Talk:Kiss (band)/Archive 1

Name
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)

I think the band's name and logo might have been lifted from a local N.Y. area underground publication called KISS. See "Alternative theory on the origin of the KISS logo" below. Roz666 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Popularity
This quote "By the late 70's, KISS was voted 2 to 1 over The Rolling Stones as the most popular band in the world."... needs to be cited, if not I will remove it. That's quite a claim, and needs a source. Thedukeofno 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct -- that is not a supportable claim. I think it was probably a mis-remembered reference to the 1977 Gallup poll, which is mentioned later in the article.  Anyway, the Gallup poll's survey scope is the U.S., not the world. That sentence should be removed. Ferdinand Cesarano 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of clean-up and better organization. Soon I will begin re-writing the whole article to make live-up to wikipedia standards. Coburnpharr04 April 8, 2005
 * I have already started to rewrite parts of the article to do just this thing. --Cholmes75 05:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The band's name is KISS, not Kiss. -- Zoe
 * I could have sworn I already moved this to KISS. Why the disambiguation?  Is there another meaning of KISS in all caps? Tuf-Kat
 * Why is the band name in all caps? The name is not an acronym. -- 65.58.165.190 10:58 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * KISS is a disambiguation page. -- Zoe

"Keep It Short and Simple" --mav


 * I've always heard it as "Keep It Simple, Stupid". Perhaps people are trying to tell me something? ;) --Brion
 * Well, the KISS Principle has a natural disambiguator. I don't know what KISS is about -- if it's a programming language, shouldn't it be at KISS programming language?  The stub that's there isn't very helpful... Tuf-Kat
 * Or is it an operating system?... I dunno -- I never heard of it, whatever it is. Tuf-Kat


 * Not going to argue over it but every encyclopaedia I've read lists it as Kiss, not KISS. KISS implies there is some acronym involved. Iam 04:41, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just noticed user Zoe is no longer with us on Wikipedia. Perhaps a move to Kiss (band) may be in order as she won't oppose it (?). As stated earlier KISS implies there is an acronym. Iam 04:44, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. All capitals is not encyclopaedic because it is not an acronym. P æ dia 16:14, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. The band always refer to themselves as KISS, and because of that, it should be left that way, similar to the articles eMOTIVe, aMOTION and iPod MrHate 13:20, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

didn't Gene Simmons say it mean Knights in Satans Service? - Indevaree

he did indeed. This should be left as KISS, the band name is KISS, the albums are produced as KISS, though often discredited Gene Simmons, Ace Freely and the gang pointed out many a time that it originially stood for Knights in Satan's Service, thus making it an acronym Stupidkrazykarl

Heavy Metal did too exist in 1972. Bands like the Stooges and the MC5 at the time were described as heavy metal, and bands like Blue Cheer have been described as heavy metal since then. KISS (or Kiss--I've always used the latter, but would accede to those who know better) did not invent heavy metal, although they did introduce a lot of later-essential context to the concept. Rastro 21:41, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Stupidkrazykarl-Rastro, Stooges would probably be most properly classified as a punk core band.

Not being a KISS fan, I noticed that the article lacks what is truly encyclopedic in KISS history. It was the most prominent example in rock history of a huge worldwide success of a band vastly because of the looks and much less because of the music. It was a cultural, not a musical phenomenon. I remember (I was 10, living in Switzerland) knowing the name of the members, playing on their pin-ball machine, but having no idea of their songs, and so did all my pals. --Paolo V. 09:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

i was made for loving you
another very popular song from kiss is "i was made for loving you". I think it should be added, but since i'm not an expert of Kiss history and discography, i don't add it to the article.

"I Was Made For Lovin' You" was written by Paul Stanley with songwriting team Desmond Child and Vini Poncia (long-time associates of Mr. Stanley's), and was originally released on the quasi "disco" album Dynasty in 1979. Dynasty followed their long-awaited Solo Albums relase. Dynasty relieved fans with it's appearance, since KISS's by-then existing personal rifts had already become well-known and the Solo Albums were felt by fans to be a potential end of the road for KISS. Though Dynasty was not as edgy as 1982's Creatures of the Night album, Dynasty was as experimentational as Destroyer had been, and was followed by other musical experiments like The Elder and Carnival of Souls. Such efforts showed that KISS wasn't just about pre-Grunge grunge and bad lovin'/good drinkin' songs but about exploring the possibilities. Exploration of new ideas and sounds were something the dynamic duo of Simmons and Stanley had always been willing to do, and had been even from the earliest days of Wicked Lester. The song remains a fan favorite, perhaps belying a shared view of both the artists and devotees themselves: a profound and inherent love of each other.

