Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move #1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

30 Seconds to MarsThirty Seconds to MarsWP:ON; organization uses the non-stylized version of the full name as evidenced by press releases and official website (see my comments in the section above). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose - What appears as the grammatical stylisation on their albums should be the general practice. Being also used on their social network profile shows that 30 Seconds to Mars is more than common practice. Jonjonjohny (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that only their first album shows that, and it was released 11 years ago. The other two spell out thirty. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - They currently use both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". The majority of third-party sources use "30 Seconds" (for example see iTunes), so "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect to it.--Earthh (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:UCN/WP:ON and "thirty" is more than twenty, so should be in digit-form being a large number. -- (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • Citing Wikipedia:Official names would be an argument for ignoring an official name in favor of a common one. You said in the section above "We've received a communication from the band's representatives." Do you have any evidence of that? I don't see any such communication in the talk page or its archives. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I was attempting to make an argument against WP:COMMONNAMES, which seems to have been used in the past. As to the communication from them, it was via email to the OTRS system. I should mention I'm not acting here as an advocate for the band or their representatives, any more than I act as advocate for someone who reports a problem with a biography or an act of vandalism. My view is that if the band wants to call themselves Thirty and they have evidence to show that's the case, then that's their prerogative, and we can be courteous in that sense, propose moving this article and see what happens. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - as per the nominator. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this even a stylisation (worth normalising)? I certainly wouldn't consider using digits instead of spelling them out as such. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


I strongly believe it should be changed to "Thirty..." from "30...". The only album that prints "30..." is the band's debut untitled albums. All the other album from A Beautiful Lie through Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams all read "Thirty...". Even their official Facebook page and the website reads "Thirty...". Just like Three Days Grace NOT 3 Days Grace. I know this has been disputed above, but just thought I would re-open it. Please have a think about it. -- (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2013[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the "Logo" section does not include the band's latest logo which is a triad. The triad is very important to the band and the echelon's identity, so I feel that it should be included in order to accurately represent the band. Thanks, Anna (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Unless there's an image already uploaded as fair use, and as far as I can tell there isn't one. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

GENRE !!! ??? !!![edit]

Progressive Metal??? Emo??? Experimental??? What's going non here??? That's ridiculous!

They are clearly a Pop-Rock Group. The only unusual thing is the screaming-parts like the chorus in "this is war" (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To say the bands music has mainly been associated with "progressive metal" in the lead is an outright lie. That's only a very small minority of the sources opinion, and all of them are flat out wrong anyway. I think we need to identify which sources are more accurate instead of just mindlessly following what they say, if we didn't than Korn and Slipknot would be tagged as death metal since a few moronic writers for reliable sources have labelled them as such at some point. Right now there is a very strong general consensus among editors for progressive metal not to be included, it seems only a few editors (and possible fans of the band) are pushing for it to stay. I call the big one bitey (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"To say the bands music has mainly been associated with "progressive metal" in the lead is an outright lie [...] and all of them are flat out wrong anyway." - Not the best attitude going forward, it doesn't matter whether or not you consider a source true, but if it is considered reliable on Wikipedia. Also, there is not strong consensus against it's inclusion (otherwise it wouldn't be there), mostly editors voicing their own opinions. From what I remember (the prog metal discussions where a while ago now) there were more than enough sources to warrant it's inclusion, more sources than other genres in the article, so its inclusion is justified for now. That being said, the sources largely apply to their first album. A re-wording to state as much would improve things because, as it stands, the lead doesn't accuratly summarize the band's sound, and being compared to Pink Floyd and Tool once is hardly worth a mention in the lead. HrZ (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree about the Tool/Pink Floyd reference in particular. The real elephant in the room here is that it's very difficult to distinguish PR descriptions from factual descriptions in music reviews. All bands throw in a load of genres and influences to portray themselves in a favourable light - the word "experimental" has been used to describe fairly standard pop/rock bands for decades. That has a spillover into reviews because 1) reviewers also have a stake in making things seem more exciting than they actually are, or demonstrating their own supposed knowledge by citing long lists of genres/influences, and 2) there's a huge amount of underhand plugging that goes on in the world of music reviews which can undermine their credibility. Ultimately there has to be a judgement call made somewhere as to whether a source is accurate - it's subjective, but that's the nature of the beast. I personally would have a hard time calling 30 Seconds to Mars experimental, and I find the idea that they should have "progressive metal" in the genre box completely laughable, but if it can be accurately sourced then depressingly it should go in the article. We can't change Wikipedia's policies on this talk page, even if it's a clear example of why the policy seems flawed and open to the abuse of PR companies. Bandanamerchant (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

