Talk:Kiss (band)/Archive 1

message: God I swear some people are dumb. Look for sources. KISS never meant "Knights In Satan's Service". That was the name that some group {I think mothers against Kiss} said KISS stood for, not members of KISS themselves. Just like the band W.A.S.P., KISS doesn't particularily stand for anything. There are a lot of claims but the band has stated the picked it because it was short, simple and cool and mysterious. It could be a romantic thing or it could be a kiss of death. Get your facts straight.
Thank you for saying this. It has always made me mad whenever somebody brings that up. Again, thank you. Subway2008 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Too much time on releases and characters and books. Why completely disgregard the non-makeup history? Full or factual errors and mistakes. This is a complete history of the band.....if you don't like it, change things, but don't erase them
* First, get an account. Next, realize that what you're doing is copyright violation. // Gargaj 20:59, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
* This is the same guy who habitually vandalizes the Bad Brains article. That might be copyvio as well (I haven't Googled to see if his version is plagiarized), but the Kiss article is stolen from a copyrighted source. Until now, he's refused to speak on talk pages. I hope this is a positive development. Auto movil 21:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous story was horrible 

message: I think the section dealing with important Kiss dates is useful, but should have its own page.  It's way too large for the main page.  --Cholmes75 20:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiss dates 

message: I'm going to start creating entries for Kiss singles.  Eventually I think the Kiss discography should have its own page, with albums, singles, videos, etc.  --Cholmes75 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles discography 

message: Listen, I'm a big Kiss fan, but this article is written in a very POV style.  It reads like  it was written by a teenager.  I recommend that the Kiss Army decides to write this as a more of a NPOV style.  All my work on it was reverted back to the way it was, so I'm done with it.  As long as pages read like this, it will be hard to take Wikipedia seriously. Steve-O 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs major overhaul 

message: Okay, I removed a lot of factual errors here, and cleaned up some of the most blatant "oh gosh oh wow" fannish NNPOV, but there's still plenty more that needs pruning... especially towards the end, it just seems like a neverending "and then they did this, and then they did this, and and and..." that surely can be expressed more generally and not so specifically. Especially since separate pages already exist for each of the albums and persons involved.
KISS has never said their name stands for  "keep it simple stupid". Ever. I dare anyone to find a reliable source for this. And in the documentary KISS X-treme, Gene ridicules people who think it stands for "Knights (or Kings) In Satan's Service".
Removed the "poorly done" comment on Hotter Than Hell..... totally NNPOV.
"R&RAN" became known as the "rock and roll national anthem"? I must have missed a memo. totally NNPOV.
When was the last time you went to a KISS Show? Paul Stanley has referred to "Rock And Roll All Nite" as the "Rock And Roll National Anthem" since at least 1976 (as heard on the private recording of their August, 1976 show at Anaheim Stadium), and even on the KISS Unplugged video, though I'm not certain the stage rap made it to the CD.  SO while ths statement may be dubious, there is support for it.  Personally, I'd prefer almost any other song in the KISS catalog to be the Rock And Roll National Anthem! There's so much in the catalog that's light years better.76.214.243.8 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added a line about Garth Brooks' "country version" of "Hard Luck Woman"... I modified that line somewhat, because the whole point with that song is that Garth specifically told KISS he'd do the song ONLY if he did it completely straight and faithful to the original, NOT in his own country style. KISS agreed and even played backup on the track to make sure it was 100 percent authentic. wikipediatrix 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  corrections, corrections, corrections 

message: Am I just stupid, or did the article completely NOT mention the nicknames adopted by the members? (The Demon, the Catman (or whatever) and the other two?) ♠PMC♠ 08:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Member nicknames?

message: Someone at 159.171.120.4 keeps sticking this crappy infobox into the page, over and over again, and without edit summaries. Even though the Wikipedia "guidelines" (yeah, right) clearly state that the three-revert-rule does not apply to acts of vandalism, I'm reluctant to revert this anonymous IP's undiscussed edit AGAIN because I recently caught hell for repeatedly reverting vandalism to the Ashlee Simpson article (which is apparently currently controlled by her fans who want to whitewash the SNL lip-synching incident). The infobox is obviously redundant because it's now the THIRD band lineup on the page (it would have been the fourth, had I not deleted ANOTHER one a few weeks ago). All the info in it is already in the first paragraph of the article and in the band-lineup box below it. Even if there's an argument to be made to include the infobox, it needs to be done properly, which this one is not. wikipediatrix 16:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant infobox 