I was made for loving you have never been, and will never be a fan favorite. Even Ace Frehley was disgusted over the fact that this disco song was to stand as the song they will be remembered by. The entire album is disliked by the hard core fans, being accused of "selling out" and moving away from the rock n' roll, being called a populistic band only caring about money and selling records, following the trends.

Previous story was horrible
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) hello

Unmasked
The stuff about the "Unmasked" album (Peter's holding the mask with both hands, etc.) make KISS sound like a 60s acid band who dropped clues about their existence into their album art to mystify their dope-smoking fans, which they weren't. It cheapens and adds to the self-indulgent nature of the article instead of sticking to facts and IMPORTANT information. It should be removed, and I've tried but someone thinks this information is important. I've got a news flash...it isn't. Are you kidding about a cryptic riddle? Did you confirm that this riddle was placed there intentionally? Much like the 28IF on Abbey Road, right? marcngin 2/21/06


 * I maintain that the presence of clues on the Unmasked cover is an important fact in the band's history.


 * At that time, the band was very reluctant to make a personnel change, depsite Criss's fading skills and (more importantly) his lack of interest. They were only two years past their absolute height, and were still selling plenty of merchandise.  The image of Kiss was still very strongly the FOUR faces; Simmons and Stanley were not yet regarded as the "big 2".


 * So, they decided to "split the difference" by phasing Peter out of the playing (even moreso than on Dynasty, on which he had one token appearance) while still maintaining the image that he was part of the band.


 * The presence of the clues on the beautifully-illustrated Unmasked album cover captures the band confronting the end of their original, "classic" era. Ferdinand Cesarano 10:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

While your argument is passionate and (thank you by the way) very polite and non-accusatory, I must still argue that, although the album's art is unique, you should still CONFIRM that these so-called clues are in fact what the band had intended to communicate before putting them on this supposedly OBJECTIVE article. I mean ACE was on the cover of "Creatures" without playing a note, so they were loyal, but more importantly, they knew that the fan base would want to see that they were still operating as a "Band" but as you know, there where MANY phantom band members as early as "Destroyer." (A much better illustrated cover by the way) but are there any important clues as to the band's diet and exercise habits on THAT album? See what I mean, not important enough to include, but thank you again for your polite and amicable response. I will not toy with the info due to your response, if it is important enough to you, let it ride. marcngin 2/22/06


 * Passionate or not, I have NEVER heard of this in all my years as a KISS fan. Unless someone can find some independent verification for these claims, they will be removed.  --Cholmes75 13:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thus speaketh the self-appointed God of the KISS page. Take a breath and try to compromise on this. Just a suggestion, even though I too disagree with its inclusion, an ultimatum is not the way to go.

marcngin 2/22/06


 * to Marc -- I am glad to keep a civil tone. I am taking the Wikipedia ethic seriously.  Anyone who contributes here, even a big Kiss fan such as myself, ought to see that the purpose of this article is not to tell anyone why Kiss is great, but to present a biography of a them as historical figures.


 * I included the bit about the Unmasked cover because I think that, if someone were studying the iconography surrounding the band, that person would have to include this cover in the research. The cover is filled with meaning, made more significant over time because it was the last time the 4 original members were ever depicted (until Psycho Circus).


 * Additionally, the intentional irony in the title, with the band not "unmasking" at all (or, alternately, making the statement that their make-up personas were not masks but were actually their "real" selves), is noteworthy.


 * (By the way, I wrestled with the inclusion at this point of the observation that the mask thing on the Unmasked cover parallelled Simmons's response to Paul Lynde in the band's TV debut back in 1974: LYNDE: "I love your makeup." SIMMONS: "We don't wear makeup." However, I didn't include it mainly for space reasons, since the "40 meg warning" had already been triggered.)


