Talk:HIM (Finnish band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genre (all discusions here)[edit]

Alternative Rock???[edit]

To the ignorant people who put this genre: Do you even know what Alternative Rock is??? How can you label HIM as Alternative Rock??? The latest album might have some elements of it, but HIM is NOT an Alternative Rock band... They have Gothic Rock elements, Metal elements, Glam Rock elements and much more... Iaberis 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make personal attacks, that doesn't make your argument stronger. It was long established before that the genre is some kind of alternative rock. 72.154.87.112 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter, i mean we all know it's Love Metal (genre) and can't we just leave it at that? - Beautiful so ur (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it has metal in it makes it not gothic rock, lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love metal isn't an established genre. It's Alternative Rock with Metal elements, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.10.165 (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

87.122.10.165 here is correct saying Love Metal is not an encylopedic/notable/recoginised genre therefore we can't use it in the infobox unfortunately. AngelOfSadness talk 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the sake of clarity we should describe their genre as both "alternative rock" AND "alternative metal". They're far too loud and distorted to be just a rock band, their influences (e.g. Black Sabbath) are predominantly metal, they perform loads of covers of songs by metal bands and, although they are not a metal band, use an instrumentation associated specifically with gothic metal, that being guitar, keys, bass, drums, vocalist and female backing vocalist. I'm certainly not in favour of describing them as a love metal band, but I think describing them as alt-rock or alt-metal (or both) is fair enough. Anyone agree? Cacodyl talk 22:03, 12 June 2008

I completely agree. Alternative rock does NOT bring to mind their style of music (to me). With their heavy distortion and Valo using a guttural low voice on Venus Doom, metal suits them far better.JohannHenrik (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks JohannHenrik. Cacodyl (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two people who randomly comment on this subject to not change the concensus of months of discussion prior, sorry. — Moe ε 11:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moe, where are these "months of discussion"? In this section at least they seem to be purely debating whether or not the genre is "Love Metal". It is obviously not, as that genre does not exist. No one seems to be discussing whether or not it's a sub-genre of metal, which seems fair enough. Cacodyl (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look at the top of this talk page, the links to the archives for the old discussions, thats where the same old tired debate on the genre that has been discussed countless times over and over again. It was decided to keep it at alternative rock, thus the warning in the middle of the genre box to not change it without consensus, which you kindly ignored. If you want to restart this conversation, again, you may want to alert WikiProject HIM's members. In addition, basing your change on a proposed change that was, albeit unrelated to this original thread, was actually proposed by yourself and supported only by a new account to Wikipedia with no history, is not consensus. Most of the members are probably not aware of the change, I suggest you let all of them take part in this discussion. — Moe ε 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell... his infernal majesty, meaning satan. they probably should have gotten thier story straight, its full of holes. About the whole pentagram thing, a pentagram is the pagan cross, it is a satanistic religion... At first i too thought it may just be a christian band but the name, just abit fishy if you ask me and then I htought I'd look up the lyrics, nothing Godly there!! The song I heard was about a bittersweet spell... again, just a little bit fishy. I can say that i have looked up info on the band itself and have seen, heard and found things thats i dont think any human being should be assotiated with. If your gut tells you something is wrong, it robably is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.97.10 (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right, and if you play it in reverse you'll hear satan's voice and it will install windows 95 on your pc. Song lyrics are like Rorschach test - you see what you want to see. If you see satanism than perhaps you have a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.202.102 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alternative rock????[edit]

alternative rock??????????(like a placebo,radiohead,30stm)... To the ignorant people who put this genre: Do you even know what Alternative Rock is??? How can you label HIM as Alternative Rock??? The latest album might have some elements of it, but HIM is NOT an Alternative Rock band... They have Gothic Rock elements, Metal elements, Glam Rock elements and much more...they are love metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertrocker (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such musical genre as Love metal. That link goes to an article about the band's album. Until there is a genre article to link to and you have a reliable source to show that someone other than you believes HIM are a "love metal" band, you cannot add it here. And please lay off the personal attacks like calling other editors "ignorant"; that doesn't help anyone. Thanks, Gwernol 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

  • him(1991/2000) LOVE METAL
Sorry, love metal is not a real genre. Thanks, — Moe ε 13:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is post love metal? Zazaban (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


thought that we had all come to an aggermenty about this. realy. come on.Jason (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

genre[edit]

