Talk:HIM (Finnish band)/Archive 2

H.I.M. or HIM
Apparently it is not incorrect to use H.I.M. since their webpage uses it everywhere? (Perhaps some sort of exclusively for US thing that H.I.M.? I haven't seen it written like that in Finland) - User:Ciantic, 02:32, 22. November 2006

Links
I'm about to remove almost all of the external links, 99% are either irrelevent or spam. How did the link section get this bad? See WP:EL --Wildnox 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know how it is.. someone attempts it and others follow if nothings done about it. No reason to keep those links, IMHO. — Moe Epsilon  04:08 September 12 '06

Your right we did let it get distraous. thanks. lets try and keep it relevent this go aroundRazor romance 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Razor Romance, the reason I archived the page was to prevent non-relevant conversation about the subject of the article from starting. Feel free to start a new section and discuss about how to help the article. Try not to type in all CAPS anymore either. — Moe Epsilon  14:45 September 12 '06

you know i did that this morning but someone must find the topic of genre unimportant as it was deleated TWICE now. it is still relevent to some of us as in a post that was added had a possible article change and i hopeded to recive some feedback before i went ahead and change it. and i understand why you did it but i did that this morning(created a new section) and pasted it this morning from the archive file and i come back 5 hrs later and someone has deleted my new section post. to say the least i am throughly disgusted by whove did that as that would have been in some peoples opponion a very drastic change and required member feedback. thank you to whover deleated my section.Razor romance 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Once it's in the archive, it should stay there. Some of the comments made in the re-post was unproductive and should have not been made at all. Like I said above, if you want to start a new section regarding a topic, please do so. — Moe Epsilon  21:23 September 12 '06

Genre
I hate to bring this up again, but...I got rid of "Heavy Metal" and gave my reasoning in the discussion, but it was added again with no reply. So I got rid of it and am posting my reasoning again. If someone wants to add it, please respond to this:

The only place where HIM would be called "heavy metal" is in the stupid and restrictive genre field on some CD ripping programs. NOBODY uses the term "heavy metal" anymore, especially not professional critics. It's either a term that old people use to refer to all loud rock music, or in a more specific context, a euphemism for hair metal like Poison, Cinderella, etc. Either way, absolutely nothing to do with this band. It makes about as much sense as calling them thrash metal. I'm gonna change it to hard rock, and please don't change it back unless you find an example of a critic calling them (or for that matter, any critic within the last decade calling ANYTHING) "heavy metal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.27.11 (talk • contribs)
 * As far as critics calling anything in the last decade "Heavy Metal", if you read outside of the watered down music magazines for children, the term is used quite often. Other than that I have no oppostion to you removing the term here, as it was uncited. Also, remember to sign your comments. --Wildnox 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See the edit history the user who readded replied in his edit summary. --Wildnox 16:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the removal of the Heavy metal genre. Considering the genre controversy section states that Ville Valo has stated that the band started as a "Black Sabbath tribute band of sorts", which further solidifies the band's heavy metal leanings, I am thinking that adding Heavy metal as a genre is not entirely unreasonable. Besides, the name of this section is "genre controversy", hence it's not always going to meet the same perspective of every editor. Heavy metal was used through the last decade and is still used today. Whether or not you agree with that, 69.116.27.11, is your opinion. — Moe Epsilon  21:20 September 12 '06

It's not 'my opinion' that "Heavy Metal" is either used loosely as an all-encompassing term or to refer to 80's hair metal. If you look at other band articles on Wikipedia, the only ones labeled 'heavy metal' are those described above, or the bands that have such a generic sound that putting them into a category is hard (which seems to be the case with HIM). However, in this case, it is merely a cop-out, not an alternative to more specific genre definitions. Basically, what I'm saying is that if we already have specific suggestions such as "Gothic Rock" and "Alternative Metal", there is no point in listing Heavy Metal alongside them as if it were an alternative, because it's not - it's a broad genre whereas the others are specific subgenres. For heaven's sake, has anyone even looked at the Heavy Metal article?

"As a result, "heavy metal" now has two distinct meanings: either the genre and all of its subgenres, or the original heavy metal bands of the 1970s style sometimes dubbed "traditional metal", as exemplified by Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, and Black Sabbath."