message: The first line of the article contains the wikified word EPIC.
Not knowing what this word means, I clicked on it and was presented with a very long disambiguation page. Perhaps somebody could point the internal link to the proper article for "EPIC" as it is referenced in this article for KISS? Kareeser|Talk! 06:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other people need to zap it when they see it, so we're not the only ones. Calling them an "EPIC" band is really a NNPOV thing to say, and there's no logical reason for the word to be in all capital letters anyhow.  wikipediatrix 16:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPIC 

message: Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that it was not considered Wikikosher to undo a whole set of changes on grounds of "grammar". 
I put in lots of info, a few pics, and a new link.  Also, I replaced the main image with an identical one because the old main image was going to be deleted due to lack of copyright information. Yet all was undone, with the user citing "grammar"!
As I mentioned even in the Page History log, I don't want to get into a pissing match with some stranger.  But, even though I am new here, I think I understand the Wikipedia guidelines enough to know that what that person did was contrary to the spirit of what this place is for.
I hope that future edits are done in good faith and for good cause! Ferdinand Cesarano 03:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wholesale undoing of changes on spurious grounds

message: KISS is not hard rock. Sam Spade 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't think that that is a reasonable statement.  Kiss is one of the prototypical hard rock acts.  To classify them as hard rock is no more controversial than to classify Led Zeppelin or  Black Sabbath as such.  Anyway, the fact that Kiss were ranked #10 on the VH1 Top Hard Rock Acts list is support enough for the classification. (edited later to insert signature, which I evidently forgot when I wrote the post) Ferdinand Cesarano 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Anyone claiming KISS is not hard rock has obviously not listened to very many of their albums.  --Cholmes75 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Led Zeppelin and The Who were also considered "hard rock" in the early-mid 70s, and in retrospect, KISS' pre-Dynasty albums are far more rocking than those bands' output of prog-rock noodling and acoustic ballads. All three bands were extremely loud and hard-rocking live, and this is mostly where their reputations come from. Too many people think of "heavy metal" when they think of hard rock, and it's not the same thing. In the 70s, "rock" meant Eagles and Styx, "hard rock" meant KISS and Ted Nugent, and "metal" meant Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden. By the 1980s when "metal" meant Slayer and Megadeth, KISS were still "hard rock" compared to the onslaught of poppish rock like, say,  Tears for Fears..... wikipediatrix 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard rock 

message: Wikipediatrix removed the logo, saying that it "is unnecessary and screws up page layout".  Good point that the placement as it was messed up the layout in some skins. However, I must emphaticatically disagree with the assertion that the mere inclusion of the logo is unnecessary.  The logo is extremely well-known, bordering on iconic. To remedy the layout problem, the logo should be put back into the article, and placed farther down in the text than it was before, so that it is below the infobox.  Probably the best place for it is right before the paragraph that begins "In January 1973..."  Ferdinand Cesarano 06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: logo

message: This information takes up A LOT of needless space, and I recommend that we shift it to a separate article, listing by album, who played uncredited, similar to the Kiss FAQ. Marcngin 15:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phantom Band Members 

message: The main article has become quite large.  As such, I think it's time to start trimming.  There are a lot of things in the article that, while interesting, are not really that important in the overall scheme of things.  For instance, I removed the paragraph about the pre-game Super Bowl performance from 1999.  It does have a listing in the Important KISS Dates article, so it is not gone for good.  I think other items might need to follow.  KISS has been around for more than 30 years; let's leave the really detailed chronology for the fan sites.  --Cholmes75 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing down 

message: What do you all feel about adding a dedicated section for KISS merchandising?  For good or bad, this is a pretty huge aspect of the band's history, and I think it's worthy of its own section.  The key would be to not cast judgments, but rather to just keep it objective.  --Cholmes75 19:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This should be an article of its own. wikipediatrix 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchandising 

message: Should it be mentioned whether or not KISS stands for Knights In Satan's Service?
According to Snopes  it doesn't. Wschart 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  More importantly, according to Gene himself in the "Kiss X-treme Close-Up" documentary, it doesn't. wikipediatrix 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Knights In Satan's Service

message: You should have a page for the KISS tour dates of 2006. Is there other tours that they'll be doing?Punk18
*Nope.  Just the VH-1 show and the Japan shows so far.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 11:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tour dates? 

