Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

REMOVE THE NEO PROGRESSIVE LABEL

All music has proven to be a poor source for genre labeling time and time again. Please remove this source.

One of countless examples: Opeth is labeled as a Symphonic Black Metal and Gothic Metal band. This doesn't even make sense, and most bands have a hit and miss genre. 30 seconds to mars have no progressive elements, remove the label please. You're giving wikipedia a bad reputation for inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjgone2 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is, by far, one of the most inaccurate genres on wikipedia. "30 Seconds to Mars have been stated by reviewers and criticts to play within the genres of hard rock,[27] emo,[28] neo-progressive,[29] progressive metal,[30][31] alternative metal[31][32] and post-grunge.[29]" I suggest that, after that statement "But according to the definitions of progressive-metal and neo progressive on Wikipedia, these labelings are incorrect" This is a contradiction of those genre pages, and a matter of Wikipedia's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.130.220 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I second that^. Inaccuracies like these are one of the many reasons Wikipedia isn't taken seriously as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.166.64 (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

Why you reverted this edit?--95.239.183.172 (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Emo and post hardcore

These sources aren't reliable. This [1] isn't reliable because is a gig review of an user that is called Roxy Iqbal. There were no sources saying that Roxy was a music critic or anything. So this was just a fan calling 30 Seconds to Mars "emo". That doesn't seem to fit Wikipedias standards of a reliable resource.

This [2] 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.

This [3] is the same thing. This place is a COMMUNITY. That could mean that anyone can use it. It is from a 20 years old girl called Jordan Dowling ([4]) that is sign up on the community. Again seems to violate Wikipedia standards. These sources aren't reliable, so I delete it.--Loverdrive (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

All Music Guide says post grunge and neo prog. if A Beautiful Lie is an emo album, under the heading "Styles" there was written "emo". So, stop changeling the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.179.208 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, READ THE SOURCE!!!!! The genre is post grunge and neo prog! Can you read? Have you ever read that review? Stop changeling the genre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.225.4 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the review says that the album is emo, it was referred like here.--Loverdrive (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If this review meant that the album is emo, under the heading "Genre" or "Style" was written emo (for example, here, the review clearly says that the album is emo because it is written under the correct heading). The A Beautiful Lie review says "this is as earnest as an emo record gets", but don't clearly said A Beautiful Lie is an emo album.--Loverdrive (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Roxy Iqbal is actually a producer working at BBC, so that is a valid source. It is not by a random person. As for Digital Spy, they do have a forum, but the news/content on the page surely isn't open for the public to write! Alex Fletcher is an entertainment reporter working for Digital Spy. All in all, both are reliable sources. Nymf _talk/contr. 18:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Digital Spy is a forum so don't pass WP:RS criteria.--Loverdrive (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. There is a forum ON there. Big difference. Digital Spy is an entertainment site. Nymf _talk/contr. 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Digital Spy don't pass WP:RS criteria.--Loverdrive (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider 30 Seconds to Mars emo. Emo is crappy music, 30 Seconds to Mars for sure doesn't make crappy music.

Dragon Age

Shouldn't there be a mention of their song "This is War' being used in the BioWare game, Dragon Age: Origins? Olioster (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre (obviously)

There are certain thing that are in fact not up for discussion, such as WP:RS. Virgin Records obviouly cannot be used as a source for "nu metal" as it is a primary source (bands and their labels must never be sed for genre categorisations) and the Italian Murder Inn site is self-described as an "independent webzine", which again fails WP:RS by a country mile. Sorry guys. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