They are NOT a Pop/Rock band. Pop Rock is like P!nk, Maroon 5 or One Direction. Stop calling any band which is popular Pop Rock. (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Two massive things about this band's article are wrong - they are Thirty Seconds...' not 30 Seconds...', as stated on all albums since debut and their website, Twitter/Facebook pages and all subsequent posts on both named sites. The artists clearly want to be identified as 'Thirty... therefore it is a disgrace to force an incorrect name upon the page which has been written about them. Please reference their official trademark patent from the United States Patent office.

Secondly, the genre of music. 'Mars' can't be placed in a particular genre but to say they are 'New/Prog metal' with influences of 'Emo' is also a disgrace to the artist - music they create should not be placed into 'Emo/Screamo' just because Leto screams at the end of one chorus of a song; this article should simply state 'Alternative Rock' as a genre, perhaps 'with influences of Electronic Music and Metal.'

I don't know why these changes always get reverted when someone tries to put things right but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcooke343 (talkcontribs) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You certainly like the word "disgrace" by the looks of it. Social networking sites are not considered reliable sources, and it is hardly incorrect unless "30" and "Thirty" sound different... (also, on the side of my Beautiful Lie album, it still has the "30")
As for the genre, read previous discussions. Genres are particularly controversial with this band so it is preferred that any changes are discussed here on the talk page first, with reliable sources used as evidence (rather than opinions). Read Wiki policy WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Regards. HrZ (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2013[edit]

Now it is:

Current touring members
  • Tim Kelleher  – bass guitar (2007–2010; 2011–present)
  • Braxton Olita – keyboards, guitars, backing vocals (2009–present)

Former touring members

Qlsove (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

I think:[edit]

Current touring members
  • Stephen Aiello  – bass guitar (2013–present)
Former touring members
  • Kevin Drake – rhythm guitar (2001–2002)
  • Tim Kelleher  – bass guitar (2007–2010; 2011–2013)
  • Braxton Olita – keyboards, guitars, backing vocals (2009–2013)
It's definitely Steve Aiello on bass now, Tim Kelleher left last year. Aiello is on the 2013 Rock am Ring footage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcooke343 (talkcontribs) 17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please change the band name from 30 Seconds to Mars to THIRTY SECONDS to MARS[edit]

I am requesting that the the official band name on this wiki page be changed to Thirty Seconds to Mars from 30 Seconds to Mars. Please reference the official United States Patent and Trademark Office link to the trademark for the band: [5]

The band should be referenced as THIRTY SECONDS TO MARS throughout the Wiki page; "30" should be replaced with "THIRTY".

To do your own search please use the following link and type in THIRTY SECONDS TO MARS in the trademark search [6]

In case the link is dead when you click on it, and you have not done a search please see below. Below is a copy and paste of Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) Word Mark THIRTY SECONDS TO MARS Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: A series of sound recordings and downloadable sound recordings featuring music; DVDs, audiovisual recordings and downloadable audiovisual recordings featuring music and musical performances; downloadable ring tones, graphics and music via the internet and wireless devices. FIRST USE: 20020827. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20020827 IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Posters; printed materials in the nature of stickers. FIRST USE: 19980000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19980000

IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, t-shirts, sweatshirts, shirts; wristbands. FIRST USE: 19980000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19980000

IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Streaming of audio and visual recordings featuring music and musical based entertainment over a global computer network; providing online chatrooms and bulletin boards for transmission of messages among users in the field of music, entertainment, recording artists, music artists, popular culture. FIRST USE: 20010412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010412

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, providing entertainment information regarding a musical group, namely, performances, recordings, appearances, biographies, and photographs via a website on a global computer network. FIRST USE: 20010523. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010523