H.I.M. (His Infernal Majesty), is Love Metal. That is the genre they fall under. Many bands from the same part of the globe attempt to replicate their sound, yet none have truly mastered all aspects of the "Love Metal". Most, such as SaraLee, Poisonblack, and The 69 Eyes come close, yet stray from it either lyrically, or vocally; due to cheesiness and poor song writing ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.15.32 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason when I think of H.I.M. I think they should be called Melodic Death Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeellsonator (talk • contribs) 12:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an opinion level HIM aren't melodic death metal. They're not even death metal nor do they have any death metal characteristics. Melodic death metal's/death metal's most prominent features, are screaming vocals and traditional death growl which Dethklok are a perfect example. (Listen to any song on their MySpace and you'll see what I mean). If you compare Dethklok's sound to HIM's sound, the different genres between them are quite apparent. HIM never has featured screaming vocals or death growls therefore they're not melodic death metal or death metal. The article currently says HIM are alternative rock/gothic rock/gothic metal etc. with heavy metal/hard rock influences/characteristics (all of which are reliably sourced in the article and are all covering the majority media views of the band's sound which is what the article is supposed to do).
Realistically no respectable or reliable music source has ever regarded HIM as death metal (at least I haven't read any that said such as I'm fairly sure I would remember if a critic had that view) which includes references to the genre itself in HIM gigs or album reviews. Therefore it would be inappropriate to label them as such in this article as it would be impossible to verify that view with reliable sources. If a critic did label them melodic death metal, it would be considered a minority view and may not be worth mentioning in the article if it's the view of one person rather than a significant percentage of music sources. Ifyou have any reliable and respected music sources, please list them here to discuss as I'm fairly sure a lot of people would disagree with the label if added unsourced in the article. AngelOfSadness talk 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OMG, lol. How is HIM Gothic Rock?? hahahahahahahahahahahahaha............ I heard it all now. And this is supposed to be factually correct site??!! The term Gothic rock originates in punk rock and was a term that was started by a music critic who referred to the punk bands of this style looked like something from a "Gothic Horror" novel. I wasn't aware that HIM ever played at the bat cave. I can understand Melankoli / Melankolia which is the latest fad / term being used by fans that covers groups not of the punk rock originating 'gothic ("horror") rock' but dress and act similar. Melankoli is more emotional and artistic unlike Gothic (horror) which was supposed to be about vampires etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliably sourced by multiple reputable music publications so it stays. The opinions of Wikipedia editors mean nothing as far as genre is concerned unless reliable sources are provided to back their point up. AngelOfSadness talk 18:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give one reasonable souce which supports they are "gothic". Then look at the numerous sites explaining what gothic "horor" Rock is and how it formed from punk. Please by grown up and realistic about this. The only source that indicates what HIM are is from the singers opinion of it being "love Metal", This is not Gothic rock. It is not even what some people call gothic metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Allmusic.com states them as being Gothic Rock and Gothic Metal. Like I said it has nothing to do with what Wikipedia editors or even the artists themselves think, it is what reputatable music publications generally label a musical act is and seeing as allmusic.com is probably one of them best sites for categorigising band genres/styles, Gothic Rock is in the article. But allmusic.com are not the only reliable music publication refering to them as this as so do SoundofMetal.com where they refer to them as Gothic Metal, blender.com refer to them as "Gothic Finnish Metalheads" and also Goth Rock, as does popmatters.com, independant.co.uk and nytimes.com. So there are plenty reliable sources that refer to them as Goth Rock/Metal so clearly it is a general view of the band in the eyes of them media which is what the "genre" section of this article are supposed to cover. If you read HIM_(Finnish_band)#Genre you would know that it clearly states that Critics, incorrectly or not, frequently refer to them as alternative rock, gothic metal, or gothic rock. And so while Gothic Rock may be incorrect to some, it is correct to others which is why its mentioned in the article as it is a common style that the band are referenced to as being. Bands like The Sisters of Mercy and Siouxsie & the Banshees have influenced HIM so perhaps it is these influences in their music which music publications are referring to when the refer to HIM as Gothic Rock. Either way, Gothic Rock has to be mentioned as it is a style which they are said to be apart of, not be me or anyother Wikipedia editor, but by reliable and respectable music publications. Also, the frontman, Ville Valo, has never considered HIM as being a Gothic band (he's actually denied it on many occasions), hence why he states they're "Love Metal" but we can't even put "Love Metal" in the article as it's not a real genre. AngelOfSadness talk 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


HIM sings onlu metall...and he is such as gothic metal...and doom metal...nothing for alternativ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.121.37 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the genre field here, I see we’ve currently got “alternative rock, various others”. This seems a bit inadequate. It feels like it’s saying “Some editors, especially IP ones, kick up a stink because of their POV, so we’ll just sweep this under the carpet”. The genre issue really doesn’t need to be as difficult as people make out: you just look at what the sources say. HIM are termed a wide variety of things, but so are most popular bands. Let’s take a look at the sources:

  • HIM @ NME – Goth metal [1] and pop metal [2]
  • HIM @ allmusic – Alternative rock, goth metal, neo-glam, goth rock [3]
  • HIM @ metacritic – Alternative rock [4]
  • HIM @ popmatters – gothic rock [5]
  • HIM @ IGN – “quasi-goth hard rock”, metal [6]
  • HIM @ Musicmight – Alternative metal, neo-glam, doom metal, gothic rock, hard rock, melodic metal, dark rock [7]
  • HIM @ Metal Observer – Gothic metal [8], gothic rock [9]

So, a variety of terms, but not too much trouble. Counting “quasi-goth hard rock” as both goth rock and hard rock, we have 5 for gothic rock, 3 for gothic metal, 2 for neo-glam, 2 for hard rock, 2 for alternative rock, then one each for melodic metal, pop metal, alternative metal, doom metal and metal. There’s no need to include all the single source ones in the infobox, and obviously gothic rock and gothic metal are well-sourced enough to go in. Neo-glam has no article, so I don’t know what people want to do about that. And then we have hard rock and alternative rock with 2 sources each, so probably enough to include in the infobox I’d have thought. So, really, all these should be included in the "style" section, which I'll do shortly, and then the infobox should read "alternative rock, gothic metal, gothic rock, hard rock" or just "gothic metal, gothic rock". Yes, there will be countless reverts by the goth fans who will yell "They're not gothic!", but that sort of thing is what undo and page protection exist for.

Oh also: I’m aware that the NME biography link isn’t actually the profile of this HIM, but it does say “Not to be confused with the Finnish goth metal band HIM”.

