Jump to content

Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Emo and Pop rock?

they are so emo!!!!!well only the look but they are definatlny not pop! they even said themselves that they are emo but sing pop rock soo you ppl got it all wrong (some of you ppl)

...Yup, looks like a reliable source to me... --King Öomie 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

Is there really any truth to this, the band really is more alternative then pop. As for emo thats kind of a stretch they don't really meet a lot of the categories, lyrically or even just image wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.84.144 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) They are really an Alternative Rock band, but they are only considered emos for their looks. Their songs have no emo genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avilezj (talk •

No emo genre... at all? I disagree. The vocals in their song have some extremely emo qualities. Listen to the chorus in "From Yesterday" and you will hear what I'm talking about. That wailing.. *Shudders in disgust*
Since when does one's singing can be a caracteristic of being an emo band? Do you even know what emo is?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.209.8 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

contribs) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow they certainly AREN'T emo... please take it off someone... Tanner9461 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They definitely aren't emo. Taken off. Aobaru (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps writing emo again and again??? WTF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.209.8 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
It's taken care of, again. If someone wants to reference negative things about 30stm, including concerning their genre, they should make their own website stating it, or at least go find a ranting site, dumb#$^QW^s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.179.116 (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should all first read WP:Reliable Sources first. The genre "emo" is referenced by three reliable citations. For this reason, the genre stays. It does not matter what genre some random editor thinks the band belongs to, the only thing that matters is what professional music critics/journalists describe them as. Got it? Nouse4aname (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You obviously DONT get it. So you've found reporters (key word being REPORTERS) who work for reliable music advertising companies like Kerrang! and others that simply LABEL 30stm as emo, I'll give you that. But you are forgetting that they are just random reporters! What I would like to know from you is what do you think 30stm's first album is classified as??? Which roots of rock does the music from that album come from??? I assure you, it is absolutely not emo. If you actually listen to the entire album, it is nowhere near emo.65.27.179.116 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it is you that doesn't "get it". It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks, unless they are a journalist/critic writing for a reliable published source. Just think what would happen if we allowed everyone to post their opinions? The genres would be changed every 30 seconds (ha, get it?!)... Anyway, enough of the bad puns. If a reliable source labels a band a particular genre, then we can report it. Wikipedia is not meant to be a definitive source on genres. It is an encyclopedia, and so simply reports any and all genres that bands have been labeled as, so long as they are correctly sourced. Get it? Nouse4aname (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between reality and marketing tactics. Emo was selling when ABL came out, so of course the label, or people affiliated, will claim they're emo. But listen to true emo music and then listen to this band's albums : nothing - in - common - at - all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.156.177 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Marketing isnt real?!! Professional music journalists know what they are talking about its their job not yours. --neon white talk 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Who here thinks that 30STM is pop punk? Well, emo and pop punk are basically the same thing. The "Emo" article on here says, "Emo is a genre of music ... that later adopted pop punk influences when it became mainstream in the United States". Bands like Boys Like Girls, Paramore, Fall Out Boy, etc. are considered "emo", and they're all pop punk. I again will raise the question, is 30STM pop punk? Aobaru (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC) 30stm is emo Seth4000 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Seth4000

30stm have gone through different stages considering their looks for each album - their first album they went for a hardcore/old school space theme, and with a Beautiful Lie they went for more passionate/life related theme, which they then turned their looks slightly to the emo side. But lately, in the last year or so, if you look at them, they are far from that now. Jared has long brown hair, Shannon's is normal short, and Tomo's is short and he has a beard. We will just have to wait until the new album comes out to decide what the new theme is, and the looks they go for. --Dem467 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Progressive rock debate yet again

(I am copying-and-pasting the discussion from the progressive rock entry and moving it to this discussion page, where it rightfully belongs.)