These sources are reliable, they are also considered on Italian wiki where the band's genre is heavily disputed.--Matthew Riva (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the sources are not reliable. Please read WP:RS and the above comment to understand why not. Just because they may be used on Italian wiki, does not mean that they are acceptable here. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Explain me why these sources are not reliable. I read the guideline and they pass WP:RS criteria.--Matthew Riva (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are they published and by whom? Are they third-party? If there is no print-copy, commercially-published, of any of their material, they must not be used. All fanzines and "webzines" are obviously useless as sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This source is reliable. The review is written by Filippo Nembrini (a musical critical) for an important Italian rock music magazine. This passes the WP:RS criteria, so why you delete the source?--Matthew Riva (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This aint EMO! This band is clearly not emo, maybe they look like one but they clearly havent got emo type of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaptavish (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC) EXACTLY!!!!!! THEY ARE NOT EMO!!!! SO REMOVE THE TAG OF EMO!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.50.113 (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to reopen the genre question. The genres in the infobox don't make any sense and the more important, I don't see any sources cited for those genres. I know that Wikipedia isn't based on original research, but I don't see how could anyone consider this band progressive in any way. I don't think that they pass for any sort of heavy metal either, but definitely not for progressive. Progressive rock / metal is characterized by unusual measures, melodies, complex harmonies, often influenced by jazz fusion and classical music and songs in that genre are usually very hard to perform. This band doesn't come even close to passing those criteria, and if you compare it to progressive metal bands like Dream Theater and Symphony X, there are absolutely no similarities. I see a lot of forums and talk pages where people say very stupid things about this band, calling them progressive, experimental, etc. But this is an encyclopedia. We should be serious. This is a popular band, so I am sure that there are many sources calling them many different genres. We should find ones that are more serious. I am sure we could find sources for genres like pop rock and post-grunge, which best describe this band. — NikFreak (leave message) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is based on reliable sources. Read the sources, and stop saying stupidity as pop rock.--Unwish (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupidity? And what would you label them with? Sure we need reliable sources, but saying it's stupid to label them as pop-rock is STUPID. They clearly are a commercial band trying to make money on generic sounding music that doesn't really stand out by anything in the sea of other pop-rock artists. A few screams in standard pop-rock outfit doesn't make the band metal, and it definitely doesn't make it progressive or experimental. The progressive label is what is REALLY stupid. And it's really a disgrace for Wikipedia. No sane person would label them as such. — Roxor (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You know what's REALLY stupid? Holding up your opinion as fact". --King Öomie 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that you were referring to the part of my comment where I said that they are making generic sounding commercial music. I agree that that's only an opinion and I apologize if I offended any fans here, but what I said about the genre isn't an opinion. They are not progressive, they are not metal and they are most certainly not experimental. But since Wikipedia only uses "reliable" sources, I guess that I am just wasting my time. It's just sad to see such nonsenses on an encyclopedic site which should be serious and reliable. — Roxor (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The only large site I can find with a direct genre listing for 30 Seconds to Mars is MTV.co.uk (http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/30-seconds-to-mars) which says "Genre(s) | Alternative rock, Emo" I'm still new to wiki so not sure if this is source enough, MTV seems a fairly reliable source to me. Everywhere else seems to avoid mentioning genres specifically presumably because the reactions all to common when people disagree. --Linden Ryuujin 16:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the genre should be taken from a review and not just a field. Those two are probably the most acceptable ones you could find from reliable sources. I read some of the reviews about the band and there are some of the biggest nonsenses I've ever seen. To be most objective while determining a genre, you either analyze the music according to the description of the genre, or you can try comparing a band to another within the same genre (which is not the happiest solution, because the genres can be stretched already until it comes to complete mislabeling). Labeling 30STM as progressive, experimental or any sort of metal just shows the ignorance of the critics. Just by comparing them to some bands within those genres you can see that there are little to no similarities. At best, they could be labeled as alternative rock. I know that there must be reliable sources, but at least we can find the ones that make some sense. And if there are no agreements, there is always an option to remove the genre field from the infobox and leave opinions of the critics in genre section (this has been done on many other pages). — Gahonzu (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say they're new prog instead of neo prog as they've got more of an alternative rock sound rather than 80's pop sound. I mean Marillion are neo prog and they sound like 80's pop. Muse are more similiar to 30stm and they're new prog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedol (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not your call. This isn't a 30StM fan page, it's an encyclopedia entry. We repeat what reliable sources say. Original research and analysis of source material is not accepted in articles- including your analysis of what the band sounds like. --King Öomie 12:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Progressive metal? Progressive metal!? This is just beyond insulting.