Update: I've also added another reference for gothic metal, this time from Essi Berelian's "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal". We now have 5 for gothic rock and 4 for gothic metal, so I think it's fairly obvious those should go in the infobox, and then possibly alternative rock and hard rock too, since those have two sources each. Prophaniti (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It's all well and good to say that goth rock or metal needs to be put in the infobox. But that and number of reliable sources are not the problems that are preventing a change from happening. The problem here is consensus. The consensus from the last resonable genre discussion still currently stands (as old as it may be) and it was decided then to put "alternative rock" and "various others" in the infobox (check the archives for the countless discussions): a.) Alternative rock because it was an umbrella term to cover all of those genres you listed including "gothic rock" (Wikipedia infobox guidelines state to keep the genre as general as possible and putting "rock" in the infobox caused people problems hence why alternative rock was decided on) b.)Various others (with a link to the style section) because "Debated" (obviously which is very true to this discussion) isn't a genre. That consensus was retrieved through literally months (probably years) of discussion where the people who actually wrote the bulk of this article and the related articles participated in it greatly to come up with something that people were generally happy with. Listing all the genres is definately not keeping it general nor is it consensus to suddenly change it. So another consensus discussion will have to be done.
But yes I do see that there is a view of HIM in the media that see them as "gothic rock/metal" but I have to say it is not the two genres that could entirely sum the media's view of them. They're clearly not classic "gothic rock" (which I'm guessing is the goth fans you are referring to) like The Cure back in the 80's which is where this confusion starts between 80's "gothic rock" and "gothic rock" from today hence the edit wars (the whole "They're not gothic!" thing). So listing purely "gothic rock/metal" in the infobox may not be the way to go. There are more reverts for "gothic rock/metal" than there are for "alternative rock" and I have seen this by watching over this article and the talkpage for the last two years. But if we added "gothic metal" to the existing genres in the infobox and hopefully that could satisfy everyone as "gothic metal" would be more correct as it would satify the at least a bit more of the media's view of their sound (the whole gothic part of the music that's apparently there andas well as having "various others" and "alternative rock" ("gothic rock" is a sub genre of "alternative rock" hence why "alternative rock" is a suitable umbrella term in this instance). But even the addition of "gothic metal" could be pushing it but it would be better than listing nearly every genre in the style section. Having a limit on the number of genres in the infobox(like two or three) generally tends to have less undiscussed genre changes made to the page that a big list of genres in the infobox. (Hence why keeping it general is encouraged so much). But even three would be pushing it hence why various others is listed as a way to encourage the readers to read the comprehesive list of genres mentioned in the style section.
If there is a way to prevent loads of reverting and page protection its clearly best to go with that. If you logically think about it, the lower number of undiscussed changes to the page against talkpage consensus would mean less people disagree with it with the current content (kind of an unsaid consensus) so the less pointless edit wars that happen. As a note, page protection is only to be used in the case of severe edit wars, constant NPOV violations, constant BLP violations and constant vandalism. It's not a tool used to prevent genre changes now and again. But with that said, genre edit wars on this page have been so severe in the past that the page got protected for a week and several editors were blocked foe genre edit-warrring hence how the consensus of "Alternative rock" and "various others" was gotten. This is my reasoning as to why I'm reluctant to add Gothic rock to the page as so many people disagree with it and it best to prevent edit wars where possible. So hopefully we can come up with something reasonable (that would satisfy both consensus and Wikipedia guidelines) without having to protect the page as that really should be the very last resort. AngelOfSadness talk 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with consensus is it's purely editor opinion. Perfectly useful in certain circumstances (like this issue of the genres with 2 sources, do we include them? This isn't entirely clear, so editor discussion is useful), but it can only go so far. When the sources are clear, as they are on the band being gothic rock & gothic metal, that's what we go with. There could be 100 editors against it, but that wouldn't matter. If the sources say it, we report it. Wikipedia isn't censored, which means it doesn't change the content just to appease editors. Having "alternative rock" in there is misleading, because other genres are much better sourced. I suppose you could say source consensus outweighs editor consensus. Either the field should say "gothic metal, gothic rock" or it shouldn't be there at all, and that very issue was, I believe, raised recently but wasn't carried. Prophaniti (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually consensus isn't opinion but its when Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome. The "not when they personally like the outcome" is the non-opinion part that I'm getting at. But yes we should include the 2 sources anyway as it is a common media view of them. But see the whole point of consensus, in genre discussions like this, was to debate the actuall old/new sources (not opinions of the editors) and put something in the infobox that people (like the main editors of the page) wouldn't edit war over (People were edit warring hence why there was a consensus). Frankly it would have been better if the genre field in the music infoboxes had stayed deleted because having it meant people weren't wasting time debating what four, six or even eight words should say in the infobox when they could be using the time to contribute to the rest of the article in question. I mean if you've looked at the rest of the article (besides the genre related sections) you would see that there are citation/verification problems there stemming from over two years ago - those are the problems the editors should be dealing with not little quite insignificant details like what genres are in the infobox.
You can change the infobox if you want as you have the sources and all in order. I really don't care at this point (I actually never really had a preference in discussions over what the infobox should say to begin with) as even if a consensus is gotten someone is going to come along and change it so we're probably beating a dead horse at this stage discussing it. I only take part in these discussion as no one else really monitors this page anymore for questions etc. But really anyone who wants to add to the genre field/section can so as long as its reasonably sourced. But with that said I won't be reverting the "goth fans" that might revert your edit nor will I protect the page (I can't protect it anyway as I'm a long time contributor to the page) over any possible edit wars that could stem from the addition. But if anyone breaks the three revert rule, I'll step in there and only there. AngelOfSadness talk 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean with consensus, but sometimes editors will support something because they personally agree with it, not because they think it goes with wiki standards. In some particulars, there isn't any need for consensus, or consensus will be based around a handful of editors who are arguing for their personal preference over real guidelines.
I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here: just that sometimes acting against "consensus" is the correct thing to do, because the consensus will be old/based on misinterpretations of how things work. I've seen too many consensus' based upon opinion rather than sources to really have much faith in them.