The genre of progressive rock listed on 30 Seconds to Mars's wikepedia page

In the wiki page for the band 30 seconds to mars the genre "progressive rock" is listed. I have tried to remove it many times and have given reasons is the discussion page on how it does not fit, but one user is determined that it does and refuses to change it. I would appreciate it if I could get backup on my arguement and have other users to give him convincing proof that he is wrong. Zanders5k 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, Zanders5k, is a list of reasons why 30 Seconds to Mars is a progressive rock band, as defined by Wikipedia's definition. Please keep in mind that the only definition that matters in regards to this issue is Wikipedia's -- your opinion on what a progressive rock band is does not matter, and neither does mine.
  1. You previously asked for a place in which the band classifies themself as a progressive rock act. Well, their official biography states the following: ""In addition to being more lyrically direct, A Beautiful Lie has undergone a musical transformation as well. Progressive, multi-tracked passages have been replaced by leaner and far more impacting constructs and some of the eclecticism has been focused in order to compliment the honesty of the songwriting." I don't know how it can get more definitive than that in regards to how the band views their sound.
  2. You have claimed the band doesn't use different time signatures. This couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, their (arguably) most popular song -- "The Kill" -- is in a 6/8 time signature. Can you please define for me how the band doesn't use different time signatures? Because for someone who absolutely insists that they don't use different time signatures, you sure don't provide much credence to your claims. The band really doesn't use "repetitive riffs", either, as the article states.
  3. As far as the "form" section of progressive rock goes, you seem to be outright ignoring the second part of the following sentences: "Progressive rock songs either avoid common popular music song structures of verse-chorus-bridge, or blur the formal distinctions by extending sections or inserting musical interludes. Contrasts are often made between these sections in terms of dynamics, such that soft passages would build to louder passages and so on." The band constantly changes dynamics. Want a soft passage that goes into a loud passage? How about "Year Zero"? How about "93 Million Miles"? How about "Fallen"?
  4. Instrumentation in progressive rock is perfectly fit with 30 Seconds to Mars. Synthesizers? Keyboards? All there. It's a pretty dominant part of their music, in fact, such as the introduction to the song "Attack." Most of the songs on A Beautiful Lie feature large use of synthesizers and keyboards; most songs open to such instruments.
  5. In terms of harmony, the band uses "dissonant harmonies", as stated by the article. Listen to the song "Echelon", and you will clearly hear this distinct sound. Their guitars also use distorted harmonies in many songs as well. I don't know how this point could even be argued.
  6. Melody is also clearly of progressive nature with 30 Seconds to Mars, as leitmotif ("recurring musical theme, associated within a particular piece of music with a particular person, place, or idea") is emphasized in the entire debut album from the band.
  7. The band's debut album was also a conceptual album -- an underlying feature of many progressive acts. Many of the band's songs also have lyrics that "are sometimes conceptual, abstract, or based in fantasy," as stated by the progressive rock article. Almost all the songs on the self-titled album fits this definition, as do some of the songs on A Beautiful Lie (such as "From Yesterday" and the ironically-named "The Fantasy"; "R-Evolve" also incorporates abstract lyrics).
  8. "Ambient soundscapes" are also a large part of 30 Seconds to Mars's music; I again refer you to "Echelon", as well as songs such as "Welcome to the Universe", "93 Million Miles" and "Fallen." The Wikipedia entry clearly mentions this in association with the abstract and conceptual element of progressive rock songs.
  9. Album art and packaging also fits with Wikipedia's description of progressive rock. The band's "look" on the first album rotated around science fiction and space, as was apparent in the band's stage outfits, the boy in a jumpsuit (the same kind of white jumpsuit the entire band wore during tours) on the band's self-titled album, and the logo to promote the debut album (and the "glyphics" associated with it) further added to the "look" and art direction that the band took.
  10. As for "stage theatrics", as stated by the progressive rock article, as I have already stated, the band wore space-themed jumpsuits in support of their first album.
Listen, I'm really not sure what you're expecting from them to fit your high-and-mighty definition of "progressive rock", but clearly they fit Wikipedia's definition, which is all that matters. You keep saying there are numerous other users changing it, but they are all anonymous users, which leads me to question whether they're valid users at all. Furthermore, it's not only me who revert it back after you remove the genre from the list -- so please don't act as if it's only me.
Please stop removing the genre after we've been over it numerous times and you have yet to describe how it doesn't fit the genre, you simply keep on insisting that I'm wrong. We've been over these points before, too, which makes it even more silly as to why you insist on removing it.
I would also appreciate if you keep this debate on the 30 Seconds to Mars page, where it rightfully belongs. Thank you.
Enfestid 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you actually have a source which shows they're progressive rock? Other than that vague line in their biography? That list you've just posted is entirely wp:or. While we're on the subject of genres, alt. rock and alt. metal need to be sourced too - although they're clearly not alternative (they make mainstream music, for f*ck's sake), I don't really care what's in this article as long as it's well sourced. Funeral 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware that it's original research, but even after I gave sources backing up my statement they were ignored. I gave this response as he's insisted websites calling a band progressive rock are not enough. I will go through the history and get those sources again.