 * If one is going to describe the album cover, then I don't see how one can avoid the "Peter is gone" hints (and, yes, I resisted the temptation to include a comment about "Paul is dead", even though that phenomenon almost surely played into the consciousness of whoever designed this album). Ferdinand Cesarano 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * to Cholmes -- I am trying to find independent confirmation. Ferdinand Cesarano 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. -- Let me add that there is also an additonal "clue" on the album that I didn't mention. I just remembered that, on the poster included with the album, the "unmasking" panel of the cover is recreated, but with one difference: Criss is shown with one eye closed, winking.  See the graphic here.  (Not claiming that this represents substantiation.  Still looking for that.) Ferdinand Cesarano 17:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To Ferdinand:

I appreciate your wishing to give as much truthful info as possible, but I feel that even more important than the Peter Criss clues you allude to on this album was their ability to make light of the criticism surrounding them (Last panel - "I still say they STINK.") This says more about the band's psyche at this point than any mystical clues as to their whereabouts. I am surprised this is not mentioned by you, since I do not recall any such open self-mockery given by any band on their album art before or since. That TO ME is much more significant, and if ANY mention of this admittedly mediocre album is made, THAT should be the emphasis, and NOT the unsubstantiated claims that you are making. At least you can PROVE the self-mockery thing. What bothers me more, that if it is about the music, you don't even mention that except for a one-off sentence. marcngin 2/22/06


 * to Marc -- I agree that the self-mockery should also be mentioned! The assertion that this reveals something about the mindset of the band is an excellent point.


 * However, I don't agree that the album is so mediocre; more importantly, I don't agree that the question of whether the album is great, mediocre, or terrible (according to any individual's tastes) is relevant to the question of the album's cover art. (Incidentally, on the question of the album's merits, I would say that Unmasked, along with The Elder, are the two most underrated albums in the the band's catalogue.  I would rate both of them above Asylum or Crazy Nights, for example.)


 * But, the article is not really the place for reviews of the albums. The paragraph about Unmasked contains mentions of the fact that the album had a "slick, contemporary pop sound" and the fact that Fig and not Criss played on it.  I think that this is a sufficient description for the purposes of the article.


 * On a broader note, there are several whole topics about the band's history which are not currently in the article, but which warrant inclusion:


 * * Criss's still being a "part-owner" in the band (and therefore still getting a cut of profits) until 1985
 * * Frehley's still owning his own makeup design through the mid-1990s, which led to the band's being unable to use it on the Kiss My Ass cover (though Simmons and Stanley own the design now)
 * * the band's (particularly Stanley's) expressed unhappiness with the final product of Psycho Circus and the production of the late Bruce Fairbairn, despite Fairbairn's track record with other bands such as AC/DC and Aerosmith


 * Anyway, still looking for some support for the Peter clues. (By the way, I even missed one clue!  Peter's mask has a small circular hole in it.  You can see it in the large cover shot here.) Ferdinand Cesarano 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A suggestion - How about the creation of an entirely new article for "KISS Lore" or "KISS Legends"? I think an article that deals specifically with that theme would be a much more appropriate place for the Unmasked album cover theories than the main KISS article.  --Cholmes75 22:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, but I am SURE that Gene would LOVE the idea that the band was so "important" to even warrant a legends page. Still, with all of the satanic, cult, 10,000 sex partner, cher/diana ross/shannon tweed, phantom band member, Van Halen brothers joining the band, etc. etc. etc. surrounding this band, the more I think about it, the more sense that it makes. A decent idea, and a much better compromise. Thanks, I would be happy to contribute in whatever way I can to its creation. I have also enjoyed this civil back and forthing with you folks. Lets do lunch. : )   marcngin  2/22/06  9:11 PM EST

uh...
The Bad Brains article is NOT vandalism whatsoever....just because you don't like factually correct bios doesn't mean it is vandalism. Google it all you want. I wrote it from scratch, I know the band members, and it's the most correct and expansive bio on Bad Brains that has ever appeared on Wikipedia.

The Kiss article makes it seem like they are a comic book super team who made an album or two. We don't need a stats page of cute little books they put out....we need a comprehensive band history hi everyone

Alez and ellie are my frends and they like to sing

I don't know where to put this but Peter Criss has now joined KISS. He was thrown out of KISS when he was taking drugs and drinking along with Ace Frehley, Peter and Ace came back in the 1990's because they had stopped taking drugs Ace Frehley left shortly after into retirement where Tommy Thayer took his place. Eric Singer was the Percussionist after Eric Carr left, Eric Singer was thrown out of the band for Peter Criss because the band knew Peter had stopped taking drugs and he was a better drummer than Eric Singer. in conclusion Peter Criss is now Drummer of KISS and Eric Singer is a past member.