In this particular case, maybe consensus was just based on lack of sources/old sources. As things stand, it's very clear that the sources agree the band should be termed "gothic metal" and "gothic rock". Alternative rock and hard rock also have reasonable sourcing (and neo-glam, but as this has no article I don't think there's much we can do about that), so in those cases I'd like to hear what others think: should they be added? As it is, I'll go ahead and make the infobox reflect the genre section of the article in this respect, and see what comes up here for the rest. Prophaniti (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but it appears that someone begs to differ already unfortunately. AngelOfSadness talk 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is based purely on their personal opinion and goes against wikipedia's core principle of sources. So it simply needs to be undone by any sensible editors who spot it. And if it persists, well that's what page protection is for, stopping (primarily) IP editors who don't understand/care how wikipedia works. Prophaniti (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly how these edit wars start and some IP's would keep up with it until the point everyone involved gets blocked for edit warring. But see there would have to be some major edit warring for it to get protected (like when there are multiple reverts within five minutes and that's really for major vandalism cases) especially if its over something like genre as they are a great a part of the lamest edit wars on Wikipedia. Admins know this so protection for these sort of things isn't easily given out that often. AngelOfSadness talk 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which simply means it's our job, as editors who know how wikipedia works, to protect it. Personally, I think the edit warring rule is enforced far too often in the wrong way: it's one thing to genuinely edit war. It's another thing entirely when a handful of IP users edit due to a lack of understanding of the rules, continue to do so, and leave sensible editors helpless because if they do anything about it they get blocked for "edit warring". In short, there's no real system in place for dealing with edits that -technically- aren't vandalism, but -are- outright ignoring wikipedia guidelines. This is where it is up to sensible editors to keep a page in good condition. I don't agree with censoring (i.e. dumbing down) an article or parts of an article just to keep those who don't understand wikipedia happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophaniti (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to stress I'm not going to let myself get dragged into such edit wars. I will not break the 3RR, even if a suitable way to deal with borderline-vandals does not present itself. Prophaniti (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But see edit warring is edit warring even if no one has broken 3RR (like if it's a few reverts over multiple days or if two or more editors are reverting each others edits across multiple pages). If there's a clear disagreement present the talkpage is there to discuss it and if the talkpage isn't used then the editors start to get blocked for edit warring as this is a point of view/content dispute not vandalism as said by Wikipedia:EDITWAR#What_is_edit_warring. But if one editor has made attempts to discuss it and the other parties ignores the attempts then its might be time for Request for comment or to get a third opinion but only if the dispute escalades greatly. If you looks at Wikipedia:VAND#NOT, you will see that NPOV violations (genre changing without sources/discussion is quite based on the editors POV as you know) and Stubbornness (particularly the part that states Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else...Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such) would sum up what happens in these sort of cases. So that's why it is best to be careful in these sort of situations as it depends really on the admin about who gets blocked and who doesn't as people interpret 3RR differently. But I was only mentioning 3RR/edit warring in the first place as as a precaution so that whoever reads this talkpage (especially the IP editors who are unwilling to discuss the matter here) would know about it before they drag themselves into something that escalades itself into something like that. AngelOfSadness talk 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in this case that it isn't vandalism, hence why I use the term "semi-vandalism". It's not vandalism, but it is a disregard for wikipedia's rules/guidelines. In this particular case, I made my case here in full, and have asked the IP user to discuss it rather than revert. They have ignored this. I have discussed it with them on their talk page, but this has again gone nowhere, as the editor ignores my links to guidelines and insists that his/her viewpoint is just as valid as any number of sources.
So, in this case, it's more of a tendentious editor, one who refuses to acknowledge wikipedia's guidelines. As such, I will attempt setting it right once more (unless discussion is made here), making it very clear that if it is again reverted with no attempt at discussion, then the user will likely be reported to the admin's noticeboard (as this is an open-and-shut case, let's face it), and if that goes no where it'll be taken to request for comment/third opinion. The reason I go with the admin board first is it appears this user will ignore any number of other editors telling him he's in the wrong. Prophaniti (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now they is a tendentious editor that's true but they could be like a lot of the genre changing IP editors that edit for a few hours/days and forget about this article for a few months. So if that is the case don't file the noticeboard report just yet and wait to see if they at least reply to your last message or edit another article. The genre changes were their first three edits so taking them to the admin's noticeboard so soon might be a little harsh but obvously not if they carry it on further here and/or to more articles. If they don't edit there would be a need to process further in it. For now it's that stupid waiting game unfortunately :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, one of wikipedia's flaws is the lack of system to deal with editors that aren't committing vandalism, but are staunchly ignoring the rules/guidelines in place. Of course partly it comes back to the problem of unregistered users, but that's another issue really. Anyway, for now I will revert once more, and see what happens. Prophaniti (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make me sick with your rules. It's only a music genre! But behind the music genre there is a subculture! HIM isn't Goth. And fans of this Heavy Rock band aren't Goths! --87.122.35.158 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rules may make you sick, but one editor not liking them isn't a good reason to ignore them. If you don't like how wikipedia works, then I'm afraid the solution is simple: don't edit wikipedia. You may argue that HIM aren't gothic rock/metal, but the sources say they are, and that's what we report. Otherwise we get nowhere, because we just end up with masses of arguing back and forth about these matters, full of "This band is heavy metal!", "No they're not!" "Yes they are!". This is the only way to realistically deal with all of it: not to actually try to report the "truth", but simple to report what the sources say. Prophaniti (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say Love Metal. So you should add it to the infobox. Remember: Wikipedia doesn't try to report the truth, but simple what sources say. The truth is: there is no Love Metal genre. But who cares? You only need a handful of shitty sources... --87.122.35.158 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, it's usually just the band and their fans that use the term "love metal": I've not actually seen it used as a genre classification by any genuinely reliable sources. Secondly, even if it were, we don't include genres in the infobox that don't qualify for articles (i.e. that lack a number of good sources discussing their characteristics, history, etc in detail). Instead, things like that would be included in the "genre" or "styles" section of an article, which is precisely what is done here already. The same goes for lesser-sourced genres which would only clutter the infobox. Prophaniti (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also sources that refer to them as Love Metal are essentially only backing the idea of the band calling themselves that just because of interviewers continued to ask what is style of music that HIM play - they said it basically to confuse the media and so they did as no one knows what Love Metal actually is in terms of genre. There is no set definition of what Love Metal is and no other band is referred to as being Love Metal. And then have any sources said what Love Metal is in their referance - the answer is probably not. Hence why its not used because really it's not a real genre to begin with that has no set characteristics or beginnings in comparision to Gothic Rock/Metal/Hard Rock etc. If someone has never heard of this band before and decide to look up this page for information, how helpful is it really to have Love Metal written in the infobox and then having to go searching Google for an answer and find nothing? Adding it just causes more confusion as there is no information on it other than HIM are referred to as being Love Metal. I mean its not like the band have ever given out a clear cut definition of it themselves other than listen to their album "Love Metal". That in itself isn't helpful hence why real genres are used as they are easy to source and give a hell of a better description of what the band are like. AngelOfSadness talk 11:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melancholy Metal[edit]