Enfestid 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Funeral, I think you need to relax. While you are doing so, here is a reliable source that seems to agree with the band's own assertion that they are progressive rock. the_undertow talk 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha - sorry if I came across as uncivil or rude, it wasn't my intention at all. Funeral 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The_undertow, there is a good change that that source would have never even considered calling them progressive if the band hadn't already made a point of labeling them self as it on their Myspace. Zanders5k 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, but it's possible I am missing something. This query shows that the term progressive is very often used to describe the band and I don't think all of these hits derive from the MySpace page. Since genre can be a bit subjective, I think that having the band label themselves as such helps make the case for the genre. If they consider themselves to be progressive rock we would have to find sources that discredit this claim, and proving the negation would be near impossible. the_undertow talk 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
But by that same logic I could find many reliable sources listing them as "emo", but that doesn't make it so. Zanders5k 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources, but I doubt any reliable. Even if that were the case, then we are left with how the band labels their music - which is fine with me. If they say their influences were prog rock and they write prog rock and their music is prog rock, then I really don't see what the problem is. Genre is subjective. It's not as if a sheep was calling itself a duck - that would be problematic on many levels. the_undertow talk 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean anything rude by this, but how much experience do you have with the genre of "progressive rock"? You wouldn't call Atreyu "death metal" just because they have influence and some characteristics from it, it's more complicated than that. Though you are right about finding reliable sources. Zanders5k 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we are hitting a tangent, I'll reply on your talk page. the_undertow talk 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I can find several sources on progressive rock that do not list 30STM as a progressive rock band: [1] [2] [3] I'd venture that these folks know an awful lot more about progressive rock than you or I. gotroot801 • talk 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. Lack of inclusion is not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. We are not attempting to prove a negative. Since there are sources that consider 30 Seconds to be prog rock, you would have to find article that assert they are not. The sources you provided omit the mention of 30 Seconds completely, which doesn't help. Besides, it doesn't matter what I know about progressive rock. I cited an article above, approved by the band, as part of an interview which is considered a reliable source. There are a lot of things I know - but I can't include a single one in this wiki without a 3rd party source, or else it is purely original research. the_undertow talk 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
To wit, an article that shows the band downplaying the progressive rock influences: [4] But if you're going to say the debut album was progressive rock (I disagree, but that's neither here nor there), the label should probably stay. I mean, no one's taken it off the Genesis page, and they haven't done much that could be considered progressive rock in at least 25 years. gotroot801 • talk 19:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Are we 'the people' mentioned in the band? Haha. Could be. the_undertow talk 00:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of 30 seconds to Mars within prog rock circles. Also, I am far from sure that Wikipedia's definition of prog rock is relevant at all for this issue, and even if it is, it is OR to claim that a specific band falls within this definition without a source to this effect. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the discussion. Thank you.
Enfestid (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I can find unlimited sources to support that Genesis was a prog rock band in its early years. Most important thing is also that it's commonly known that they were. But I cant see any source for 30 seconds to Mars, and only a few editors here to think so. Source provided above actually seems to support that they were not ("...that often caused people to label 30 Seconds to Mars as a progressive rock band."). But if the band considers itself prog rock, well, it may be that they are, or it may be that they dont really know what prog rock is (few people in the US do, especially Hollywood artists). --Childhood's End (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and the only way to make them fit the label is through technicalities. Most reviewers that label them as progressive rock only make the connection with their keyboard, which shows how little they know about the genre. And I have also never heard them ever mentioned in progressive rock circles, does that make all prog rock circles elitists?(hint hint). Most people that don't label them as progressive are fans of the genre. Most people that label them as it are not, or have little experience with it, Coincidence? And don't do the "The people that remove it barely have any previous edits, therefor they are elitists! The same can be said about the people that add it going off to edit articles like Jared Leto or Fallout boy. Zanders5k (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you must firstly go to the corresponding genre page, read it and if is so true that 30STM is prog-rock include it in the Timeline and in the list of prog-rock bands, but remember to pass through the discussion section first ;-). Geroa (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