Standard Characters Claimed     
Mark Drawing Code       (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Trademark Search Facility Classification Code   NUM-26-UP 30 Other Numerals - 26 and Up
Serial Number   77780981
Filing Date     July 14, 2009
Current Basis   1A
Original Filing Basis   1A
Published for Opposition         November 24, 2009
Registration Number     3746782
Registration Date       February 9, 2010
Owner   (REGISTRANT) Leto, Jared INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 10990 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor c/o Wasserman, Grossman & Sloan, LLP Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 90024
Attorney of Record      Lawrence E. Apolzon
Prior Registrations     2560251
Register        PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator     LIVE


(Noyes388 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC))

Instead of spamming the related articles of 30 Seconds to Mars, you should request for the article be moved at WP:RM. However, it should be noted that a request has been made before (see Requested move). Regards. HrZ (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Please note that I am not trying to spam the page. I was simply trying to supply the actual United States Trademark information for the band, to state why the Header on the page should be changed from 30 to Thirty. If this can not be resolved on this page, I will take the next step and request for the article to be moved at WP:RM. Noyes388 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It's possible it may be moved from "30" to "Thirty", but it won't ever be in all caps. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be great if that change could be made. I would request that it be changed to Thirty instead of 30 at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes388 (talkcontribs) 03:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to say, when I was talking about the spamming, I was refering to your talk page posts on related band members requesting the same change. As for the title change, as stated at the dispute resolution noticeboard, the correct procedure is to request a move here with the evidence you have provided. As for my own opinion, I am fine with either way; 30 Seconds to Mars or Thirty Seconds to Mars, will happily back the latter if that's where it's going. Regards. HrZ (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you confirm that I correctly moved the page. I am unsure if I moved it to the right page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes388 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't move it correctly: you moved it to "User talk" space. Beyond that, you shouldn't move it at all right now: there's no consensus that it should be moved.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a week for the survey below. What are my next steps? Do I need to ask for a IAR, because the people below are not referencing the actual trademark as reference. Noyes388 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move #2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

30 Seconds to MarsThirty Seconds to Mars – Alright, let's do this again. User:Noyes388 has provided primary sources that prove the band's name is Thirty Seconds to Mars. As per other discussions (e.g., Deadmau5 and Tech N9ne‎) I believe that this move is merited, per the artist's self-identification, and that this trumps WP:COMMONNAME in whatever form it's supposed to apply here. As disclosure, I have been in contact with two of the band's reps via OTRS who requested essentially the same thing, to which I replied that there were too many secondary sources that called the group "30 Seconds" and suggested they put up a page on their official website to clear the issue up. I suppose this is the best next thing. Please !vote below. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 17:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


  • Support as nominator, per the evidence above. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose you need an WP:IAR to trump WP:UCN or a policy conflict, none of which you've pointed out. Further, "Deadmau5" and "Tech N9ne" are both common name renames, which you are arguing against, so you can't use those outcomes to support your case, since you're arguing against those moves. -- (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • IAR is not a special card to be played at a gaming table; but if you need somebody to mention the magic three letters "IAR" here in order to allow the article to be moved to a more accurate title, then I'll do it now. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this needs to be moved but there is no reason to need to evoke Deadmau5 or Tech N9ne since those were case where numbers were being used in a styliztic manner but there was a consensus that there were common enough names to be used regardless of rules like the WP:MOSTM. That's not the case here since neither version violates that guideline. The real question here is which name is actually used and if there's a dispute to use the band's name in this case since there is no conflict with our guidelines with either name.-- (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • With no assertions as to common name yet, we can go by the officialesque name. Weak support. Red Slash 02:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The band currently uses both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". The majority of third-party sources use "30 Seconds", so "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect to it.--Earthh (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @Earthh: Can you point out where or how the band currently uses "30 Seconds"? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Their Twitter account currently reads 30 Seconds to Mars [1].--Earthh (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, but it seems that changing the Twitter name is harder to do than changing the Facebook name. And on FB they use "Thirty" [2]. So they could be using "30" in the past, but eg. recently chose to use "Thirty" and weren't able to change it on Twitter. I personally prefer "30", but I'll accept the change – as long as there will be redirects (I usually type "30STM" when trying to get to this Wiki page), I'll be happy :D — Mayast (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not only that; the majority of third-party sources use "30 Seconds", so "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect to it per WP:COMMONNAME.--Earthh (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for info. I'm not surprised that probably most people (both journalists and fans) prefer "30" than "thirty", as it is easier and faster to type ;) — Mayast (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