http://www.thescene.com.au/Music/Features/HIM-interview/

"Eve Roberts recently took a soul-searching journey with Finland’s masters of melancholy metal – HIM. The band toured Australia and New Zealand in late March - their last stops on a worldwide tour that followed the release of their latest album, Venus Doom".

Him are definetely not Gothic "horror" rock. They aren't even punk orientated. Dress sense doesn't define a musical genre. This is rubbish.

Groups like HIM and also Evanescence are Melancholy Metal / Rock. Part of the dark romantic "Melancholy / Melankoli / Melankolia" scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Melancholy Metal" isn't really a well known genre which is not what the whole "Genre" section is for. The whole point of the genre section is to mention the many genres and styles which the band is said to be apart of in the general view of music and media publications. As it isn't a well known genre, mentioning it won't be much use to the reader who would read the "genre" section to get an idea of what the band sounds like and they get the idea through general views mentioned. But if they don't know what a genre is and there isn't any known set explaination of that genre out there, then its pointless mentioning it. It would be like simply saying "Love Metal" but there is no set explaination of what that is hence why real and well known genres are mentioned along with it. It's not much different to when a music reviewer from Planet Sound refered to a gig by British band Muse as being "Goth discospaghettiwesternmetalpopopera" but that doesn't make it a genre because one person refers to them as it. (Just see the Google result for it which is two google hits both of which refer to the review itself on fanmessage boards). But I can't find any more reliable sources, except the one you posted, that refer to them as this. AngelOfSadness talk 19:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. However, listing the band as alternative rock doesn't really give a user a sense for what the band is like either, as they don't sound anything like popular bands under the heading alternative rock... 124.189.210.46 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative rock is just an umbrella term used to decribe the band's music. Really only rock should be in the infobox in order to keep it as general as possible, as per Wikipedia guidelines, but for some people that's a problem because HIM aren't referred to as general rock in the media but an offset of it hence the alternative adding. And this is with music publications like allmusic.com, metacritic.com, tourdates.com, releasemagazine.net (scroll down to see feature on HIM), and chicagogigs.com refer to the as "Alternative hard rock". So it really is yet another general view of the band HIM.
But really alternative rock tends to cover everyone from R.E.M., Radiohead, Franz Ferdinand to bands like AFI, 30 Seconds to Mars, Depeche Mode, The Distillers, Sisters of Mercy (a major HIM influence), My Chemical Romance, Evanescence and even fellow Finns The Rasmus. So to say HIM doesn't sounds like any of the second lot of bands mentioned isn't exactly true considering the amount of comparision that goes on betweem HIM and bands like Evanescence in the media (in album and gig reviews or even general features about the band). Alternative Rock can be described as rock with an alternative edge if put very simply hence why it is an umbrella term and why it can cover all of these bands' genres including HIM. But don't forget there is the link below alternative rock which lists all of the other genres further down the article so if the reader is truly interested in finding out the bands genre, I'm sure they would click on the link. AngelOfSadness talk 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sisters of Mercy and Evanescence are most often classified in the Goth genre and though may be branched by some in the broader alt rock, they are never listed as being major bands in the alt rock movement, or have that as their main classification. Most of the bands in the second list of classifications aren't generally termed as alt rock either. Usually the only time they are is when more conservative coverage uses the term, as they don't like to get as specific as pop punk, street punk, or post-hardcore and emo. 124.189.210.46 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they are still refered to as Alternative Rock as is HIM. If you've noticed Gothic Rock is a subgenre of Alternative Rock but people have problems with saying Gothic Rock in the HIM infobox (many previous discussions on this talkpage and archives will tell you that) hence why Alternative Rock is listed, per consensus, as its an umbrella term and also many many music publications describe HIM as such. Previous consensus was to have it as Alternative Rock and a link (various others) to the genre section and so that isn't changing without another discussion to gain a newer consensus but that could take a few months to get considering there aren't the number of editors to these pages as there once was. AngelOfSadness talk 18:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
him? Gothic rock? Are you people baked? You can call eminem Goth until you're blue in the face but that doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter what source you think you have. It doesn't change the fact that him is in no way related to Gothic anything. What? Because he worked with Sean Brennan? LAM hasn't been Goth since 1998. Stop trying to associate us with this band. No thank you! Not us! You metallers can keep "him". And Goth is not a subgenre of anything. Alternative is just a word that was used in the 80s to explain that someone was into the kind of music that wasn't on the radio. Like pop or metal or hiphop. Cheers! Very Old School Goth (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry to break your pretentious bubble, but a big number of metalheads don't want him either. Love Metal is a joke, a genre that doesn't exist created in the minds of HIM fans alone. Seriously, we need to finally settle what to do with HIM, The 69 Eyes, Spiha and similar bands which almost have dark-enough themes, almost have hard guitars, but yet only use their lyrics in a chick magnet kind of way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.90.175 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