message: There seems to be a lot of changing of the Genre section of the infobox for this article, so I think it's time we hashed out exactly which ones belong there.  Personally, I think heavy metal, glam rock and hard rock are the most appropriate.  Although KISS may not be considered metal now, they certainly were considered it back in the '70s.  And I think the hard rock tag is pretty self-explanatory.  KISS certainly had major elements of glam rock, even well into the '80s, so I think that tag is fine.  The regular rock tag can probably go, since it's kind of redundant to have that AND hard rock.  I also think we should not have pop in there–even with albums like Unmasked under their belts, I would say KISS is a hard rock/metal band that happened to produce some pop songs/albums.  But that doesn't make them pop.  Thoughts?  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band genres 

message: I moved the extended KISS lineup table to its own article, KISS band members.  In its place I put back the simplified lineup info that the article used to have.  I did this for the following reasons:
*The article was 50KB long, and we need to save space wherever possible.
*It's a great table, and should be kept somewhere.
*It clears up the cluttered/cramped appearance at the bottom of the article.
*A similar action was taken on the Iron Maiden article, which helped it reach Featured Article status.
If anyone has any major objections to this, please raise them here.  But I really feel that the move is a good example of "less is more."  And in any case, the information is still on Wikipedia.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineup information 

message: I thought about making a section for bands and musicians and other people that were influenced by KISS. If this can be done, I'd be needing a lot of help.Punk18
*That's fine, but you will need to cite all the listings you add.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A week later, the section is still unsourced and many of the entries are either too doubtful or too trivial to mention. I'm removing it until someone wants to restore it with sources. wikipediatrix 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems fine to me.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: Doesn't anyone notice that the double S on the KISS logo looks exactly like the SS Nazi logo?
I think that it should be mentioned in the article, since its too strange for it to be just a coincidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasliso (talk • contribs) 
At the same time Stanley and Simmons (who's mother, I believe is a holocost survivour) are jewish.
:This was already mentioned, along with the fact that a modified logo is used in Germany. Looks like this text has been taken out. It should go back in.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 05:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS on the KISS logo 

message: This issue has been brought up before and contested, but I need to point out how this is policy. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) where it says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment".--SeizureDog 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KISS (band) → Kiss (band) 

message: I have granted the article GA status, as I think it is well written, factually accurate, has a broad coverage, is well structured, and contains images where appropriate. I have added a suggestion to clean up the external links, but I do not think that interfers with the GA-status.
Fred-Chess 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting GA 