30STM is NOT PROGRESSIVE ROCK!! Look under the Characteristics part of the Progressive rock wiki page and tell me how many of them they utilize. Emmure 89 (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

i'm a big 30stm fan, but they're clearly not prog. having a few drawn out middle eights does not make you a prog band... i would say that Alternative Rock is the best classification.

there are also three points in the original assessment that are incorrect - use of different time sigs (in prog you would be expecting multiple changes within the same song, or non-standard metres - 6/8 is very common in rock, so this doesn't really count for this point); dynamic use (this is more borderline, but arguing it in terms of soft-loud passages doesn't work - by that token, Nirvana should be classed as prog); and use of dissonant harmonies (there's very little beyond usual diatonic relationships to be found). none of this makes them any less awesome, but i would suggest that prog be removed as a genre (i was going to, but seeing this discussion i will leave it for the moment!) cheers, Onesecondglance (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

where are there official sources saying they are prog because they sound like a modern rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.101.138 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any progressive influence in this band. Playing in different time signatures DOES not make a band progressive. If so, almost all bands would be considered progressive. 30STM is a modern rock band, even pop if you will. They lack 95% of everything listed on the progressive rock page.Cjgone2 (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I concurr with the comment above me. The dude at the top who gave that pure 100% original research and a vague quote does not prove it to be Prog Rock. And just because a band uses a soft passage and then goes on to a loud passage does not make it Prog Rock. That is standard Post-Grunge procedure. and the use of synths (which I have to say, the way 30STM does them is boooring) does not make a prog rock band. Then Attack attack! , Duran Duran, the Killers and company would be prog rock! That can't be it. And it's original (and very bad) research.

Second off, just because a band calls their music "progressive" does not mean Wikipedia considers them so. Why? Static-X would be labeled "Evil Disco" if we went with what a band calls their music. Too bad no other reliable resource even considers "Evil Disco" a viable genre.

D33PPURPLE (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)D33PPURPLE

What bands label themselves is largely irrelevant. Prog is about experimentation and shunning the conventional. 30 Seconds are really rather conventional, use common time signatures, often have a pretty standard song structure, the absence of jazz or classical influences, lack of auditory or visual theatrics. This is not a band that pushes boundaries, and tries to do something that no one has ever done before. I'm not saying they are bad (my opinions of the band are reserved for a more appropriate discussion), but they are about as progressive as my left hand is spectacular.--Floydiac (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

post-grunge?

Surely 30 seconds to mars are post-grunge they sound very similar to bands like chevelle and breaking benjamin, all music guide and billboard also call them post-grunge. why isn't it on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockebox (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++ YEAH! 30SCTM NOT POST GRUNGE! and NOT EMO!!!! is ROCK ALTERNATIVE like a PLACEBO or MUSE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that they're post-grunge. They have the whole Creed / Nickelback thing going on stylistically. Distorted guitar chords that they basically just strum in simple patterns most of the time--and just listen to the vocals on their first album. He's totally got the "straight pop-vocalist smoked and drank too much" sound that just about every post-grunge band in the early 2000s used. It's clear that was fake and oriented toward that temporal market, because on their second album he loosens up and sounds like...well, the post-emo strained sound that's big on the alternative charts today. The only difference between 30STM and other post-grunge acts is that 30STM throws in synthesizer lines to sound more "futuristic."