Kiss dates
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)

I would have to agree --Chyll 08:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I moved the dates to their own article, Important KISS Dates. This list probably needs to be modified, as some of these "events" are not very signifcant at all. I mean, does any magazine published with a Kiss mention really warrant a listing? --Cholmes75 21:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Singles discography
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)

new firebreathing stunt?
The article says: "It is at this concert that Simmons, performing his new firebreathing stunt for the first time, sets his hair on fire for the first time."

Isn't "new firebreathing stunt" a redundant description when it is performed for the first time? - Mark Mathu

Needs major overhaul
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)

corrections, corrections, corrections
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)

"Detroit Rock City" and "God of Thunder", popular KISS classics though they are, were not "hits". Paul Stanley clearly states in Kiss X-treme that radio stations IGNORED "DRC" and played the flipside, "Beth", instead. Subsequent pressings made "Beth" the A-side. "God of Thunder" was never even released as a single. Three songs from "Destroyer" made the Top 100 Charts: "Beth" at #7, "Shout it Out Loud" at #31, and "Flaming Youth" at #74.

"This renewed international popularity should have been followed up by a heavy and straight-forward rock and roll album".... totally NNPOV and opinionated. This isn't the place to give bands 'shoulda done" career advice, especially after the fact.

"Ezrin rejected and shelved it all, and would soon convince the band to change directions, change their look, and ultimately, change their future line-up." This just isn't true. "The Elder" was Gene's idea from start to finish, and he says so in Sex Money Kiss. And Ezrin had NOTHING to do with the band changing their look.

The bit about the band never performing Elder songs live is wrong. Changed it to "rarely".

wikipediatrix 17:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong on both counts, it was mostly Ezrin's idea (says in VH1 interview and on liner notes for "Elder" that he "discarded the demos"), also NO PERFORMANCES from the Elder until Unplugged, so this material was completely ignored for 15 years.Marcngin 22:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

They played "I" (from The Elder) at some TV show,it was lipsync however,so im not sure if it counts. Lord revan 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Fridays appearance is mentioned. --cholmes75 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark St. John wasn´t fired. He left because of his disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.178.87 (talk • contribs)
 * Nope, he was fired in the middle of the Animalize tour. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Member nicknames?
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?) &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 08:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The nicknames are as followed:
 * Gene- The Demon
 * Paul- Starchild
 * Ace- Space Ace

And there's the Catman (I ALWAYS call him by nickname. Don't ask why) --24.224.11.191 19:42, 3 March 2007

redundant infobox
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)

The person who is doing it is in my class. They're all hyped up because they think their all great with how they "control" this site. I agree it should be taken down, so I did(if someone gets in trouble, it'll be me). Oh, and sorry if I did anything "wrong" in this...thing...please tell me if I did.

-annoymous Dec.1, 2005

Keep it to ONE info box
I think lineup info boxes are GREAT....any band page is simply incomplete without them. However, I agree that we don't need 800 of them. The one at the botoom looks great. Let's leave it at that?

EPIC
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)
 * 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)

Wholesale undoing of changes on spurious grounds
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)

Hard rock
KISS is not hard rock. Sam Spade 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

logo
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)

Edit: Paragraphs rearranged so that both the mention of Peter's joining and of Ace's joining are in the same paragraph. So, now the info about the logo takes up a paragraph on its own. Hence, the logical place for the logo is beside that paragraph. (Still well away from the infobox, so it should not mess up the layout.)Ferdinand Cesarano 07:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any copyright issues with using the KISS logo? --Cholmes75 15:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the Wikipedia guidelines, they believe that using a logo for identification purposes is legal. A user has to include the Wikipedia copyright notice when using a logo on a page. The notice says: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Ferdinand Cesarano 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Phantom Band Members
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)

Typical American mistake
I have edited the reference to the chart positon of Crazy,Crazy Nights in "England" to "Britain". I have noticed many articles where a lot of Americans in particular seem to think that Britain and England are interchangeable when they mean very different things. The national sales charts in Britain refer to sales across Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and England and are not a specific English chart.