30 Seconds to Mars are nothing but alternative rock, enough said. They're not hard rock (lacks a thick sound) and (while it is debatable that they have prog influences) they're not progressive rock and pfft certainly not progressive metal, I mean, come on. People need to realize that having influences to a genre and actually being the genre are two completely different things. This is precisely why I no longer get my music information from Wikipedia.F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 04:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In its 2002 review, Jaan Uhelszki of Alternative Press wrote the band is "made of sterner stuff, with their prog-metal foundation enhanced by an unexpectedly powerful sense of melody." E online describes 30 STM as a Tool-ish progressive metal band [5]. Allmusic actually credits prog metal to the band. Orlando Sentinel wrote "30 Seconds to Mars, an alternative rock/progressive metal quartet" [6]. This is enough to label them as progressive metal.--Trandingbrights (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I may not entirely agree that they're prog metal as well, but no one said they're a progressive metal band. It's just part of their influence which is enough to warrant a genre in the infobox. I mean Woe, Is Me have industrial metal influence even though they're metalcore/post-hardcore and industrial metal was agreed to have been inducted into the genre list, but that doesn't mean they're an industrial band. Also, are you saying you don't get your musical information from Wikipedia all because you don't agree with what numerous sources say? There's no difference what's said on this site and everywhere else, dude. Wikipedia is compiled of information based off of what is considered reliable and you should know that as a user with years of editing, sorry there's just things out there in the world that you didn't know yet, but at the same time you want to argue about it and say the information is false all by your opinion. I don't want to get on your case too hard, but why are you making such a big deal out of this all based off that reason? It's like when those Italian kids came in and vandalized the page by continuously removing "emo". It's just a stupid word that determines what music someone plays, and in this case 30STM play several genres of alternative rock. • GunMetal Angel 00:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

30 Seconds To Mars must be Thirty Seconds to Mars.

Hello everyone. The proper name of "30 Seconds To Mars" must be "Thirty Seconds To Mars", see their official webpage http://www.thirtysecondstomars.com/ which is stated underneath this article! Who of you will this alsao change in de Dutch Wikipedia? Thanks for doing this! Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.188.137 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is displayed both ways, including at the band's own site, which you linked to. WP:COMMONNAME is clear on this point. The majority of third-party sources use "30 seconds", not "Thirty seconds"- so "30 seconds" will contain the article, and "Thirty seconds" will remain a redirect to it. --King Öomie 18:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that the various language versions of Wikipedia differ on many points of policy- our naming guidelines may differ from yours. The Dutch Wikipedia adopting an article name doesn't necessarily mean that the English version must follow suit. --King Öomie 18:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think it should be "Thirty Seconds to Mars". That is what they are referred to on the band's official website, and their most recent releases are under the name "Thirty Seconds to Mars". TheSickBehemoth (talk)TheSickBehemoth

"Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. ...

...Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."

_{-WP:COMMONNAME}

--King Öomie 18:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Formation and Debut album

Should these sections be merged together? or at least edited slightly, the formation section gives the impression (to me) that both Kevin Drake and Solon Bixler were in the band briefily (despite being there nearly 2 and 3 years respectively) before Tomo joined the group.

The departure of Bixler and the addition of Tomo should perhaps be added to the debut album section? (mainly because these events happening during that timeline). Could be wrong, just thought I would mention it -- HrZ (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancient English Writing

The 4 symbols shown in the Phoenix logo are ancient english writing. The each stand for a Celestial Planet in the old days. In order, they stand for Peace, Love, Hope, and Serenity. The 4 smybols, can be found on this link: http://www.thirtysecondstomars.net/images/symbols/glyph.png That is an offical Thirty Seconds to Mars website.

While that would be interesting, it's actually not true. See Rune. None of those symbols appear in old english, or even any Germanic language recorded by history. They're also not symbols for planets in greek, or any other language. Basically, they were invented, and ascribed meaning, by the band. --King Öomie 13:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Rockhttp://www.lastfm.pt/music/30+Seconds+to+Mars/A+Beautiful+Lie</ref >http://www.kewego.com.br/video/iLyROoaft4Kc.html</ref >
Post-grunge{{cite web |url=http://ego.globo.com/Gente/Noticias/0,,MUL319900-9798,00-JARED+LETO+TRAZ+SUA+BANDA+PARA+APRESENTACAO+EM+SAO+PAULO+VEJA+AS+EXIGENCIAS.html/ |title: alternative rock genre </ref >http://www.lastfm.com.br/music/30+Seconds+to+Mars</ref >
Post-grunge</ref>
Alternative Metal
Neo-progressive rock

NOT EMO

Progressive rock

All right, I found a reliable source that labels 30 Seconds to Mars as progressive rock, so I wondered if I'd be able to add it to the genre list in the infobox. This is the site. Chevellefan11 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from डार्क.हॉर्स, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Only a minor edit needed under the heading, "Musical style, genre and influence," where the word "critics" is spelled "criticts". It's not too noticeable, but it stuck out to me like a sore thumb. I understand if you don't feel it needs editing. डार्क हॉर्स 17:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Progressive Metal??