Post-grunge is a sub-genre of alternative, so yes, they are alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.63.203 (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 sources for post-grunge. π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 10:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Mars logo.jpg

Image:Mars logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Kelleher

Tim is not a member of the band, and as such should not be listed with the members. He is just the touring bassist, which the band has stated on a number of occasions. 140.232.155.51 (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dem467 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Between this article and that for their two albums, we have the following genres: "Alternative rock, post-hardcore, space rock"; "Alternative Rock (early works), Hard Rock (later), Alternative Metal/Heavy Metal (now)"; and "Alternative rock, Progressive rock, Hard Rock, Emo, Power Ballad, Acoustic". Aside from the fascinating question of how a band with just two albums has three stylistic periods, the key question is: are there sources for any of this? Do said sources come to any sort of consensus? If not, I suggest we stick with some relatively safe umbrella term, and defer any detailed discussion of assorted contradictory assertions as to their genreness to the article text. What we have at present looks like an OR laundry list. Alai (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the log of the discussion page.
Enfestid (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Genres:
π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 10:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Release window for the third album

Summer 2009 source: http://www.thirtysecondstomars.com/main.asp It'll be done momentarily and out sometime this summer

The Used

as I saw the other band associations I didnt see The Used.

The Used and 30 Seconds To Mars have a great bond, which also shows in the From Yesterday Video and also the general knowledge. Aaronechelon (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Im not disagreeing, but where in the From Yesterday video is an example of that? --Dem467 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

30 Seconds To A lawsuit

The band is currently being sued by their record label and I think that should added in the article, seeing as it is notable and an important piece of information. Here's the source:http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=5591695 --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

it's already in there? Onesecondglance (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, I did miss that. I am sorry for that. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There should be more on the lawsuit. I still don't get it...The ABC News page doesn't really explain the whole story. Why haven't they released an album in so long? Someone should post Jared's side of it. 208.69.85.39 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)surge

Progresive Metal

They had earlier material which was Prog Metal(i.e; Capricorn and the rest of that album) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.94.61 (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No they did not. There is no sources citing it, and I am sure any reliable source would agree that a few "futuristic" gimmicks does not make Prog. And metal? Not quite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D33PPURPLE (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Style section

As the genres are being removed, we need a style section put in. Titan50 (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

30STM NOT NOT EMO!!!!

Regardless of what you think, we only go by what verifiable sources say. Anything that can be sourced to a reliable source can be included, and should not be removed, even if you disagree. Read WP:V “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”
Verifiability isn't enough. The source has to be credible. I can find sources saying Obama is white and the earth is flat if I search long enough. 30 Seconds to Mars isn't emo. Unless emo isn't emo. Catch my drift? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.209.8 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
BBC and digital spy are both very verifiable. --neon white talk 02:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt Wachter, and his replacement?

On Matt's wiki it explains that he left 30STM to join Angels & Airwaves, and there is a section that says "While on tour in El Paso, Texas, on March 1, 2007, Jared Leto announced to the arena that Matthew would be playing his last show with the band. He dedicated the final song of the show, "R-Evolve", to Matthew. The group, with the exception of Matthew then signed autographs for the El Paso fans." Also from Tim's Wiki it says, "Tim Kelleher is the current touring bass guitarist for LA-based alternative rock band 30 Seconds to Mars. Kelleher has played live with 30 Seconds to Mars since former bassist Matt Wachter left the band in 2007 to join Angels & Airwaves whose schedule was less hectic, allowing him more time for his family. Tim's position in 30 Seconds to Mars is as a touring bassist; however there are many fanpages and myspace pages campaigning for Tim to become a fully fledged member of the band." I propose that both of these pieces of info be incorporated into the "Present" section of the band's history, because they are important to people who are wondering what has been going on with them the past few years. 208.69.85.39 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)surge

Merges

Two non-notable members of the band have been redirected to this article under the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Currently only Jared Leto establishes any individual notability. --neon white talk 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

stop cancel the sources and the pages--151.49.233.203 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we do things based on policy and consensus, not personal opinion. --neon white talk 18:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Shannon and Tomo's pages?