You can see from the first definition that it is a broad genre of which all the other forms of metal are subgenres. So putting it there makes about as much sense as putting "Rock". As for the second definition, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it falls into that category. The only thing you'd have to go on is that Black Sabbath quote, but I don't know if Valo merely naming them as influences qualifies as a reason for lumping them into the same genre. --Alex

The term "heavy metal is regulary used when talking about their debutalbum - Greatest Lovesongs vol 666. Some people would even go as far as calling it a contemporary art/heavy metal album. And I do agree. GLSV666 is definitely contemporary, it's definitely art, and definitely HEAVY METAL. The latter albums are nowhere near heavy metal ('cept for maybe the Love Metal album), but the first album is a heavy metal album. Consequently I believe "heavy metal" is a correct term to use when talking about early HIM. -Gothic Embrace 24/10 12:53 (GMT +1)


 * The band take elements from traditional heavy metal music and 1980s gothic rock blending them together. Most children in recent years seem to associate the word "heavy metal" with extreme metal, when it is a very distant style.


 * In their music, a band like HIM have far more in common with the original, and genuine sound that heavy metal bands developed in the early 1970s than a band like Cannibal Corpse for example, ever have. Angsty teenagers try to revise the meaning of genres that they have no idea about because it happened years before they were born.


 * Are HIM related to extreme metal? No. Do HIM share musical characteristics with actual heavy metal itself? Yes. When taking into consideration that they started as a Sabbath tribute act, this should be blatantly obvious. Band members also cite Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin as influences.The Blue Öyster Cult cover is also another MAJOR HINT, that seems to go over the head of most people who don't have a clue about music history. - Deathrocker 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking influence from Heavy Metal bands doesn't necessarily make a band metal. --Inhumer 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah but you cant take hints as a reason to add it to wikipediaas stated fact without saying it is implied razor romance

The term "Genre controversy" should be removed, there is no proof of a genuine controversy in any printed and factual article. Thus it fails the WP:V policy. A "couple of 15 year old Slayer fans" whining on a messagboard hardly consists of a "controversy" worthy of a mention in a an encyclopediac article. - Deathrocker 09:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe changing it to "Genre Debate" would be better.Inhumer 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about adding the term Suomi Metal? I'm a member of Metal Storm' e-community, and the band there, among others, is described as "Suomi Metal". Have a look on it at http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/band.php?band_id=126 and add it if necessary. Iaberis 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As an editor who has just read the article, yet has no strong feelings for the band or article, I must say that as it stands RIGHT NOW, in this incarnation, the genre section reads stunningly. I say this because it addresses all of the genres that I personally have seen the band classified as, explains the idea of 'love metal', and has a quote from Villie. I like the way it remains inpartial in saying that the band has been reffered to as those genres, instead of actually being them. Also, it is sourced extremely well, which so many band pages aren't, for some horrible reason. What agitatated me was when I saw (yesterday, but without time to enter the debate) that HIM was classed as 'emo', when they have been around significantly longer than the emo stereotype. J Milburn 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal
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)

discogrophy question
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) no chance

Hey. I've searched the web for about a week now, going to every website I could find that talks about cd's and HIM, and found nothing about an "Uneasy Listening vol. 1". Could someone maybe give a link to where they found it?The Bickel 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Added back "Uneasy Listening Vol. 1" It is being released at the end of this month and can be seen http://www.recordstore.co.uk/him/. Solitaryman666

lyrics
I was thinking that mabey we could link all the singles to a sub page that had the lyrics on them. i would have done it but the instructions to do it are confusing. if ne one could help me with that can you go to my user page and tell me how to do that i would be most apperactive of you! or does that voilate the coppywight? thanksRazor romance 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted all addings of lyrics. It's against copyright laws to post lyrics here. Link them as an external link at the bottom of an article if you must. — Moe   Epsilon  21:33 September 29 '06

vallo page
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)

never mind we allready have the info on there just dident look hard enough. sorry. Razor romance 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

we neesd to have info for all the members of the band so lets finde some and get it cracking.Razor romance 18:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Somebody proposed merging heartagram into HIM (band). supportgood idea Razor romance 12:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support per above --Wildnox 01:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Unlikely to mean more than the HIM and Bam Margera logo, so merge it here and mention it on Bam Margera if it's not already. — Moe  21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support thats a good idea. --Denzil 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge complete Copysan 10:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gas page
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)