Please, this band isn't even close to progressive metal. I love ALL prog music, and I for some reason can't handle their music. Nothing against them, but they just aren't progressive, rock OR metal, at all. Just no. If someone doesn't remove it I will myself, even if it is reverted 10 times. --Andy (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reason adding the label "progressive" makes 30STM fans feel special. It obviously doesn't fit, but at this point I don't think they really care.

Who even calls 30STM metal, anyway? Why not at least progressive "rock"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.36.200 (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with making "30STM fans feel special." allmusic, blender, E! Online. Three reliable sources for their first album describing them or their music as Progressive metal/rock with a few other reviews citing Tool and Pink Floyd influences. This is enough to label them as progressive metal. HrZ (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

HrZ, your links don't support your thesis. First, the allmusic link lists their genre as "Pop/Rock," and the only mention of prog. anything is in the body it says that they use "prog metal beats." More than drums makes a progressive band. Second, your blender link is dead. Third, your E! article is comparing him to Maynard of Tool, and mentions that they are a "Tool-ish progressive metal band." There's hot contention over whether or not Tool is even metal, let alone progressive metal. Also, how is E! a reliable source in this instance? Finally, who cares if they are influenced by Pink Floyd and Tool? Simply because you profess that you like a band doesn't mean you de facto get into their genre. Meshuggah's number on influence listed in their Destroy Erase Improve album cover is Earth, Wind and Fire. Does that make them funk band? The only link you posted that listed a genre was as "Pop/Rock," which I think is more than apt of a genre for them.Seiferganon (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, check the date of my comment. December 10, 2010 - Over 3 months ago. The Blender link was working, but since then most, if not all, review links to Blender are now down. The Allmusic lists are pretty unreliable also, due to there being no basis for them - much like when they list "similar artists" - so we base it on the review. E! Online passes WP:RS so can be used. "mentions that they are a "Tool-ish progressive metal band."" - Still says they are progressive metal, as does this source: "30 Seconds to Mars, an alternative rock/progressive metal quartet." Should also point out that the band never stated they are influenced by Pink Floyd and Tool, the reviewers cited them. Wither "there's hot contention over whether or not Tool is even metal" is irrelevant, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Also, all the (working) links have genres, Allmusic states emo, "space-themed concept album [...] and sci-fi lyrics" and "prog metal beats." E! Online states "hard-rock band" and "Tool-ish progressive metal band" If you have a problem and disagree with the sources, then report it here. HrZ (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So, according to your logic, if a reviewer called Justin Biber a progressive metal musician, it ought to be listed under his genres? Seiferganon (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not according to my logic, by Wikipedia guidelines. If there is a reliable source stating that music by Justin Bieber is progressive metal then there is no reason for its exclusion in a musical style section. If there are a few sources, then there is no reason to exclude it from the infobox either. But that would only happen if Bieber actually released a progressive metal album (imagine that). Wither or not you agree with the review is irrelevant. Read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV for more information. Now, it should be noted, I did not add progressive metal, if I remember correctly it was there before I even began editing wikipedia. There are four sources in the article for progressive metal so it is included in the infobox. Again, if you have problem with the sources, I suggest you try reporting them here or seek assistance from other editors on the matter. HrZ (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why progressive metal? Maybe rock, but metal? --Pandacub (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, because it is sourced HrZ (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Allmusic source says nothing but "Prog-Metal Beats". The way it's describing it means that's one "so called" influence from the genre. Just because of one trait does not automatically make them a prog metal band. Nile intergrates death metal with traces of Arabic Music, does that mean they're an Arabic music band? Influence =/= Actual Genre. Even in the Allmusic genre table, it only says post-grunge (which I still think is wrong) and not prog metal. Oh and your Blender source is dead. Removing genre again.F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You want a source, check this out: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/30_seconds_to_mars