Where the heck did they go? I used to read them all the time!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-Pro 264 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They were merged as they had no notability and the articles were unsourced, if you have sourced info about these people consider adding it to this article in a section about the band members. --neon white talk 16:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

these guys are definately post grunge

just listen to them. a lot of their music sounds post grunge. 98.150.39.51 (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


4 members

they have 4 members not 3 (Seth4000 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000

no, their bassist is a touring member. not an official member.--Dem467 (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shannon and Tomo's pages?!

if the pages of Shannon and Tomo cannot be on wikipedia, not even those of the members of The All-American Rejects and so many others. it is not correct!!!!!!!--151.49.235.4 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's policy. see WP:MUSIC. I boldly merged the The All-American Rejects members as you correctly pointed out they fail to be notable, if you know of others do the same and improve the project rather than insisting on adding sewege to an already polluted pond. --neon white talk 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Notability of individual members

Do the individual members pass WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT as individual subjects? neon white talk 11:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


  • I'm here in response to the RfC. In my opinion, a case can be made for an individual page for Jared Leto, partly because of his prominence as frontman, but primarily because of his acting work. Otherwise, I'm sympathetic to neon white's position that WP really should not be making individual pages for each band member simply because "I like it!" --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just to clarify the Jared Leto article has never been contentious do to clearly passing WP:ENT on the basis of multiple notable roles, this is primarily about trying to establish some kind of consensus with Shannon Leto and Tomo Miličević articles (which have been contended) and whether they pass either WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT. --neon white talk 19:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem. Then I'm suggesting that the other members probably do not pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Close this when the afd closes, it looks likely to be the same result anyway. It's a long established principle that members of notable groups cannot be notable solely for belonging to the group they have to demonstrate individual notabilty. Only one editor is arguing against this. --neon white talk 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this sorted yet can we redirect? --neon white talk 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No, the AfD was closed as "no consensus" despite the absence of any argument based on guideline or policy supporting the preservation of these articles. I really don't think AfDs should ever be closed as no consensus. The whole point is to reach a decision and if one can't be made in 5 days then the discussion should continue until a decision is made. As it is, we are back to square 1 with no resolution, despite as I said, nobody giving any valid argument to support keeping the articles. It's all nonsense. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Another incorrect and lazy closing, faliled completely to consider the two articles seperately. There does seem to be some kind of consensus here which is acceptable. THe issue of The Wondergirls should be discussed. Is this band of any note? --neon white talk 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, 'fraid so, pure laziness. As for the Wondergirls, this is where wikipedia's guidelines contradict each other really. WP:BAND#C6 states "Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians.". However, this can become rather circular. For instance, Scott Weiland is clearly independently notable, as is Ian Astbury. This thus makes The Wondergirls notable (at least under this criteria. However, any sensible person can clearly determine that this band hasn't actually done anything of any note, with only two songs in their catalogue. The only reason that the article exists is because there would be no way of determining who the redirect would point to with several notable members, thus rather than duplicate the material on each member's page, the band gets their own article. So, essentially, under criteria 6, The Wondergirls is a notable act. Unfortunately, this can then be used to claim independent notability for Shannon Leto, (member of 2 notable bands). Considering The Wondergirls as a band based on their own merits, they clearly are not notable. The article simply exists to prevent arguing over who the page should redirect to. Using this band as evidence of notability for Shannon Leto is a weak argument, and should be considered more fully, weighing up the actual notability that being a member of this band actually imparts (ie none). As for Tomo, I felt there was clear consensus to restore the redirect. Unfortunately, it seems some people are too lazy to investigate things further and too quick to close a debate rather than seeking to allow further input. Anyway, sorry for my rant, but I really think that wikipedia is far too inclusive of some things... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
We cannot actually source that any of these people were in the band or if the band ever even existed. WP:MUSIC is only a guideline and like all guidelines is subject to common sense. I have questioned circular notability and inherited notability with regards to the flaws with WP:MUSIC guidelines before and the general consensus is that there are common sense exceptions. --neon white talk 22:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I know. Clearly those involved in closing such debates fail to consider common sense... I did not realise that there was not even any confirmation of this band ever existing. Perhaps we should investigate further, as if there is no reliable source to support the existence of the band, then the article fails WP:V and WP:GNG and could thus be deleted. I'll have a hunt around... Nouse4aname (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually even though it isnt used as a reference, the rolling stone article in ELs makes the briefest of mentions "(Josh) Abraham says of (Scott) Weiland, whom he met when both were part of the Los Angeles super group the Wondergirls, which also featured Sugar Ray singer Mark McGrath, Orgy's Jay Gordon and the Cult's Ian Astbury" THe article was written in 2002 so no suprise that it has no mention of Shannon Leto who would have been an unknown then. Using the past precedent of a person briefly being part of a group that went on to be famous not being notable i dont believe this should either. --neon white talk 16:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Challenging the Emo Genre