what the hell is going on? i have created a new page for gas 3 times with LIMITED info because i could not find much history on gas and it stated that on the discussion page IF PEOPLE WOULD ONLY LOOK TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM!!!!! I know that the page sucked but i said on the gas page we need more info! i even said it on this page to try to get some more people to help me. there is no repeat NO excuse for this crap.Razor romance 12:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ts been almost 7 days and still no response as to why my crap has been destoryed?thats messed up.Razor romance 14:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See the deletion log for why the page was deleted. --Wildnox 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ideas
hello. i was checking out some outher pages and i liked the green daypage a lot and so i got to thinking what if we made our page a little more like they did? check it out and you will see what im saying. just to try to get a little more visual intrest we could add more pictures and totaly revamp the page. what do you all th9ink about the possibality of a major edit like that?Razor romance 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If yew can provide sources for the information yew want to add, then using the Green Day article has a guide isnt a major problem.

"Love metal" must be changed
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)


 * 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).


 * 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)

Aha, okay, that makes sense. I was wondering what that huge swamp of BS was doing above on this talk page. --Dayn 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

okay WHAT IS THE DEAL NOW!!!! why dont we have debated and list all gerneras and link them to the corresponding page and create a new page for love metal. good enough compromise?Razor romance 13:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

using that same logic why are so many bands clasified as different genres? I personaly think that all the genere lines are so blured these days that no one can dell the difference betwene any thing but...the only things that seperate the music is the lyrics. you can call any thing whatever you want and it wont make sense. as to the puting love metal with its own page to describe what it is. it was just a sugestion. should we vote? Razor romance 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * As it stands, the "Genre" section of the main article is probably good as it can get.Slothie 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Other members
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)

make it a stub and its o.k.Razor romance 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Singles/Chart Positions
I know a lot of groups/musicians etc. have little boxes on their wikipedia articles showing the list of singles they have released and what positions they have topped at on the charts. I don't know how to do that but I think that this is something we need to add to the HIM article.

Vandalism
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)
 * 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)

i agree.Razor romance 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did it Nickoladze 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No you didn't; You just placed a tag. Only admins can protect pages. --Wildnox(talk) 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry. I'm new to wikis. Nickoladze 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

i just asked one to do it.Razor romance 18:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's be serious for a moment
Were they really known as HIM and HER and HER? If so, maybe the vandalizations have merit. Those are two pretty gay names.
 * From the information I have seen, they changed their name due to HER in the US and "HIM and HER" in Germany while resolving disputes with other bands called "HIM". They eventually bought the "rights" to the name from those bands and reverted to HIM. I would imagine the choice of names reflects Vallo's sardonic humour rather than any homosexual references :o) Slothie 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha.

'''The story behind HIM becoming known as "HER", goes with their first American release. When the album was to be made available in the US there was already a project called "HIM" in America, so the album was released limitedly under the modified name, HER. Soon after though, the album was re-relased under the proper name, HIM.

'''Also, I don't like you using such derogatory terms as "gay" to describe something undesireable. You have to take into consideration that you might hurt someones feelings. Words like that can hurt just as much as anything else.'

goin down the list
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)

'Actually, when the band first started out, it WAS'' called His Infernal Majesty, H.I.M for short. But as the band gained popularity, they began drawing in the wrong type of fan base, you know like Satanists, etc. and began getting negative feedback in the media. So they quickly shortened the name to just HIM and it's been that since.

'''Valo has said in these interviews that HIM doesn't mean His Infernal Majesty, because it doesn't anymore.

Also, to answer your other question, I DO think Daniel Lioneye should be mentioned on the HIM page because is is a lesser known side project of the band.

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)

If you could point out/list the Articles that need reference I will find the citations if they exist and inform you if they do not. If you just put the little "citation needed bitties on it I will find them myself on the page.--NekoD 14:11, 09 March 2007 (CT)


 * 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)

-sigh- well I will get to it. EDIT: I've gone and started, added like maybe 3-4 references, and enlisted the help of a friend to find the pages to use. Got about 6 more to do at least, hope that will be good enough to pull of the "unreferenced" tag --NekoD 22:00, 20 March 07


 * 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)

Yeh I had realized the albums where the only parts I hadn't worked on, I am trying to find a really good site that'll let me cite them all. --NekoD 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfree Images
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)
 * 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)

Genre
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)