And don't tell me this isn't a reliable source. These genre decisions were declared by a collective of music-savvy individuals, who frankly, I find more reliable than a single "so called professional" pulling some bullshit out of his ass while never even hearing of any prog metal band other than Dream Theater.F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In its 2002 review, Jaan Uhelszki of Alternative Press wrote the band is "made of sterner stuff, with their prog-metal foundation enhanced by an unexpectedly powerful sense of melody." E online describes 30 STM as a Tool-ish progressive metal band [7]. Allmusic actually credits prog metal to the band. Orlando Sentinel wrote "30 Seconds to Mars, an alternative rock/progressive metal quartet" [8]. This is enough to label them as progressive metal. Here you can read this?--Trandingbrights (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, put all of these sources aside. Can you explain in your own words how they're progressive metal? All Allmusic ever said were "prog-metal beats" that alone does not justify that they are actually calling them progressive metal rather than suggesting an influence. Your other two sources don't even explain what makes them progressive metal either and thus, full of crap. This is why I pointed out the earlier rateyourmusic link which might I add you completely ignored. One person voted for progressive metal as an influence only to have 18 people disagree with him. So I tell you this. Can you explain what makes them progressive metal?F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 00:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You're lucky progressive metal is the only genre I'm enforcing a removal for, because in my opinion, none of the genres for 30 Seconds to Mars are correct.F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 00:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly, it's your opinion. If somebody came in, thought that Woe, Is Me had R&B influence rather than industrial metal and changed the genre, it would be their opinion. We're doing what is conceived as facts per the reliable sources, not opinions of people. That's how Wikipedia works, I've had things happen on here that I don't like either such as I can't even have Underoath watchlisted anymore after the atrocity of what that article has became in the war of reliable sources vs. many user's consensus, which is plainly the same pair of shoes just different color. • GunMetal Angel 00:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Woe, Is Me had R&B influence rather than industrial metal and changed the genre"

THIS IS THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING! Just Because a band has an influence to a genre does NOT mean the band is actually that genre. How many times must I repeat this?F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 00:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Oh and your Blender source is dead." - I stated this before: "The Blender link was working, but since then most, if not all, review links to Blender are now down." Also first source - "in this Tool-ish progressive metal band." May call them Tool-ish (lol?) but still called them a progressive metal band. "30 Seconds to Mars, an alternative rock/progressive metal quartet" second source. And I will point to the Wikipedia policy WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So there you go, two sources that state quite cleary they are progressive metal (without saying that they are progressive metal due to influences). Doesn't matter if you agree with them, or if you believe them to be more reliable than....well you. But they are sourced wither it explains why or not. And I'll tell you what I told the other editor, if you have a problem and disagree with the sources, then report it. You can also request assistance from another editor. HrZ (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Emo or Screamo? And Neo-prog

Wikipedia labels this band as "emo." Allmusic mentions that the album A Beautiful Lie was influenced by screamo. Should we have that instead of emo? Let me know your thoughts. P.S., if you're an immature idiot coming on to this talk page to talk about how they're either emo or not emo without even having a wikipedia account, then I find your opinions to be irrelevent. This article also calls the band a "neo-prog" band. Allmusic lists them as a neo-prog band, but I am conserned about this. Allmusic uses "neo-prog" to mean new prog (as they do with the new prog band Muse). It is my understanding that neo-prog was a non-alternaitve development of progressive rock in the 1980s. New prog however, is a 21st Century mixture of alternative rock and progressive rock. Since this is a 21st century alternative band, then shouldn't it be labeled as new prog? Sbrianhicks (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

emo isn't really a proper genre

I just think that if people consider the look of this band to be emo or some of their lyrical content or other things have things in commmon with other bands that have been labelled emo, then it should be in another section of the article if its going to be mentioned at all. It basically a term that is used loosely and doesn't really have a proper definition, and it will always be a matter of dispute, with people arguing against and for it, and you can't properly define whether a band is emo usually, its a matter of opinion and its always controversal

(talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 

If people are going to force them in to other genres based on a few reviews than emo most certainly has to stay, since it has been used on them many times (not good logic, but that is how people are doing it on this page)