When is this genre dispute gonna be fixed?[edit]

I think the most neutral solution would be to just put their genre as rock and then have a separate section describing all the genres they have been listed as. Like how has been done in HIM's Wikipedia page. MsBlackworld (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I like that! — Mayast (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. Furthermore, every single genre in the article should be reconsidered since many listed sources are not reliable.--Earthh (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
As just rock in the infobox? I agree with that. Side-note, the musical style section could do with a re-write (to something along the lines of Nirvana and R.E.M.) and the sources checked. The genre and influence mentions lack any clarification or elaboration. HrZ (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

THIRTY or 30[edit]

IT IS FUCK-NG 30!!!!!!!!!!! Major third-party uses "30", it's easier! Nobody who knows 30 STM uses "Thirty" only Echelon. On City Of Angels talk page is there the answer. 30 Seconds To Mars always used 30 and Thirty in all the albuns but in informations, website, facebook page etc... This is a 'whim' of them, they always used that stuff. Please keep 30 because it's easier to write and it's the original way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBaila (talkcontribs) 19:03, 19 August 2013

Incorrect rename[edit]

Why was the page moved if there was no consensus? Only the nominator of the move expressed support (and it's obvious that the nominator is in support), while another user expresses a weak support because "with no assertions as to common name yet" (and then I clarified that point). Two other users were opposed to the move. The nominator of the move said that he has been in contact with two of the band's rep; any kind of evidence of that? With no consensus the page was moved. The band currently uses both names, since 1998 they have been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards. On wiki now he have Attack (30 Seconds to Mars song) and Do or Die (Thirty Seconds to Mars song). We cannot have both names, 30 Seconds to Mars or Thirty Seconds to Mars is the same band. The problem is that 30 Seconds to Mars is the official name from ever. That's why the majority of third-party sources use "30 Seconds". Also AllMusic, which is the largest digital archive of music, states that the official name is 30 Seconds to Mars and that the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars [3]. On Wikipedia, after the move, we have the contrary. I think that the move discussion was closed incorrectly and I hope that this problem will be fixed.--Earthh (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If they have only used their name stylized that way for less than a year, than the article should definitely still be titled 30 Seconds to Mars. It seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME, I mean I had never seen it named Thirty Seconds to Mars since the previous discussion. As I see there really was no consensus to move the article in the discussion above. You might want to leave the closing administrator a message on his talk page, because I am not sure he will see it here. STATic message me! 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Earthh has been in touch with me on the issue, essentially arguing that there was no consensus because only the bolded supports and opposes should be counted. If that were the case, we could probably replace RM closers with bots. As such, a majority of editors supported a move, their position was not against policy, so the request was successful. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not say that only the bolded supports and opposes should be counted; I said that the comments from the other users did not express support or oppose to the move. Are we looking at the same discussion?--Earthh (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it'd be easier if you filed a WP:MRV on this to get this dispute sorted out. -- (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the band filed a trademark in 2000 with the name "Thirty Seconds To Mars". The trademark was accepted on April 9, 2002. "Thirty" is the correct way to reference the band. Please feel free to do your own search at (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Move Review was opened 21 August[edit]

It should have been linked here with a template linking to Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 August, but doesn't look like it was. Also now Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_refusing_to_explain_closure_of_MR_against_consensus. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Google Book results:

"by 30 Seconds to Mars" = 5 non Wikipedia results
"by Thirty Seconds to Mars" = 2 results

But then the artwork on albums with Thirty is more recent... In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note - there was a request to close the ANI thread linked above, which I did per IAR. My suggestion is to take a few weeks to collaboratively put together a new move request with sources and strong arguments. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Editor_refusing_to_explain_closure_of_MR_against_consensus --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Update the Photo used on the page[edit]

Hi, I would like to put in a request to update the photo on the page for "Thirty Seconds To Mars". Could we please update the photo with a more recent photo? This photo has been uploaded to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes388 (talkcontribs) 21:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I second this, those photos are from tours from the last album. This is the photo used by the band on all new promotional material. Samcooke343 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the image to the infobox, if someone could add a decent caption for it naming the members left to right, go right ahead! STATic message me! 20:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for change of information: Band Formed date needs to be changed to Band was signed in 1998[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to mention that the bands website states that the band was signed in 1998. I am not sure where people thought the band formed in 1998.