Okay, so I Was surprised to see that 30STM was emo, but I decided to take away my personal views on the band and started reading the sources that called 30STM emo. All of them seem unreliable and obscure.

The first one is a gig review that is hosted in BBC. Sounds viable right? Well, the person who did the review is called Roxy Iqbal. I googled the name, and it only came up in a Twitter page and Myspace. There were no sources saying that Roxy was a music critic or anything. So this was probably just a fan calling 30STM "emo". That doesn't seem to fit Wikipedias standards of a reliable resource.

The second source was from an Alex Fletcher in a place called Digitalspy. Again, searches for Alex Fletcher revealed that the guy is not known for being a music critic. Furthermore, in searching Digitalspy, I found out that the place is a FORUM. That could mean that anyone can use it. That is not reliable resources, and again seems to violate Wikipedia standards.

Finally, the third source wwas in fact viable. It seemed to be legitimate. However, there is a problem with it. All is says is something along the lines of "Jared Leto's emo venture, 30 Seconds to Mars". That's it. Nothing more. Just an obscure sentence. It is also hard to tell if the "emo" is meant to described the music or just the visual appearance of the band. No other (reliable) sources cite 30STM as "emo" so I think that in light to one obscure sentence in an article about award nominees (see even that is skimpy) we can rightfully delete "Emo" from the 30STM genre.

Before I delete it (for the reasons stated above) I will let this up for 3 days. If no one can justify the sources (or find a new reliable source) I WILL delete it.

D33PPURPLE (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)D33PPURPLE

Fan or not, if you're review is published by the BBC it's reliable, same goes for digital spy. Reliability is based on the publisher not the journalist. Hope that clears it up. Do not delete any sourced info. --neon white talk 22:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm..well alright. As long as it does not violate any Wikipedia rules....

67.159.147.61 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)D33PPURPLE

According to D33PPURPLE.--Dear87 (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This source http://drownedinsound.com/releases/9314 does not say that 30 Seconds to Mars is post hardcore. This http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Music-Review/kerrang-awards-2007-its-enter-shakiri-v-my-chemical-romance is not reliable resources, and seems to violate Wikipedia standards.--Matthew Riva (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Band Pictures

Seriously, some of these need updating. The one of them at the top in 2006 is way to old, and Matt Wachter isnt even in the band anymore. Can someone take care of these? --Dem467 (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, i did it myself! =] --Dem467 (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are way too many 30 Seconds to Mars photos on the website, and the originals (such as the one in the userbox) may be updated, but removing it from the article and orphaning it is out of the question since it is a quality picture that depicts the band members, and doesn't violate any possible term. • GunMetal Angel 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

...neither in ru_wiki nor in sh_wiki. Please regard this star-sprinkling nonsense as vandalism. -- Evermore2 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Read http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Избранные_статьи and http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Izabrani_članci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.226.82 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Read this and that. Could a stub of this size be a 'featured article' in any wiki? Be ashamed of yourself and stop littering. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And now I begin to see who is behind all this _ru_sh_en_wiki cross-reference nonsense. Somebody here must be 5 y.o.))- Evermore2 (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did the chart go that showed how many albums they sold across the world?

About a year ago, I remember seeing a chart that showed what albums sold what numbers in about 15 different countries. It also showed at what number the albums peaked at on each countries' lists. Whatever happened to those charts and why were they removed?

74.215.6.100 (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thirty_Seconds_to_Mars/Archive_2&oldid=1143534945"