Editing down
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)

Merchandising
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)
 * This should be an article of its own. wikipediatrix 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Knights In Satan's Service
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)
 * More importantly, according to Gene himself in the "Kiss X-treme Close-Up" documentary, it doesn't. wikipediatrix 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was "Kids In Satans Service", at least that is how I heard it (from people that actually believed in it). But it may be a local (norwegian) version. PerDaniel 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Na,I'm from Michigan, and I heard that too. The idea waS that they were "recruiting" kids to join Satan through there music! 208.53.104.68 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Amyanda2000

Tour dates?
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)

and chumash casino dates. no boots yet...... :-))Ukbn2 18:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Band genres
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)

I agree that KISS were considered as ones opinion a heavy metal band but are now and ultimately then a Glam Rock Band Paladin. a wikipedia user

Lineup information
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)

Influences
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)
 * 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)
 * Seems fine to me. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to get a few bands to email me back. I'll put up the bands that were either influenced, or the people in bands that were influenced by KISS. Punk18

SS on the KISS logo
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.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 05:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

KISS (band) → Kiss (band)
This issue has been brought up before and contested, but I need to point out how this is policy. See 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)
 * Interesting. To be honest, I would not be terribly opposed if it were reverted back to Kiss (band), but that would mean changing dozens of articles as well.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If that rule is upheld than M*A*S*H is also going to have to be moved to MASH (TV series). That's a hell of a lot of links that need to be moved. MegX 02:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please remove the horribly written and visually horrible "criticism" section at the bottom.

Promoting GA
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)

to move the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
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)

Survey

 * 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 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support for all of the reasons above and also because it reflects common usage among independent reliable sources: New York Times, MTV, USA Today. –  Anþony  talk  01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, although they should still be referred to as KISS in the article (instead of Kiss). TJ Spyke 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support followls guidlines. Also I don't believe that we should use a trademark simply because we want to and claims of people blieveiveing the name is an accryminine is not a good reason to oppose the move either. In case anyone is confused I am responding to the oppose votes bellow. --67.68.152.3 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It's not an acronym. -Freekee 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per style guidelines, although oviously a redirect at KISS should remain. This is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia, not a fan site, and the standard for general purpose publications is obvious from Anþony's examples.  Someone with only passing familiarity with the band would probably never think to type in all-caps when searching for information about the band.  Xtifr tälk 01:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. – &#160;Þ&#160;  03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support per reasons I've stated before. Also, I'd like to point out that Doom as an example as it is very similar in its spelling and useage to Kiss.--SeizureDog 03:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom of course and also to point out the REALTOR®/Realtor case, which is given as an example in one of the guidelines initially quoted. I should probably have included it in the first place, seeing that it has not been addressed by anyone opposing the request, even though the same reasoning applies in the particular case we are discussing now. - Cyrus XIII 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I agree. The name is KISS, not Kiss. Jonesy 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I definitely think of the band as KISS, not Kiss. And although the name may not be an anacronym, the fact that so many people think it is, shows that they think of the band's name in all caps, too. Also, the "special typography" clause would apply more if the title were being spelled with the runic "S," not merely all caps. -- Groggy Dice T | C 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The New York Times, MTV, and USA Today all think of the band as Kiss. While it's true that many fans do refer to the band as KISS, Wikipedia is not a fan site. Please note that we're not trying to determine what the "right" name is, but rather what we should call it according to our guidelines, which are pretty clear. We have Korn instead of KoЯn or even KoRn, Germany instead of Bundesrepublik Deutschland, dog instead of canis lupus familiaris, etc. –  Anþony  talk  08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your examples are flawed. KoЯn is non-standard Enlish, Bundesrepublik Deutschland is not even English and canis lupus familiaris is simply a different name for the same animal. The difference between KISS and Kiss is that one is the band's name and the other is not. We have similar articles with iPod, eBay and even similar band articles with ABBA. Yes the capitalization in all of these is non-standard however THEY ARE the names of all those items and it is just as silly to move them to Ipod, Ebay, and Abba as it is to move KISS to Kiss. 205.157.110.11 13:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding flawed examples: ABBA is an acronym (for the members of that band) and cases like iPod and eBay are explicit mentioned in WP:MOS-TM. Furthermore, the general advice found in WP:MOS-CL is: "Avoid writing in all capitals." - Cyrus XIII 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your missing the point. iPod and eBay are mentioned because those are the correct names of those items and it is downright foolish to use different names because of non-standarized capitalization. ABBA is the name of the band (not just an acronym like FBI or CIA). ABBA is not the title of the article because it is an acronym. The overriding principle of any naming convention is that the title of the article should be a correct name for the subject matter and the ONLY name of this band is KISS. It is mindblowingly ridiculous to give this article a false name when there are instances across the board of the MOS being reasonable in instances of "non-standarized capitalization" because in instances like iPod and so forth, it is simply keeping the article with the proper title of the subject. 205.157.110.11 14:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And you missed my point: We do not care about the "correct" name of anything. Clearly, Germany is not the correct name of the country. "The overriding principle of any naming convention is that the title of the article should be a correct name for the subject matter" is flat-out false. –  Anþony  talk  22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ever been to the UN? Germany is the correct English usage of the name. 205.157.110.11 21:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - My feeling here is that the MOS cite is a guideline rather than a hard rule. I also don't think that KISS in all caps constitutes stylized typography.  If we somehow found an 'S' character that looked like a lightning bolt, then that would be clearer.  I also don't think that having an extra three letters capitalized hurts the readability of the article.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The band's name has always been KISS. If the MOS really says that this capitalisation is to be avoided (and I'm not convinced of that) then the MOS needs refinement. Andrewa 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The band's name is KISS Moorematthews 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Capital letters is the way that the band has always spelled their name, not with lowercase. The fact that this article has been with the capital letters helped me realize that. Their logo, all of their albums, singles and official material has used uppercase letters for the bands' name. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Does "KISS" really constitute "stylized typography"? There's no odd use of fonts or characters that I see.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The issue of reduced readability by all-capitals text is indeed covered in the typography article. - Cyrus XIII 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I haven't commented again, because the move looks like likely to go through and I'm not some great KISS fan, but there are two things I'll add. First, while it is true that a solid majority of publications use Kiss, there are exceptions, like the Boston Globe, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Second, a key argument has been that "KISS isn't an anacronym," but names do not always have to be acronyms to be all-capped, such as KAOS (Get Smart). -- Groggy Dice T | C 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this page in accordance with the consensus above, and have corrected the double redirects, but I have not changed all the usages of "KISS" in the article or in links to this article. Regular editors of this page are encouraged to do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Status of post-move edits

