), just your average Heavy Metal fan, Garry Sharpe-Young." Also read this,"My thirst for knowledge of all things Metal" These are quotes from the FAQ. So, does my thirst for all things goth rock mean that I can create a website and be considered a verifiable source? If so, give me a few days and i will try! Look at the front page, all the top 20 artists are lame "metal bands". This site is clearly leaning towards the metal crowd, which has NOTHING TO DO with the gothic subculture. I am just trying to fathom how this person became a credible source throughout wikipedia. Now lets move on to all music guide. Go to this page, "http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=32:amg/info_pages/a_about.html" it is their about us. Okay, i see no individual names or credentials. Again all I see is that they are "music fanatics" and listen to a lot. But no actual backing to what they put on their site. For CHRIST's SAKES, these people put them in goth rock AND goth metal! The only credibility they seem to have is the fact that they exist! Is the ability to have a site all that one requires to be a source??? What we need are people who are specialized in a specific genre. Like academic fields, this system has worked for academic institutions for years. That is why we do not have basic M.D's leading the research on like drugs, no we have doctors specialized in pharmacology. These sites seek to attempt to categorize everything under the sun in genres. No ONE PERSON or group of people can do this, and to do so only makes room for POV and errors. Get metal specialists, get goth rock specialists. These stupid indexes are the most ridiculous sources used for genres lately. Honestly, if I could go and remove them from every music related article I would but that is just too much work. The Future seems to be the main person supporting their use in this article, but after reading his less than adult farewell on his page (more like puerile) I do not think we will have further problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.222.160 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea! --Diluvien 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good, get a source and add it. But we still have to maintain an equal POV and add the other sources, because they aren't invalid because there is another genre. — The Future 21:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternative Rock - This describes what they are exactly. Just because there are other sources to show that they are other genres, this is the most encompasing and should be stated with the rest in the debated part of the article. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, rock music or alternative rock... this is the question. Maybe we should start a new edit war. :-) --Diluvien 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debated

message: As I had promised to do in the past, I have handed out two 24 hour 3RR blocks to the edit-warring IPs. If the edit warring does not stop, I will protect the page again. Please keep it civil and don't make it personal. Sean William 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR blocks