After getting sources and references for everything I was thinking about writing a comprehensive talk about the genre talking about how by typical genres HIM is "etc" but to fans it will always be "Love Metal", maybe with a few quotes from Ville --NekoD 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

thats a good idea and we can get everyones input on it. I LIKE IT!!!!Razor romance 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, be sure to get people to discuss it and if everyone agrees I will make it a reality --NekoD 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

first time using this thing, i like the Love Metal genre coinciding with HIM. Its very fitting and it directly relates to HIM fans who will understand the term. Besides what other genre could describe HIM better? Heartafruhalo36degLP 03:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it has never been a question whether or not Love Metal is a good description as a Genre for HIM, the question has always been should We put the official Genre on Wikipedia as "Love Metal" even though it is not an "official genre". Though I think if another band came along and did music like HIM then it could be a branch off genre of alternate rock/metal.....but no one has done that yet so we have this argument. What do we want, Official pretty P.C. versions of what the genre is for all the hardcore sticklers on wikipedia who like quote wikipedia ways of writing like its the bible............or the fan way of sticking to something that the artist has named them selfs? I do want to mention a novel idea real quick though. As earlier mentioned i think "Love Metal" could become a new type of genre but hasn't officially happened yet, i am mentioning this since, before black sabbath their was no "Metal" genre and before Judas Priest there was no "Heavy Metal" label, both bands pretty much in essence created these genres, if not Judas priest then i KNOW that Sabbath literally created the Metal genre. So why can't HIM create the Love Metal genre? --NekoD 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

i undestand your point (and i do think love metal should be on the genere list) we cannot do that until it is an offocialy named sub-genere unless we say that they are self proclamed "love metalers". Does that make any sense?Razor romance 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the debated genre again because there is no such thing as Love Metal, because the only band classified as love metel would be HIM and it is a term made by Ville Valo. — Moe  02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Uneasy Listening Vol. 2
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)


 * 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)

ULV2 will be released on 20th April in germany! new releases in Germany are always on fridays.

Edit "warring"
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)

Love metal
If I see the reinsertion of the 'genre' Love metal again, I am going to start handing out warnings for vandalism and for making blatant false changes. Love metal isn't a genre, it's a term made-up by Valo, and it isn't a genre of music like heavy metal music, gothic rock, gothic metal or alternative rock. No, there isn't room for a compromise for adding it, because you can't prove a negative. — Moe  18:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

why dont we just lock the page?Razor romance 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've edited to Gothic Rock as it should be. As much as idiotic fanboys/fangirls would love their precious "love metal" to exist as an excuse to call HIM a metal band, they simply are not metal and shouldn't be labeled as such because Bam Margera and the media mix them in with the metal scene. I've also removed that line from the genre section that said "which further solidifies the band's heavy metal leanings" when it was talking about how they started out as a Black Sabbath tribute. This is completely irrelevant and certainly does not "solidify the band's heavy metal leanings." Tori Amos covered Slayer's "Raining Blood", does that mean that she has thrash leanings? Of course not. I'm sure if Green Day wanted to, they could release an album full of Absurd covers, that doesn't mean that their own original music is national socialist black metal influenced. Nihilistic Sadogoat 22:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not even supposed to be goth rock, it's supposed to link to the genre section, as 'debated', not anything else.. especially not love metal. 216.78.95.220 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is no debate. One is a genre, the other (Love Metal) is not.Nihilistic Sadogoat 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My friend, you can call it whatever you want but it is not goth rock. Its kind of lame that the citations that support that are just mediocre "band profiles" from music compendium sites. I will add that I have seen a few bands, such as gogol bordello coin phrases that are later used as their respective genres. So, either it should be considered an accepted practice or we have inconsistent standards in regards to assigning genres on wikipedia.

while all are valid arugments i belive that it should stay as "debated" until either the music industry calls love metal a genre or it is agree upon to say it or not. i personally think that it can be called a love metal group (as they have a soft metal feel about them)Razor romance 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. I also made the last comment about goth rock and the practice of using terms given by band as genres. It says they started as a black sabbath tribute band, along with other bands such as kiss. I think we can see where the band's "influences" lie, none of which is goth rock.