Actually, listing the three most sourced genres (which are in this case, gothic rock, gothic metal and alternative rock) could have been a good solution for all this dispute. Nevertheless, some people approached this problem in a more subjective way, I guess. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, where are the Goth elements? Wear some black clothes and you are a Goth musician? Seriously, HIM was never a Goth rock band. All the band members have got a Metal background. A style definition has nothing to do with POV. Every music style has its own characteristics. And HIM isn't Goth at all. They don't even fit into the Goth metal genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.3.58 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is about POV and is original research; based on your perception of the band's style. The biggest problem for this article (in terms of genre) are the fanbase constantly flooding in and boycotting every single well-sourced genre that is not "love metal", (e.g. alternative or goth, no matter they're actually sourced or not). I changed my mind now, better to keep it solely as rock. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New generation article: Rewritten version c. 2017[edit]

Ever since the article became a real B-Class article, it is clear that the article is mostly maintained by SilverBullitt. He completely redid the article from scratch. There is now an overwhelmingly large number of sources tying HIM to gothic subgenres. It was decided we would use those for the article's infobox, as genre wars with fans are now far less common. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HIM (Finnish band)[edit]

I've found some evidence on a website that confirms that HIM is infact a metal band! Here it is, http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/groupe-groupe-HIM-l-en.html Note: That I've also fix the genre on the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.R.G.G Spinster (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Needed[edit]

Someone who knows more than me about the band needs to go through the article cleaning up grammar and adding references for some of the claims made. --Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tours[edit]

Can someone removed the tours section because it is out of date and has dates of upcoming shows from 2007, it is now 2008, feel free to make a new section for 2008 tours and gigs. Will sign when I can log in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.166.128 (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took out all of the out of date info and put the rest in the past tense. Cheers for bringing it up as it probably would have been left like that 'til the summer. ;) AngelOfSadness talk 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, You may also want to add the fact they did quite a big tour with Black Sabbath too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.190.137 (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I've put this article under semi-protection due to vandalism in the genre option. It seems that some guy, keeps on removing the genre paragraph and replaces the genre without even talking here first... Iaberis 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woot that means that this article actually kinda matters and people give a shit :D. A good step towards the HIM wiki editors goal....HIM_(band) FA status! :p --Diaboli 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's been semi-protected as an IP user has just edited it? AngelOfSadness talk 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the DumBot unremoved it... I'll ask for a permanent semi-protection... Iaberis 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot removed it because the page wasn't protected by an admin. Simply adding a protection tag doesn't protect the page itself from edits by IP addresses. One IP vandalising a day isn't something we can't handle without page protection. Now if it got to the point where there was vandalism edits every five minutes then would be the time to request page protection. AngelOfSadness talk 13:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

Ok, Maybe I'm just bringing up old points here, but I couldn't find anything about them in the archives and I've got questions I need answered. First, The statement that they aren't a satanic band. I was willing to accept this at first, but the constant 666 theme is really iffy to me. Also, the fact that their name was His Infernal Majesty also brings up a lot of questions. Can anyone explain their name and theme? If they really aren't satanic or straight goth, give me some proof. Also, This part of the article just seems ridiculous: "Their first bandname was His Infernal Majesty (chosen spontaneously, as a complete joke). But as their popularity rose, they needed to change their name because: 

   * Finnish people were having difficulties pronouncing the name
   * The band name was never actually serious
   * The band started getting unwanted occult associations and people started to think of the band as satanic when it is not."

Not only does this seem completely POV, but is there any proof that their first name was a joke? I can understand the occult associations part, if they're not satanic, but Finnish people were having trouble pronouncing it? That just seems stupid. Any answers for me? 70.171.209.15 03:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just listen to their music and you will understand that their not satanic.The Illusional Ministry 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I said I could understand that they weren't satanic, but whats with all the 666 stuff? And the name thing? And why is one of their main logos a "heartagram", like a pentagram?70.171.209.15 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to answer a few questions, First of all Ville has said in several interviews that the name is not satanic blah blah etc. All that info has been taken from interviews. So since it has been taken from interviews it is not POV. I don't know where you got that first quote about "Chosen spontaneously" since Ville has stated that the origin was from the same book that Whoever guy in Sabbath got the name "Black Sabbath" and since HIM was originally a Sabbath cover band they got a name from the same book, and ENGLISH book which they at first didn't understand the connotations of the name. All that matters to me (and should be for others) is that Ville has said the band is not satanic thus they aren't and like Illusional Ministry mentioned above me, you can listen to the music and tell it is not Satanic, I mean god this ain't black metal. Also about the whole "Heartagram looks like a Pentagram." fucking shit I thought that was in the article? About how its a heart and a pentagram combined together to be kinda like a yin and yang about love and death etc. Yet again interviews with ville. SO LONG STORY SHORT THE ARTICLE IS FINE. --NekoD 08:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


i have to pull out of there gothic rock its a shame to be called gothic Rock they have nothing to do with it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.140.246 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what Gothic Rock is? Have a listen on The 69 Eyes and The Sisters of Mercy and come back to discuss the gothic rock elements in HIM... Iaberis 18:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Him & Her[edit]

Him & Her redirects to here, but the article has no mention of it anywhere that they might have been previously named Him & Her. Also, on the MTV2 Headbangers Ball, Vol. 2, the song Your Sweet Six Six Six is published under the name Him & Her. Anyone know any information on this? § Eloc § 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see HIM_(band)#Name_confusion, which touches on the subject briefly. — Moe ε 05:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1991 / 1992 / 1995 / 666 ?[edit]