Most, if not all Kiss-related articles have now been edited (and moved, if necessary) to reflect the result of the discussion. I have left out quotes and reference titles for now, as I am not entirely sure how far standard text formatting rules apply to them. Further changes on my part will be on an on-sight basis. - Cyrus XIII 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Typeface
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)
 * No, they are not the same thing. I reverted the change.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Other bands
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).
 * Like what kinds of bands? Spinoffs like Frehley's Comet?  Those are already listed in the infobox. If it's just similar bands, then no.  Wikipedia is not in the business of music recommendations.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

KISStory is in association with KISS. They are basically a clone of KISS. AND I DON'T THINK THE BAND SHOULD BE CALLED Kiss!!!!! When you say Kiss you imply romance. When you say KISS, it means the greatest rock 'n' roll group ever!

Why isn't KISS in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame?
This bugs me so much that the band isn't in the Hall Of Fame. Yet they let Prince in and whats the deal with this years super bowl show. No one is gonna want to watch Prince. KISS will attract way more fans.

But please tell me why Kiss isn't in the Hall of Fame?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.30.46 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Because they suck.
 * 90.198.152.55 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

KISS
should i make it all caps?I am Paranoid 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Genre and category
There isn't heavy metal in the genre. But in the category, there is "new york heavy metal musical groups". The category should be changed to "hard rock bands" or something

VINNIE VINCENT
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)

Inconsistencies
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)
 * Hmmm, good question. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Solved. - Cyrus XIII 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, Cyrus. Speedy job. I was expecting a lengthy drawn-out debate on the issue but didnt think it would be resolved so soon. MegX 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there is that bit on the top of every guideline ("Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines"), which kind of defeats the purpose of a lengthy debate in a clear-cut case. And by now, the precedents of the Manual of Style being applied to band names are mounting, so employing WP:BOLD isn't really that bold at all. - Cyrus XIII 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Glam metal
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)

Alternative theory on the origin of the KISS logo
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)

Paul Shaffer played on KISS records?
My wife told me that Paul Shaffer (from david letterman's band) played keyboards and drums on many KISS albums. I know that sometimes the band used outsiders without giving them credit? Is this true? Should we put it in as fact?

Fair use rationale for Image:Lick it up cover.jpg
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 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)

whoa-somebody vandilized this page
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)

Space Man
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)
 * Good question. I've heard the two terms used interchangeably, and I'm not sure what the definite answer is.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Band members
I don't know who keeps changing my edits to the Personnel section. A lot of the dates are wrong, and i'm trying to resolve this by simply placing the correct dates, as shown in the Kiss timeline. With this amount of contradiction, we should at least be able to get it down to the right year. Alterego269