If you go to the site please scroll all the way to the bottom. View the time capsule and you will see their is a event section that states the band was signed in 1998. This means they would have formed as a group earlier then 1998.

If need be I will provide a screen grab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes388 (talkcontribs) 01:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No, This means they would have formed as a group earlier than 1998, OR ealier IN 1998. Either way, a better reference source to determine the formation date would be useful. But I don't know if it would be possible to determine, as Jared and Shannon started playing together as kids – read this discussion, especially Provehito In Altum's answer. — Mayast (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Mayast. Could we at least change the info so it correctly reads that they where signed in 1998, vs. formed in 1998.

Yahoo answers states that they formed earlier then 1998. this discussion

Website says that they where signed in 1998- ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes388 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Any updates, on changing the info to "is an American rock band from Los Angeles, formed in 1998" To "is an American rock band from Los Angeles, that was signed in 1998."

Please reference the Bands website for evidence of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes388 (talkcontribs) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick search shows that there are sources available that state that they were formed in 1998. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. There a couple that state they were signed in 1998 also, while another stated they debuted in 1998. HrZ (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources. In the light of this, I think that "formed in 1998" should stay in the article, but it might be a good idea to provide a reference source next to that information. — Mayast (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you need for this change to happen? I was sourcing the Bands time capsule at the bottom of the page. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused, evidence? The majority of band articles (that I've read anyway, including good and featured articles), state when they were formed in the first sentence of the lead. I don't see how them being signed the same year takes more importance over when they formed. When they were signed should already be included in the article body also. HrZ (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. They formed before 2007, and I am asking what do you need me to provide to prove that so they can be referenced the correct way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes388 (talkcontribs) 00:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you fucking crazy?[edit]

30STM is also a hard rock and a prgressive rock band!! please look the other wikipedias ; the esp wiki, the deuth wiki and the ital wiki add other genres like emo,post-hardcore and hard rock!!!--Ocean siz3 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep calm and read this. Mayast (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Touring Member: Stephen Aiello[edit]

I can't personally edit the page, but I think it would be pretty awesome if someone could add a link to his name that links to the only other wiki article that pertains to him which is his band, Monty Are I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeFlipper (talkcontribs) 15:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Mayast (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edge of the Earth[edit]