 * It's not staying at Love Metal, period. It's debated, obviously since there are sources, verifiable and valid, that state that the band is goth rock, goth metal, alternative metal and heavy metal. Love metal isn't a genre, and unless it becomes a genre that other bands use, it's not a genre, its just a term to describe the music. And your argument about the influences are moot. Influences are not the genre. I read an interview today that Marilyn Manson cites of his influences in music was David Bowie, and Manson plays nothing similar to David Bowie. 209.214.141.22 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NEW!!! WPHIM!!!
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)thanks14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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


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

I removed Gothic rock and Gothic metal... HIM were never a Goth rock or Goth metal group... they produce a modern metal/alternative rock music blend, which is called "Dark Rock" in a few countries. This term was created by Nick Holmes (singer of Paradise Lost) to describe the album "Host" from 1999. Today "Dark Rock" describes the music of Zeraphine and other bands. They produce the same music like HIM and the last works of Paradise Lost, a blend of modern alternative rock and metal sounds with influences of electronic music.
 * 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)


 * 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).
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * That's your POV, guy --Diluvien 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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).

What a problem to put simply "Rock" as the genre? They're neither metal nor alternative nor gothic, this is oblivious, but they still play rock. Garret Beaumain 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


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


 * 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)

Protected
I have protected the page for 1 week due to the ongoing edit war. The recent reverts to this page are absolutely unacceptable. At least two of the editors deserve WP:3RR blocks, but I have opted to let the affected parties discuss this issue. Please stay civil and don't make it personal. Sean William 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose it be left as Alternative Rock, and a for people planning to edit the page.
 * There are sufficient refrences for all the genres listed, and most of them fall under 'Alternative Rock'. However, 'rock music' is much too wide a genre, and just plain doesn't look good on the page anyway, if anything 'Rock' on its own.
 * Anyone disagree with 'Alternative Rock'? ≈  Maurauth  (09F9) 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Though as much as I would like me or someone else to spend the time to prove that we could call it Love Metal, since we cannot then I would agree with Alternate Rock. BEFORE anyone can disagree with me agreeing for this let me state the reasons why 'I' believe it should be Alternate Rock/Alternative Rock. A) AltRock is a genre used to describe a bands playing style that uses traditional rock guitar/drum/bass elements with something that distinguishes it from the norm of "rock" music. Those things in HIM's music are (and subsequently my second and third points): B) Ville's unique and 'quite easily identifiable' writing style and C) the use of a synth player in the band. Now synth players/alt electronic instruments have been used in other rock bands but those are more like the Psychedelic rock of Pink Floyd which HIM is 'definitely' no where near being similar too. Only other kind of music that uses synths are Rap (HIM ǂ Rap) Pop (HIM ǂ Pop) Electronica (do i need to say it?) Power Metal (even i don't think they are metal and I am a huge fan). So there these are the reasons why, all you little babies who have been arguing back and forth, excuse my impoliteness but please shut the fuck up, all you are doing is locking my favorite god damn article that I would like to make real contributions to and squabbling about a FUCKING GENRE. --NekoD 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not only a quarrel about a "fucking genre". Kiddies of today think that HIM is a goth group. Consequently, they call himself "goths". This is the absolute dilution of a music genre and a subculture, because HIM kids are not really goths. They're HIM kids, nothing more. --Diluvien 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Goth subculture is about art, and I find it highly offensive that these people degrade and pretty much shit on it with their conceited motivations and consumerism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.44.137 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep the discussion about the genre of music, not about the listeners of such music as you're being incredibly offensive. ≈  Maurauth  (09F9) 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, please keep it civil. Sean William 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with the protection as it prevents the discussion on this page from continuing like it has above with the uncivil comments. But it appears to be consensus with the relevant editors that the genre should be Alternative Rock, could you change this as the page is protected? ≈  Maurauth  (09F9) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as all parties stop edit warring, I'll unprotect the page now. Be wary that any further edit warring will result in blocks. Sean William 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the consensus is that Alternative Rock is a good third option in this case. ≈  Maurauth  (09F9) 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit cautious to call this "consensus" so soon, but let's see how it turns out. Sean William 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'll leave it as Alternative Rock purely because 'Debated' is not a genre and has been factored out of other articles (see Cradle of Filth) that originally had 'Debated' as the genre. Also; 'rock music' is quite too broad a genre and also wasn't capitalised properly, (I'm pedantic). ≈  Maurauth  (09F9) 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see all this debate about what the genre should be, and not what reliable sources say the genre is. Remeber WP:V and WP:RS. Copysan 19:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I believe correctly MTV says they are AltRock....hows that sound quoty mc quotester. --NekoD 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CITE it. And I don't appreciate being called names. There is also nothing wrong with putting multiple genres into the infobox. Copysan 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)