Talk:HIM (Finnish band)/Archive 2

message: Although I agree that Heavy Metal should not be used to describe HIM in any way, shape, or form... Heavy Metal is a solid metal genre, that of bands such as Manowar.
yea...well...if you want to be technal. Its love metal not heavy metal, Villie Valo and the other band members made their own genere for the band. But instead of love metal the music society has placed them under Gothic Rock. along w.advenged sevenfold. They are placed under that genere in many sites includeing myspace, yahoo, and other sites.
A band can't make up its own genre. Love Metal is simply just a maketing term. --Inhumer 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Metal 

message: I went on the offical HIM site and they said absoutley nothing about the supposed new album "uneasy listening vol.1". whoever put it on i would like to see the link they found the info orwe need to take it off.Razor romance 13:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discogrophy question 

message: we have more info on the vallo page that is irrelevent to his page and important to the him page. help me orginize the info i put on it from his page plzRazor romance 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vallo page 

message: Somebody proposed merging heartagram into HIM (band).
*Support I agree with the merge. Heartagram is unlikely to grow outside of its current scope as a symbol of HIM, therefore the article is unlikey to grow, and since it is easily encapculated within a paragraph or two, we should merge it into HIM. Copysan 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge complete Copysan 10:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: okay we need lots more info for gas. can any one help me with that cauz right now this page sux anus. Razor romance 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the deletion log for why the page was deleted. --Wildnox 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas page 

message: It's a made up genre. I haven't heard anything from HIM, but I'm assuming they're similar to Virgin Steele which is classed as heavy metal, and not "barbaric-romantic metal" as they describe it as. --Dayn 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to alternative metal, like their album pages say, and added "debated" which links to the genre portion of the article. It's only as a placeholder; I was tempted to just list all four genres in the genre section of the article. Anyone can do what they wish to the genre; anything within reason, but not love metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dayn (talk • contribs) 03:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I set it back to just debated, it has been like that for quite awhile, the Anon was just trying to force people to accept "love metal". --Wildnox(talk) 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm... no. Because "love metal" is nothing but a description of the band; it's not an actual genre. What musical differences in their songs require an entire new genre, except for their lyrics? You can make an argument about viking metal's existence; but that has quite a large following, and I'd rather describe it as folk metal. What makes HIM deserve their own genre? --Dayn 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A "genre" with only one member is no genre at all. If you can think of any other band that has more in common with HIM's music then you could claim that "Love Metal" is a genre. Otherwise its just a description. HIM fits closest into "Goth" and "Alternative Rock" best to my mind. HIM's sound, taken over the breadth of their work, is more complex than the "thick, heavy, guitar-and-drums-centered sound, characterised by the use of highly-amplified distortion" as defined in Heavy Metal, bearing more resembalence to the "Hard Rock" ballads of bands like Rainbow. It's shame, but there are no unambiguous definitions of what the different genres of Rock are, and there's already way too many of them for my liking! Slothie 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As it stands, the "Genre" section of the main article is probably good as it can get.Slothie 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Love metal" must be changed 

message: Since HIM has become a pretty popular band, aren't the other members worthy of pages? There's plenty of information on them out there. I'm not all too familiar with wikipedia yet, so I don't know what is.. um.. worthy of an article, or even how to start a new one.. so I thought I'd bring it up so maybe someone could.--FaerytaleMalice 07:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other members 

message: those of you who have the time - please fix this.
http://lovemetaller.tripod.com/id7.html is a good resource. it's parts of Synnin Viemaa (in E: Gone With the Sin) translated to English. probably even semi-legal. Gothic Embrace
What is it exactly you want us to fix? You are very unclear about that....or even what this whole section/topic was made to be about. --NekoD 01:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: It seems that this page is constantly vandalized, should it be protected from unregistered users?
I know I reverted the page 3 times in the past hour or so.
Nickoladze 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that. It's not like there are any privacy issues in modifying this article, Considering the number of lame edits we get on the page, it would be a step in the right direction. Slothie 16:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No you didn't; You just placed a tag. Only admins can protect pages. --Wildnox(talk) 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry. I'm new to wikis. Nickoladze 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: okay do we relley need to have a section about Daniel lioneye on the HIM page? Also HIM never ment "his infernal majesty" so why are we saying it does?(Vallo has said in a # of interviwes it dosent.)Razor romance 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: goin down the list