Does anyone have access to a source that would allow them to validate a UK Rock Chart position for Jan 19, 2008? This article was deleted in 2009, primarily for lack of notability due to not charting. Now, it has been recreated with a 2008 chart claim, with a date that conveniently predates all online archives of the UK Rock Chart. It's hard for me to believe that people in WP:Articles for deletion/Edge of the Earth were arguing over unsourced #81 positions in Japan if it had reached #5 in the UK, even on a subchart. I smell fraud, but can't prove it. I'd appreciate some assistance.—Kww(talk) 14:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That source was already cited at Thirty Seconds to Mars discography when I nominated it for FL, where it was written that the song reached the top ten of the UK Rock Chart. Someone pointed out that the song charted among other tracks from the same album and reached number five after the band finished a promotional tour in Europe, citing a band's biography by Adam Kisch. After this, during the FL nomination, I and another user noticed that there was enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, since the song has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (WP:NSONGS); it was performed on television, is featured on video games soundtracks and was covered by a musical group.--Earthh (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
So you have never seen the original source?—Kww(talk) 18:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I've never seen it. We need a subscription to ChartsPlus to have access to it.--Earthh (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Вик Ретлхед (talk · contribs) 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Will get to this one as soon as I'm done with Hermética. My apologies for waiting this long for a reviewer.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The non-prose sections look well organised. One advice is to turn the "Awards" section into bulleted list. Check Metallica to see how it should be done. A more detailed review will follow in a few days.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Creating another list (incomplete, moreover), is not so useful when we have already the complete list. I have also removed AllMusic and Discogs links which stand better at Thirty Seconds to Mars discography.
Per WP:WPMAG, awards should be presented in bulleted list; Referring to the list being incomplete, the discography list is also incomplete. However, the point is to present their most important work, as well their most important accolades. If the reader want complete list, there always that "Main article" template.
It's written nowhere that we should present awards in bulleted list. Their most important accolades are presented with that short paragraph which is very similar to the one of other good articles (see Coldplay, for example).
  • no need for original stylization of the band's name since it's not a big deviation from the currently written name
Of course, it is, but "30 Seconds to Mars" was the official stylization and there are many reliable sources that still use it. Should I leave it?
The only difference is "Thirty" from "30". I'll leave the decision to you.
I think we should leave it since there are other users that want it to stay [9].
  • "but only to limited success"→does this means it was not commercially successful? Can you make it more precise?
  • you need to mention that EMI is a record label, otherwise the first-time reader might be confused
See below.
  • split the sentence. The information regarding their fourth studio album should be written in another sentence.
Fixed the sentence. There was an incorrect information; EMI was sold to Universal Music, so the band moved to the latter. There's no need to have two separate sentences.
Looks good.
  • lose "As of May 2013"
It's important to mention it, especially when the figure does not include every album's sales.
You mean in those numbers isn't calculated the last album. The thing is we can always update the number if there some journal that will report new sales. Besides, in today's market, sales don't rise significantly during a single year.
Yes, that's what I mean. For this reason we should leave it.
  • delink tours and festivals since it's directly connected to the theme
Could you be more specific? Why should I delink them?
Per WP:OVERLINK→everyday words understood by most readers in context. I'm not an English speaker, but I do know what a tour and festival is.
Sorry, I thought they were not linked. I've just fixed it.--Earthh (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "its fusion of many music genres"→for fusing many music genres
Musical style
  • replace tone with style
  • the comma should be after the quote mark
It should be before quote mark, see MOS:QUOTE
  • I don't think "sampling from" is grammatically correct. It can be sampling only or "including samples from"
It means that the album fused those genres. "including samples from" has a different meaning.
In that case, it should be re-worded (sampling is something completely different). Why don't you say it combined musical characteristics from X and Y?
Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "an ambitious collection of experimental rock"→This is an opinion from the Rolling Stone reviewer, which means it can't be presented as a fact. If you don't want to mention the author, drop "an ambitious collection of" and write that the album was rooted in the experimental rock genre or something in that spirit.
It says that the album was considered, so it's clear that it is an opinion.
Sounds good.
  • generally speaking, this is a very well written sections. Easy to understand even for reader who's not familiar with the band
Thanks :) Earthh (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Went through the "Activism" sections and haven't found anything that needs special attention. More notes to follow.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Apart from some minor issues with the prose the article passes the other criteria. I'll make these corrections myself since it would take me longer to bring them here than do them myself. You can go through the "History" section too and fix any mistakes you find.--Вик Ретлхед (talk)
I did not find any mistakes, thanks for your contributions :) Earthh (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Additional notes
  • "Thirty Seconds to Mars retreated to the isolation of Wyoming's country in 2001"→re-shape this, doesn't read quite well
Shall we use "countryside"? I find nothing wrong with this, it's so simple.
That will work.
  • "sought out"→contacted or appointed
  • "selling 121,000 copies in the United States alone."→Is this the number for overall sales and why is "alone" needed?
Removed "alone".