Noticed someone changing "formed in" date to 1992 from 1991, so I took a look. Err, the reference sites say 1995. Published discography says 1995. Only reference to an earlier date is about "an undistributed demo tape whose only copy is ..." - sheesh! Why does it say anything other than 1995? Which references says that? Shenme (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in a few interviews, over the years, Ville said that he, Mige and Linde formed a band when they were fourteen/fifteen (around 1991/1992)("Witches and Other Night Fears" demo tape was made in 1992), then the guys minus Ville (due to his asthma) worked in army forces of some sort for a few years(correct me there if I'm wrong), then the guys reformed when they were around eighteen (around 1995) as HIM, made a second demo called "This Is Only the Beginning", which was released in 1995(The first proper release by the band so I'm guessing that explains with what the published discography says) and released first EP 1996 etc. I'm not sure if they were called HIM back in 1991/1992 when the first started out or they might have gone by another name and then changed it or if they should be treated as two different bands. But I'm guessing that's where all of the confusion lies regarding the band's beginnings. Now it's just trying to make any sense of all of this, separate fact from fiction and trying to find reliable sources to back it all up. :) AngelOfSadness talk 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it is well known that the band made a demo in 1992 (Witches and Other Night Fears), saying it is 1995 when they formed is incorrect, no matter what references refer to 1995 (as a matter of fact, those references that also say 1995 also recognize the 1992 recording anyways, so those refs saying 1995 need to get their fact straight :P). A Google search for HIM in 1991 will provide hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. As for 1992, I'm not so sure. I never heard the band ever being formed that year, but that is the year its first recording is noted. Most references either say 1991 or 1995, with 1995 being the completely without knowledge of Witches and Other Night Fears. — Moe ε 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I even found a reference stating they were founded in 1996. But I did, however, find an english excerpt from Synnin Viemää (I'm fairly sure it was an offcial finnish biography on Ville/the band published a few years back), were it says the band were formed in 1991(You have to scroll down halfway to the paragraph below the header "HIM, HIS INFERNAL MAJESTY". Well at least that's something for now :) AngelOfSadness talk 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move both HIM and HiM band articles[edit]

Currently there is only a subtle capitalization to disambiguate HiM (band) from HIM (band). The idea in this proposal it to make it more explicit by moving:

Thoughts/discussions? +mt 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fair to do as it not only would meet what's said in WP:Naming conventions but it would also be easier to distingush the two bands from each other which can be hard for anyone who doesn't know much about either band. AngelOfSadness talk 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
moved Straight Edge PXK 23:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I'm just wondering if there is consensus as to the pronunciation of the band's name - is it 'H-I-M' or 'him'? I can't find a reference online after a Google search, but if anyone has one I think it should be added to the article. --Aseld talk 10:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There never really needed to be a consensus given that the band themselves call "him" by pronunciation (written in all caps as HIM not separated by periods like R.E.M). People only spell the band name out as H.I.M. in written mediums because of the whole "His Infernal Majesty" thing back in the nineties as to what HIM stood for and, I'm guessing, the use of capitals in the name suggested it spelled out something. And as a joke apparently the band said it stood for His Infernal Majesty (keeping in with the link to Satan an such) in interviews to deal with that particuarly repetitive "annoying/stupid question" that plagued them in their early interviews . But no one, in my knowledge, has ever spelled out the name HIM when referring to them in non-written mediums (like on radio or television) so it's not really a thing that has come up before probably because the band's name isn't H.I.M. to begin with hence why each letter isn't said in the pronunciation unlike R.E.M. AngelOfSadness talk 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you (I'd never heard of the band prior to reading the article, and approaches to periods in initialisms vary). --Aseld talk 08:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screamworks Needs A Seperate Page[edit]

I would do this by myself, but I don't know how. Someone needs to create a separate page for Screamworks: Love In Theory & Practice, their album coming out in 2010. Because it's an album, it needs a separate page solely for the album, detailing everything people need to know about this album. Like I said, I would do it, but I don't know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corleonelives (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Rare Trax Vol.1[edit]

I know this is a bootleg but there's a lot of fans who actually own a copy (gutted?), so I was thinking of adding this either to the main page or as a Bootleg page, because this isn't the only one. What are other people's views? Or should it just be ignored completely and let more unsuspecting fans buy more of something that is not genuine? - '''Beautiful so ur''' (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit] Perhaps it would be a good idea to add the Witches and Other Night Fears Demo to this section-to-be? And maybe the This Is Only The Beginning Demo as well? And any others that perhaps don't absolutely need a page of their own and only some info and the track listing if available? - '''Beautiful so ur''' (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werchter Festival Bootleg[edit]

To whoever deleted the "Werchter Festival Bootleg" page and had it redirected to the 'HIM Discography' page: the Werchter Festival Bootleg is not a bootleg, it is an official release by the band/Universal records. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a very late reply, but please read the edit summary accompanying that edit. It being an official release has nothing to do with why it was redirected - it was not proven to be notable as no reliable, significant third-party coverage had been found. Just because a band releases something doesn't make that release notable enough for an article here on Wikipedia. In fact, there are notable bootlegs that receive their own WP articles (the most notorious example has to be Dawn of the Black Hearts, although that's currently debatable since it's had a questionable-notability tag for about a year now). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of All Song Pages[edit]

Why have all the pages for the bands singles been deleted? I've scanned several other band pages here on Wikipedia and none of them seem to have had all the pages about a particular song/single, completely removed.