message: KISS (band) → Kiss (band) — The matter has come up only recently on this talk page yet it probably needs a bit more exposure in order to be discussed thoroughly. Hence this move request, for which I would like to present the following reasons:
*Despite a few popular rumors which suggest otherwise, the members themselves have repeatedly stated that the band's name is not an acronym.  
*WP:NC: "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band))."
*WP:MOS-TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment"
A few more things:
*Given that the all-uppercase typesetting of the name is used quite coherently in the band's releases, I suggest to mention this in the article's first paragraph. Something like "Kiss (sometimes typeset "KISS" to fit the official logo) is an American rock band..."
*I have refrained from requesting the moves of related articles for now, given the vast number of them. These moves should become uncontroversial anyway, if this one finds approval.
*Last but not least, I hope that this request will not in any way upset fans and admirers of the band, if it does, let me assure you that I have no intention to downplay its significance. But I do believe, that noteworthy (and in this case iconic) artists are best served with articles which carefully follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
- Cyrus XIII 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
*Support per nom. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This has nothing to do with being a fan. (I happen to abhor glam rock but I appreciate all rock history) It is a simple matter of using the actual name of the band in place of one that is blatantly false. All arguments about the MOS style guideline become farces in the face of the iPod and eBay articles. We don't change the name of the article to something blatantly false because of "style". We don't even maintain false name even when the "false" name is more familar like the recent Talk:Prudential Center move. Everyone knows it as the Newark Center and only Media slacks will call it the Prudential Center but the bottom line is that is the name of the building. Even though Newark is more familar, you don't leave the false name. 205.157.110.11 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *eBay and iPod are handled very specifically by a different part of MoS:TM, reflecting the wide acceptance of those terms even in professional publications. KISS has not enjoyed such wide acceptance. – Þ  03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Also, each of those brand names is comprised of an existing word plus an additional letter, which enhances its meaning. Kiss on the other hand is a regular English word on its own. - Cyrus XIII 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bad example. The case for the Beatles is different because it would involve using a different word enteirly. That is not the case for Kiss where we would simply not capatializing the name also your argument for using tradmarks directly viloates wikipedia Guidilnes. --67.68.152.3 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of what is the band's name and what is not, KISS and Kiss are essentially two different words. It would be the same type of misspelling as The Beetles. It is simply not the band's name. 205.157.110.11 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
It should also be made clear that for all these same reasons, the band should be identified as "Kiss" throughout the article except to note the alternate capitalization in the opening paragraph. –  Anþony  talk  01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to TJ: Why should they be referred to as KISS? MoS:TM applies equally to the body of the article as it does the title. –  Anþony  talk  19:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you also intend to go to pages like innosense (band) and join the edit war over whether to spell   the band's name in lowercase-only or the "standard" capitalized form? --Groggy Dice T | C 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No it is not, which is a big difference from Kiss and the Korn example. It is a capitalization issue just like iPod. 205.157.110.11 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue of reduced readability by all-capitals text is indeed covered in the typography article. - Cyrus XIII 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you verify that there is any reduced readability with KISS versus Kiss? Or is that original research? 205.157.110.11 14:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was merely pointing out that the full capitalization of text is indeed a typographic issue. And I would certainly appreciate it, if you refrained from dismissing my efforts as either "mindblowingly ridiculous" or "original research". - Cyrus XIII 14:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right. I need to correct that. your original request to move the page or even the first few support votes are not "mindblowingly ridiculous" because it is clear this was the work of folks who are not knowledgeable about the band or even this period of rock history. To the unknowning KISS is Kiss is kiss and so forth. That is an innocent mistake. The continual attempts to move the page in light of the simple truth of the matter that the band's name IS NOT Kiss is mndblowingly ridiculous and even fraudalent since it is giving a false record and false impression of what the band's name it is. It is just like moving the band's name to Hug or the The Beatles to Beetles. It is simply the wrong name. 205.157.110.11 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not unquestioned. According to this article that was linked on Slashdot, the reduced readability of all-caps "is entirely a practice effect," caused by the fact that people are used to reading mostly lowercase. When given lots of text in all caps, after a while reading speed equalizes. (That's besides the fact that it's a stretch to conclude that because of difficulties reading whole blocks of all-caps text, we shouldn't uppercase a lone word.) --Groggy Dice T | C 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