[[9]] is just one of many places tagging them as "emo". It beats them being tagged with a genre that was invented and fabricated right here on wikipedia.(new prog) The genre list here is just a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.139.223 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Hurricane" error

Can someone fix this? On the This Is War page it says the song was released on novemver 22 and on the Hurricane (30 Seconds to Mars song) page it says january 10. Which one is true? -- CDK (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:30 Seconds to Mars (2011).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:30 Seconds to Mars (2011).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition of "Where the Streets have no Name" to the Non-album tracks section

As Above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyclayworth (talk • contribs) 09:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

Please change the picture of 30 Seconds to Mars to a more current one accurately showing the band's style as of 2011 and showing all of the current band members. Thanks!

216.96.137.83 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: If you have a free image, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons and reopen this request with a link to the file. — Bility (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Rock?

It's a Generic Label. Shall we.--75.72.172.244 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It really fits the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.139.223 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

New Image Request

2.20.12 The current image in the info box does not effectively represent the band, nor does it even show all the band members. I believe a new image would enhance the page. Biuleta2292 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Emo

I removed the emo from the main genres because the cited source ([10]) describes only A Beautiful Lie as an emo album. With three albums the band has played several genres and we can't add to the infobox every single genre that the band has played in every single album. The genre can stay in the album's page A Beautiful Lie.--Nusacc (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jared Leto's utterly silly synth-emo band 30 Seconds to Mars, emo outfit 30 Seconds to Mars, emo outfit 30 Seconds to Mars'..., clinically precise approximation of a modern-rock/emo epic, issue-ridden lyrics and brawny emo riffs, play emo-ish rock that sits somewhere between My Chemical Romance and the Killers and so on. Sources from Pitchfork Media, Allmusic, Spin and The Guardian. Also there isn't one genre that can cover all of the band's music which is why, I'm assuming, the infobox genre field is that way. Question, you say we "can't add to the infobox every single genre" (though we aren't), why are you being selective and only removing emo? HrZ (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Because only an album of the band is described as an emo album.--Nusacc (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nusacc has a point with removing it as there is only one source that supports the genre in the article. Since they didn't remove emo from the article entirely I don't see this as nonconstructive. However the research done shows they are considered emo by a variety of sources and some of these should become citations for the article to support it's place in the infobox. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Added the sources to the musical style section since it's already mentioned in the lead. HrZ (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pitchfork's sources ([11] [12]) aren't much reliable here, since they are news about Kanye West. This source includes just one line about 30 STM describing the A Beautiful Lie times (again). "Brawny emo riffs" does not mean that 30 STM is an emo band. This is still about A Beautiful Lie. This review of the first album dates back to the ABL times. These sources can be add to the ABL page, but not here. The emo genre is only one third of the band's artistic production, so is there any reason for including it between the main genres? The other genres in the infobox (alternative rock, hard rock, and new prog) are in every album of the band. There is also the prog metal that at least is for two albums (the self-titled and ABL).--Nusacc (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Second Pitchfork sourced (used in the article) is about Kanye collaborating with the band, so relevant and reliable. Second Guardian article is not about the album, read it again. They talk about the band, not the album specifically; "The group, consisting of Jared's brother, Shannen Leto on drums, Matt Wachter on bass and Tomo Milicevic on lead guitar, play emo-ish rock that sits somewhere between My Chemical Romance and the Killers." The other two sources the add weight to the fact that their music is/was considered emo. Need more? he's now insisted on creating the latest emo, screamo, rock outfit to come storming out of the States, When they were mining a post-grunge or nu metal or emo vein, The emo/rock band, fronted by actor Jared Leto, sold a million copies. There are more than enough reliable sources that state that the band are emo, there is no reason to remove or restrict the genre to one album article. HrZ (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, every source that you have cited is about the A Beautiful Lie times. Guardian article talks about the band in 2007, during the ABL era. And I can continue on every source cited. The emo genre is still one third of the band's artistic production.--Nusacc (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying every source is from A Beautiful Lie-era yet HrZ produced an AllMusic review of This Is War. There is a four year gap between these two albums (05'/09') so A Beautiful Lie-era is quite vague. AllMusic saying the debut is emo cannot be internally verified about its publishing date because AllMusic don't publish that information. While those two Pitchfork sources are around the period of This Is War. I also discovered this This is war review by Spin, just search the word 'emo'. With unbiased assessment: Spin magazine although in 2009 talks about A Beautiful Lie, but they never reworded it as being a different type of band. And the Guardian's live review brawny emo riffs means very little in terms of validity, does it mean melodic? does it mean anthemic? It never specifies. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The AllMusic review of This Is War actually says what I'm saying ("When they were mining a post-grunge or nu metal or emo vein, this was a liability, but now that they’ve shifted their music with the shifting times, adopting a hybrid of the Killers’ retro new wave and My Chemical Romance’s gothic prog, they’ve wound up with a sound that suits their stance"). The review of the debut is about the European version (released in 2008), and, however, it doesn't say that it is emo. The debut and the third album are not emo. 30 Seconds to Mars is considered an emo band during the ABL years (2005-2008), and it is very little for including the emo in the infobox. Otherwise, we should add every single genre that the band has played in every single album.--Nusacc (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You've raised valid points about emo being only for that era of 30STM's career. I reckon a compromise should be that both emo and progressive metal should be removed from the info box and the musical style section should comprehensively talk about each album's style and how the first is progressive metal, the second is emo and so one. To be honest post-grunge or neo-grunge is more consistently referenced in their career over the other two. Should the infobox reflect these changes with it just saying: Alternative rock, hard rock, progressive rock, new prog? Jonjonjohny (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nusacc, there is no policy or guideline or policy I see that states anything about restricting genres to album articles, it is the sources for the albums that gives us their genre, one album, one third of their music or not it doesn't matter. ABL is arguably an important album in the band's career, broke them into the mainstream, resulted in a number of awards and nominations, 4million copies sold worldwide, etc. and is well sourced as an emo album. Perhaps even more sourced that most genres (though I can't know that for sure)! So why that cannot be included in the article is beyond me. This is War apparently has it's emo moments as well; "Kings and Queens," the thudding arena-emo single, This is anthemic art rock, a sound that boldly rings like a cross between Linkin Park's grungy emo-pop and U2's brand of commercial rock, (looks like we have a source for art rock now though). 9 sources (give or take) for ABL, 2 sources for This is War (ok, one of them refers to one song, but still). Also, you state "30 Seconds to Mars is considered an emo band during the ABL years (2005-2008)" can you provide a reliable source confirming this? I hope it is not simply the years between the release of ABL and the recording/release of This is War.