message: ===Unreferenced===
I just added an unreferenced tag to the top of the article. There are virtually no citations in the article. There are a total of nine citations in the whole article, all but 2 are used exclusively to further the genre dispute. I suggest that before editors try to add any more information to the article they attempt to source all, or at least nearly all, of the statements in the article and remove statements that cannot be properly sourced. Delaying the addition of sources will only make the problem more difficult to solve in the future. --Wildnox(talk) 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially the whole article needs references. I would have used the citation needed tags if it had been only a handful of the items. If I did that in this case, the page would be absolutely covered in  the little tags. I suggest that somebody who has a heavy interest in this article slowly adds references paragraph by paragraph. --Wildnox(talk) 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good job so far. I think I'm going to move the tag to the album history section, since that part is the only part with 0 cites still. --Wildnox(talk) 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: From the looks of it, they do have rationale but all but one of them fail WP:FUC since they could be replaced by free images. --Wildnox(talk) 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: I just added an unreferenced tag to the top of the article. There are virtually no citations in the article. There are a total of nine citations in the whole article, all but 2 are used exclusively to further the genre dispute. I suggest that before editors try to add any more information to the article they attempt to source all, or at least nearly all, of the statements in the article and remove statements that cannot be properly sourced. Delaying the addition of sources will only make the problem more difficult to solve in the future. --Wildnox(talk) 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially the whole article needs references. I would have used the citation needed tags if it had been only a handful of the items. If I did that in this case, the page would be absolutely covered in  the little tags. I suggest that somebody who has a heavy interest in this article slowly adds references paragraph by paragraph. --Wildnox(talk) 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good job so far. I think I'm going to move the tag to the album history section, since that part is the only part with 0 cites still. --Wildnox(talk) 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: There are four copyrighted images in this article, none have a fair use rationale on this page. I'm going to remove all but two of the images, as they serve no non-aesthetic purpose. The two I'm going to keep are: the Logo, and the band picture in the infobox. I suggest that somebody provides a fair use rationale for the two that will remain, or they may face deletion. --Wildnox(talk) 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the looks of it, they do have rationale but all but one of them fail WP:FUC since they could be replaced by free images. --Wildnox(talk) 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfree Images

message: I'm gonna go ahead and guard the genre section of the article. I'm a huge HIM fan and every change I don't agree with I'm gonna revert unless someone posts in here first with good reasons. Nickoladze 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that anyone had even changed the genre from debated or that we had decided we could put love metal as the genre. Asi\ i have mentioned above in a long rant, i will say it again. Can we say that the genre for HIM is love metal when it is genuinely a unique classification of what HIM music is? Just like Black Sabbath  was the first "Metal" band? Well maybe i should just got find another band that goes by the love metal label. ANYHOW None of us have decided anything for the genre --NekoD 09:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: On this article it says "Uneasy Listening Vol. 2 will be released in Germany at 20th April 2007, in Finland and in the rest of Europe at 24th/25th April 2007 and in the United States April 23rd." but on Uneasy Listening Vol. 2 it says "It is set to be released on April 20th, 2007 in Germany, the 24th/25th in Finland and the rest of Europe, and May 3rd in the US." 
Which one is correct? Chris fluppy 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On ULV 2's wikipedia page only one of the resources for that page actually links to a reference of when it is going to be released and all it said was "Released internationally on April 23" Making no statement for difference in germany, finnish, europe, or american dates. I would assume that the ULV 2 page is inaccurate and has false information due to someone who doesn't know shit about wikipedia and how to edit articles, editing the article. I am not going to mess with it since I am more concerned about this page but you or someone else could/should fix it. --NekoD 00:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uneasy Listening Vol. 2

message: Since the un-locking of the topic people have started to go and change the genre again, could we maybe just lock that one section (the part that lists genre) of the article? Or maybe lock it so people who aren't registered can't make edits, cuse to be honest with you 3/4ths of the edits to the genre to the incorrect thing are by I.P.'s if they are real wikipedia users than they should be signing in.......so if they continue with this shit we can block their accounts quicker than a cork in a bottle. --NekoD 19:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit "warring"

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