*Support per nom. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This has nothing to do with being a fan. (I happen to abhor glam rock but I appreciate all rock history) It is a simple matter of using the actual name of the band in place of one that is blatantly false. All arguments about the MOS style guideline become farces in the face of the iPod and eBay articles. We don't change the name of the article to something blatantly false because of "style". We don't even maintain false name even when the "false" name is more familar like the recent Talk:Prudential Center move. Everyone knows it as the Newark Center and only Media slacks will call it the Prudential Center but the bottom line is that is the name of the building. Even though Newark is more familar, you don't leave the false name. 205.157.110.11 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *eBay and iPod are handled very specifically by a different part of MoS:TM, reflecting the wide acceptance of those terms even in professional publications. KISS has not enjoyed such wide acceptance. – Þ  03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also, each of those brand names is comprised of an existing word plus an additional letter, which enhances its meaning. Kiss on the other hand is a regular English word on its own. - Cyrus XIII 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bad example. The case for the Beatles is different because it would involve using a different word enteirly. That is not the case for Kiss where we would simply not capatializing the name also your argument for using tradmarks directly viloates wikipedia Guidilnes. --67.68.152.3 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of what is the band's name and what is not, KISS and Kiss are essentially two different words. It would be the same type of misspelling as The Beetles. It is simply not the band's name. 205.157.110.11 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Support per nom. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This has nothing to do with being a fan. (I happen to abhor glam rock but I appreciate all rock history) It is a simple matter of using the actual name of the band in place of one that is blatantly false. All arguments about the MOS style guideline become farces in the face of the iPod and eBay articles. We don't change the name of the article to something blatantly false because of "style". We don't even maintain false name even when the "false" name is more familar like the recent Talk:Prudential Center move. Everyone knows it as the Newark Center and only Media slacks will call it the Prudential Center but the bottom line is that is the name of the building. Even though Newark is more familar, you don't leave the false name. 205.157.110.11 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *eBay and iPod are handled very specifically by a different part of MoS:TM, reflecting the wide acceptance of those terms even in professional publications. KISS has not enjoyed such wide acceptance. – Þ  03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also, each of those brand names is comprised of an existing word plus an additional letter, which enhances its meaning. Kiss on the other hand is a regular English word on its own. - Cyrus XIII 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: * Strong Oppose the band's name is not "Kiss" but rather KISS and is trademarked with all the caps. It like moving the The Beatles article to The Beetles. It is simply not the name of the band and the caps do make a difference. 205.157.110.11 03:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad example. The case for the Beatles is different because it would involve using a different word enteirly. That is not the case for Kiss where we would simply not capatializing the name also your argument for using tradmarks directly viloates wikipedia Guidilnes. --67.68.152.3 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of what is the band's name and what is not, KISS and Kiss are essentially two different words. It would be the same type of misspelling as The Beetles. It is simply not the band's name. 205.157.110.11 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: :Add any additional comments:
It should also be made clear that for all these same reasons, the band should be identified as "Kiss" throughout the article except to note the alternate capitalization in the opening paragraph. –  Anþony  talk  01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to TJ: Why should they be referred to as KISS? MoS:TM applies equally to the body of the article as it does the title. –  Anþony  talk  19:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you also intend to go to pages like innosense (band) and join the edit war over whether to spell   the band's name in lowercase-only or the "standard" capitalized form? --Groggy Dice T | C 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No it is not, which is a big difference from Kiss and the Korn example. It is a capitalization issue just like iPod. 205.157.110.11 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue of reduced readability by all-capitals text is indeed covered in the typography article. - Cyrus XIII 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you verify that there is any reduced readability with KISS versus Kiss? Or is that original research? 205.157.110.11 14:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was merely pointing out that the full capitalization of text is indeed a typographic issue. And I would certainly appreciate it, if you refrained from dismissing my efforts as either "mindblowingly ridiculous" or "original research". - Cyrus XIII 14:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right. I need to correct that. your original request to move the page or even the first few support votes are not "mindblowingly ridiculous" because it is clear this was the work of folks who are not knowledgeable about the band or even this period of rock history. To the unknowning KISS is Kiss is kiss and so forth. That is an innocent mistake. The continual attempts to move the page in light of the simple truth of the matter that the band's name IS NOT Kiss is mndblowingly ridiculous and even fraudalent since it is giving a false record and false impression of what the band's name it is. It is just like moving the band's name to Hug or the The Beatles to Beetles. It is simply the wrong name. 205.157.110.11 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not unquestioned. According to this article that was linked on Slashdot, the reduced readability of all-caps "is entirely a practice effect," caused by the fact that people are used to reading mostly lowercase. When given lots of text in all caps, after a while reading speed equalizes. (That's besides the fact that it's a stretch to conclude that because of difficulties reading whole blocks of all-caps text, we shouldn't uppercase a lone word.) --Groggy Dice T | C 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I altered the first note on the band's name to include the Runic SS () since I think that's what the note intended to reflect.  Copied from the article on the Nazi SS.  BaikinMan 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typeface 