Hard rock is well sourced across all articles by the looks of it, progressive metal (see above discussion, pretty strong consensus for inclusion) and emo are also well sourced. New prog? It's sourced on the genre article, but only one source that is not included on this article I think, but don't think that is enough for inclusion in the infobox. Alternative rock and post-grunge are well sourced also. If it was to change, I would say Alternative rock, hard rock, post-grunge, emo, progressive metal based on sources and they represent each album well in my opinion. An improved and detailed musical style section is always an improvement to these articles so that I agree with. Note: I quickly typed this, I really hope it makes some sense and not all gibberish! HrZ (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing this because there is a mess in the article, really. I have no problem with alternative rock, hard rock and new prog. The problem is that we can't describe 30 STM as an emo band only because they released an emo album. It isn't a relevant genre for the band's career. By your logic, Coheed and Cambria is an indie rock band because they released The Second Stage Turbine Blade, an indie rock album. 30 STM has played many different genres (including emo) and we can't add every of them because they are in an album (otherwise, there will be a mess worse than this). So I'm asking Hrz, it there a reason for not including the others million genres that the band has played? Also, I don't think that prog metal is a problem, it is at least for two albums.--Nusacc (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Every article is treated case by case, so this "by your logic" is just nonsense and irrelevant. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verfiability, not truth (per policy WP:V). You saying "isn't a relevant genre for the band's career" is your opinion which isn't a valid arguement, the sources are pretty much against you due to the amount. Who says were were describing them "as an emo band only"? The other genres are not being removed and the lead is not being changed. Emo has been in that infobox for at least a year now, it is not like it has recently been added. Removing it from the infobox for having only one source is a justifiable reason, but now there are several reliable sources (wither you agree or not). It is a pretty damn verified genre (for both the album AND the band). Again, one album or not, this makes no difference. A significant part of their career, they were known as an emo band. They may play a number of different genres true, but they were known as an emo band. Not nu metal, space rock or neo-progressive, but emo. That is the major difference here. That is why not all genres are included. And why, with the simple inclusion of emo, this would result in all of them suddenly being added is beyond me. Genre changes have to be discussed first. The third album appears to be sourced with progressive rock, not metal, which is a big difference.