--St.HocusPocus (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, they were not deleted, they were redirected to their respective album pages. Second, not all of them were (those with verified high chart positions were retained). For those that were, this was done because the singles themselves were not demonstrated to be notable & worthy of their own articles. Some of them also had particular problems with crufty & unverified information. To address your second sentence, that's likely just because no one's gotten to it or decided what to do with yet, so its existence doesn't automatically justify that of other such pages on Wikipedia. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HIM (Finnish band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on HIM (Finnish band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: Yahoo gives a 301 on the Wayback link. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 04:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes[edit]

Is there a Wikipedia policy which limits the sizes on these images? These look so much larger than any other image I've seen on a band article. They're ginormous. They should be adjusted nevertheless, but I don't know the specific limits. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HIM (Finnish band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HIM (Finnish band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HIM (Finnish band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this; it may take me a couple of days to complete the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • Why is it worth mentioning that their music appeared in various TV shows? Surely this is trivia that is true of any successful band? And the same goes for the mention of the heartagram, unless there's more that can be said than simply "it appeared on the show".
  • There are three sound samples in the article; that's a lot, given that they are copyrighted. Are they really all necessary for the reader's understanding?
  • After a few years of inactivity: "a few" usually means more than two; the gap here is from 1993 to no later than 1996, and it sounds like it was probably 1995. Can we get the year they were signed or the year they recorded the four-track demo?
  • Soon thereafter, Mige rejoined the newly reformed His Infernal Majesty, as did drummer Juhana "Pätkä" Rantala. You don't need to say "rejoined the newly reformed..."; we know that. Just say "Mige rejoined the band". Rantala didn't "rejoin" it, did he? He hasn't been mentioned before, so I assume he's a new addition.
  • Some of the details could be cut -- do we need to know that the first album reached 56 in the German charts? Or that "Join Me in Death" reached number eight in Switzerland? Even if we did, this could be left to the articles about the individual albums and songs. Similarly, I don't think you have to tell the reader every time a music video accompanies a track -- remember that there are subsidiary articles that will give the additional details.
  • This resulted in HIM nearly breaking-up, until things settled down, and the band began rehearsing for another album: "until things settled down" is vague. Did things calm down because they stopped touring, which relieved the stress?
  • This may be just a personal opinion, but I don't think the Metacritic scores are very useful to a reader, and they shouldn't be the first thing you say about an album. They summarize the reviews, but if you're writing the article you should be doing the summarizing.
  • The reviews for Dark Light are described as "mostly positive" but then only one of the three quotes is positive.
  • There are quite a few duplicate links which should be removed; see MOS:DUPLINK, and I recommend installing the script mentioned there.
  • The list of the band's fans, and those who have a heartagram tattoo, seems like trivia to me; I'd suggest removing it.
  • I haven't looked in detail at the sources yet, but I see at least a couple of YouTube sources. YouTube is not banned as a source, but can you tell me why you think these are reliable? (I'm not counting the music videos, of course.)

-- That's it for a first pass; I'll look at the sources after this pass. The article has a lot of good information and the structure seems reasonable; my main concern is that there is too much detail, which gets in the way of the reader. A reader unfamiliar with the band doesn't need chart positions, exact dates, and names of journalists who made comments; those can be put in subarticles or footnotes. There's some good narrative material here, but it is rather buried by the details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK Mike Christie, I fixed most of the stuff you brought up, hopefully it looks better now! As for the YouTube sources, most of them are interviews with the bandmembers, so you really can't get more reliable than that, seeing the band themselves giving the information. If there's more stuff that needs work on, let me know.--SilverBullitt (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look but don't have time to go through in detail; it looks much improved. I should have more time this evening or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second pass

Nothing in the list below is necessary for GA; these are just comments and suggestions.

  • I think the fair-use rationales for the remaining two sound samples could be strengthened. There should be some reason why we need to listen to these particular samples. The first one is described by Valo as featuring many of the band's key musical elements, and that's probably a good rationale. The second one is more or less "here's a well-known song by HIM", and that's not very strong. I think this would likely be questioned at FAC, for example.
  • You really don't need the "main articles" subheads under the sections on the albums. Those are intended for situations where there's a sub-article but you don't have a clear link to it: e.g. History of France has a "main" France in the Middle Ages in the section "State building into the Kingdom of France (987-1453)", because there's nowhere else that's a natural link. Here you have links to the albums so you don't need a "main".
  • I eliminated a bunch of duplicate links, but looking through I think I screwed up in at least a couple of cases and eliminated the first instance of the link, when I should have left the first instance. I'll revert the ones I spot, but please fix any you see; sorry about that.
  • Please add the "lang" parameter to the appropriate citations indicate the language of any non-English sources.
  • Anything linked in the article doesn't need to be in the "See also" section; that means "Helldone" at least can go.

So far this passes everything except criterion 2b: reliable sources. I will take a look at the sources next; just wanted to post the notes above to let you know everything looks good so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Many of the sources are in Finnish, and I can't evaluate their reliability; I'll take those mostly on faith. I've listed below the sources I've looked and am unsure about; can you explain what makes these reliable sources? I'm not saying they don't qualify, just that I need to see a reason why they're reliable.

  • Blabbermouth.net
  • Soundi
  • viihdeuutinen.net
  • metalinjection.net
  • kaaoszine.fi
  • singleeurope.com
  • musicomh.com
  • melodic.net

Once we've addressed these, I can pass the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit more; added the lang parameters, removed the subheads, etc. As for the sources, Blabbermouth is arguably the biggest source of rock and metal news, and is the place where most people get their information, plus they often include links to sources (interviews etc.), so for me at least, it's valid. Soundi is the biggest music publication in Finland, while Kaaoszine is pretty much the Finnish equivalent for Blabbermouth, and equally legit, having done several high profile interviews, including HIM. MusicOMH fall in the same category, being a real publication, with interviews etc. Singleeurope.com I know little about, but the link is actually for an article originally published by IFPI, found on the singleeurope site. Viihdeuutinen.net and melodic.net I removed, and metalinjection.net I switched out with a better link. Hope that clears everything up Mike!--SilverBullitt (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most of the list above. Looks like you still have one use of melodic.net left; can that be eliminated? For the singleeurope.com link, here is an archive.org link to the IFPI page, so you should be able to get rid of that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Mike, the final links have been dealt with. --SilverBullitt (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Passing; congratulations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"HIM (Finnish band" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect HIM (Finnish band has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8 § HIM (Finnish band until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIM_(Finnish_band)&oldid=1217809899"