message: Shouldn't we list other KISS-related bands like KISStory. If you don't know what that is, it is a KISS "clone" if you will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.10.230 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other bands 

message: should i make it all caps?I am Paranoid 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look above for the page move. Though in light of the Talk:Brian d foy precedent apparently an active army of socks can trump any WP:MOS capitalization concerns. If only I knew that earlier.... Silly me for being wiki-ethical. 205.157.110.11 14:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KISS

message: I have tried many time to find out why Vinnie was kick out of the band.  I heard a rumor that he did something on the Lick It Up European Tour bur I could never get the details.  Denis 23 March 2007
*I've never read an official explanation as to why he was fired/quit.  I don't know that anyone but Simmons/Stanley and Vincent knows for sure.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VINNIE VINCENT 

message: This is dragging up a past argument but.. Why is that KISS was moved to Kiss (band) because Kiss is not an acronym (although it can be argued by some critics that it does mean something) yet Chic (band) was moved to CHIC (band) without opposition, even though Chic in this case is definitely not an acronym? There are a few inconsistencies on this encyclopedia... Reference: WP:MOS-TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment" MegX 05:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how WP:MOS comes into play here because no 'capitalization rules' are broken by spelling KISS in capital letters. It is simply how it's spelled. Whether it is an acronym or not is irrelevant - the name is KISS, not Kiss. It's something so self-evident I don't even think it should have been put up to a 'vote'... they spell it in all-caps in all official materials, and thus so should we. I think the "capitalization rules" bit was meant to apply to artists like k.d. lang who arbitrarily insist their name be spelled in lower case letters for no valid reason other than pretentiousness - and note that her Wikipedia article allows the lower case letters to stand! The difference between K.D. Lang and KISS is that her name legally isn't really spelled in lowercase; the correct way to spell her name really is K.D. Lang regardless of what she prefers. KISS, on the other hand, is not a surname but a brand name specifically created to be spelled in all caps, and that can't be argued with or mucked around with. wikipediatrix 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not being picky but WP:MOS does come into play, because by your own admission above Kiss (with two thunderbolts for the S's) is a trademarked name and thus: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". My argument is, if KISS is an acronoym, than it should stay as capitals. If it's a trademarked name, than it doesnt deserve special treatment when listing because of WP:MOS. I didn't make up the rules. I'm trying to follow the rules to be consistent. I'm not going to argue this until the cow comes home because it's not a personal issue. Where were you when the vote was taken though? The "Objection" vote could have used some support. MegX 02:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't paying attention when the vote was taken. I do not log on to Wikipedia every week, nor do I stop in and visit every article among the hundreds that are in my watchlist. It's certainly not too late to change it just because a vote was already taken, though. I still maintain that if a trademark is trademarked in capital letters, then that is obviously the correct way to display it. It doesn't have anything to do with acronyms. Acronyms are not the only reason a word can be in all-caps. KISS is in all-caps simply because they say it is, they trademarked it that way, and that settles it. Note that iPod nano has not only a "wrong" lower case I, but also the word "Nano" in lower case. The obvious reason is: 'capitalization rules' be damned, "iPod nano" is the correct spelling for the brand name, just as KISS is the correct spelling for their brand name. wikipediatrix 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few honest words on this, if I may: One thing about objections in such discussions which keeps raising my left eyebrow is the way some of these people argue their point, often along the lines of "There should be an exception, because ... well, because!" or that the Manual of Style got it all wrong anyway. But strangely enough the same people almost never show up at the relevant guideline talk pages and make a genuine effort for change. Naturally, at this point, I really wish they would mind WP:NPOV more thoroughly and quit making a fuss, just because their favorite band name just got under the wheels of the Wikipedia community's effort for a professional and coherent presentation. - Cyrus XIII 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made a clear rationale why KISS is supposed to be in all caps and my reasoning had nothing to do with "well, because". Try again. wikipediatrix 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My last comment was not meant as a reply to yours, nor was I planning to write one, as MegX had already sufficiently done so. - Cyrus XIII 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: I read that KISS are not considered also a glam metal band (or hair metal band). In the 80's (from Lick it Up to Hot in the Shade) their kind of music was similar to the glam bands of that period (Motley Crue, Ratt, Poison) and their image with big hair and eccentric clothes reflected that form of music. I think we must add also glam metal. --Born Again 83 08:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glam metal

message: Although every online source I've ever seen claims the KISS logo was Frehley's creation, there was a strikingly similar font used by a late-60s/early-70s New York publication of the same name. It was an X-rated newspaper-type magazine, along the lines of SCREW. I saw several issues for sale in the ebay adult section a while back, and I regret I did not download the images -- the KISS logo was nearly identical, right down to the lightning bolt/"SS". If anyone can name the publisher, there may be images online - otherwise, it's rather difficult to google something like that! Roz666 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative theory on the origin of the KISS logo 

message: :Image:Lick it up cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lick it up cover.jpg

message: look at the post reunion section, i would've fixed it but i can't figure it out.  Heres John E 00:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: whoa-somebody vandilized this page

message: In the introduction of the article it is stated that the character of Ace Frehley is Space Ace. Later in the introduction (after 1996 when Frehley has left and been replaced by Tommy Thayer ) it is stated that Tommy Thayer actively uses Space Man make-up and costume.
Should Space Man be used? Or should all the Space Man terms be changed to Space Ace? I think they should be changed to Space Ace. - Ampedup 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Man