Why don't you have a problem with new prog being included by the way? It is one genre that is not included on any album article, the only appearance in the entire main article is in the infobox, there is only one source that isn't even included in this article (genre article only) that we can't even read (so unverifiable) and it doesn't seem to be that significant to the band's career. You argue hard for emo to be removed from the infobox despite the amount of sources yet new prog is fine? Anyway, the bottom line is that emo is verified by a number of sources. If the article is in such a mess, perhaps it would be more constructive to suggest more improvements and not just removing one genre. HrZ (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Emo, screamo, and whatever other genres

im gonna keep this simple, EMO music is bands like rites of spring (go have a listen) scremo doesnt exist because by definition it would mean that any band that screams for more than .2 of a second in a song is a scremo band and thats rubbish, im not gonna sit here and argue over what genre this band should be classed as, as i think the author of this page has hit on some good points with thier assesment, but take away the emo rubbish, modern "emo" stuff like my chemical romance, isnt actualy emo, and you'll realise that if you listen to rights of spring (i was around when emo was first used, back in the 90's) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.50.34 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please guys,remove Prog metal

It's ludicrous,there are hundrends of articles all over the web like this.Their music neither include guitar solos nor mature varied chord progressions,they just experiment with time signatures a bit like those 'djent' bands.So,all I'm telling is that remove prog metal and put neo-prog or pop-metal instead,itunes describe them as pop rock & alternative.Thanks Rippermadness talk 13:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of discussions on this. Progressive metal is sourced. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not whether or not you think something is true. HrZ (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You've made a typo *whether.I've looked upon the source,the allmusic reviewer stated 'prog metal beats',not 'prog metal' in general & the style of the album is denoted as post-grunge. Rippermadness talk 15:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Did the talk page typo bother you? There, corrected it for you. There are more sources than just Allmusic and, also, a discussion on this very topic archived. I should point out that the styles listing on Allmusic is generally considered unreliable on Wikipedia so we stick mainly to the reviews. To add neo-prog or pop-metal to the infobox would require a significant amount of sources (mainly due to the fact the the genres of 30STM are heavily disputed). HrZ (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm,I can understand that & I hope it'll be sorted out properly in near future.And no,it didn't bother me,I just wanted to figure out if it actually is 'wither' or not,because that could've been quite weird,you know,haha :) Rippermadness talk 15:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's whether. Anyway, if you need any help, feel free to contact me. HrZ (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Post grunge and neoprog

Can I add the genres Post grunge and Neoprogressive in the Infobox? There are so many sources that define the band Post grunge and Neoprog, first of all Allmusic. --Zack Tartufo (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Both are already included in the musical style section with Allmusic sourced. Can you provide these sources on the talk page? HrZ (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Experimental? WHERE?!

In the first paragraph saying that 30stm are compared to Tool because of their use of spiritual lyrics, concept albums and experimental music. I can agree with the first two, but experimental music? WHERE? They don't even have A SINGLE SONG which is experimental.

Well, if at least there was some kind of review calling it experimental, but there is NO SOURCE. NO SOURCE. Who called it experimental? Some fan? Please. No source, no genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.85.220 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

30 => Thirty, revisited

We've received a communication from the band's representatives asking us to amend the display of the band's name as Thirty Seconds to Mars rather than 30 Seconds to Mars. While we don't act on people's whims, I will note that:

• Their official site (which seems down right now?) spells out 'thirty'.
• When they put out press releases, they always use 'thirty' as well: [13][14] (I know they're press releases, but that's the point).

I understand WP:COMMONNAME applies here, but it applies both ways. If we go by the subject's usage, '30' is the alternative name, while 'thirty' is the correct one. We should move this whole shebang here and obviously leave this redirect behind. Thoughts? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)