  • "a critic felt that"→name the critic
  • what is "slow-burning success"?
It means that the album attained success years after its release.
"attained commercial success years after its release" is way better than "slow-burning success" (not sure if that's a phrase)
It's a term used in the music industry (such as "sleeper hit" for films). It's normally used in other music articles (for example, see this good article), we should leave it.
I haven't heard it. But if exist, then let it be.
  • omit "as of March 2011" (the album was released while ago, so it doesn't need a date)
I'm not removing it since it's important to mention that reference point.
Will it sell another 5 millions this year? We don't put dates about sales for older albums. There's no reason to write Metallica sold 30 million copies as of 2011, because it was released in 1991 and it didn't sell additional 10 million copies in the meantime.
It's not written that an album sold 10 million copies, it's written that the band has sold 10 million albums as of May 2013. There's no reason to omit that reference date.
  • "televised appearance"→appearance on television
There's nothing wrong with "televised appearance".
  • "Released in 2003, "Edge of the Earth" became the second single from the album."→The second single from the album, "Edge of the Earth", was released in 2003.
I find better the current version, otherwise we'll have a phrase ending with 2003 and the following one beginning with 2003.
  • "due to issues primarily related to touring and Tomo Miličević successfully auditioned for the part of guitarist"→primarily is not needed and split the sentence saying in which you say Tomo Miličević took his place.
  • "to begin work on their second album A Beautiful Lie, with Josh Abraham producing."→"to begin working"; split the sentence, saying Josh Abraham was the producer; "with Josh Abraham producing" is awkward at least
Fixed. Two separate sentences are not necessary.
  • "The band travelled to four different continents to accommodate Jared Leto's acting career."→"traveled" is the correct spelling, "different" is sufficient; "to accommodate Jared Leto's acting career" (what is this trying to say?)
  • "A Beautiful Lie differed notably from the band's debut album, both musically and lyrically"→"A Beautiful Lie was notably different from the band's debut album, from both musical and lyrical aspect"
  • It was led by "Attack"→It's lead single, "Attack"...
  • " in 2007 and 2008 respectively"→comma after 2008
  • "was released as the fourth single in selected territories"→reword this mentioning the countries it was released in
There's no way to mention every single country in which the single was released, it's impossible and useless.
Can you at least mention something in the manner like "European countries" or "North America", so the reader can have a basic idea what are the "selected territories"?
We know that the single was released in most of the European countries and the US, but it was not released in the United Kingdom and other countries. I think "Selected territories" it's enough for a basic idea.
Then write that it was released in the US and some/majority of the European countries, because "selected territories" can be any country in the world.
It will be not complete in that way. The single was not released only in the US and Europe, but also in South America and other countries, I suppose. It's impossible to list every single country in which it was released, it will be incomplete. Sorry, but I don't see any kind of problem with "selected territories".
Readers might think of some African countries as well under "selected territories". That contradicts the first GA criteria→The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently.
Look, the meaning of the sentence is clear and not confusing; when you read that the single was released in selected territories you have the idea that it was not available in every country around the world. What is not clear is a list of countries since (1) this list will never be complete (where do you find a source that says the single was released in those countries??) and (2) it will appear useless and confusing to the reader, and this strongly contradicts the GA criteria. How would you express this sentence? Do you want a list of countries? With "selected territories" we give the basic idea and it's the best way to express that. I seriously don't understand what's the problem with that. At Thirty Seconds to Mars discography, which is a featured list, we have a similar sentence with the same meaning and during the FLC, it didn't provoke any kind of problem. From the Good article criteria: the page addresses the main aspects of the topic and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Can you at least change that "selected territories" into "a number of countries"?
Can you explain to me what's the difference between "selected territories" and "a number of countries"? I will change it if it will improve the article.
You're not obligated to change it if you think it won't improve the quality of the article. I'm just making suggestions, it's up to you to decide whether you'll make the corrections or not.
  • "Its music video was shot"→"filmed" instead of "shot"
  • "At the 2008 MTV Europe Music Awards in November"→drop "in November"
Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Thirty Seconds to Mars began work on their third studio album"→began to work or began working (think the second one is more grammatically correct)
  • "the band worked"→"hired" to avoid overusing "worked"
I've changed it in the previous sentence.
  • "Thirty Seconds to Mars found themselves at war with their label"→if they had some disputes with the label, that doesn't mean they were engaged in war
  • the following sentence (The band had attempted...) is way too long and should be split
  • contracted→under contract
Not done to avoid overusing "contract".
  • "resolved our differences with EMI"→lose the quote marks saying their instead of ours
  • countries instead of territories
  • "with previous collaborator Steve Lillywhite"→collaborator may refer to producer, engineer, singer, etc, but from the context of the sentence, I assume that Lillywhite was a producer as well. To avoid being confusing, you can write that the album was produced by Jared Leto and Steve Lillywhite, who produced their previous record.
Not done. The previous paragraph claims that he served as a producer on the third album. Then this sentence says "The album was produced by Jared Leto with previous collaborator Steve Lillywhite" so it's clear that he is a producer.
  • "In September 2012, Artifact, a documentary about the band's legal battle against the record label EMI and the making of This Is War, premiered at the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival and won the People's Choice Documentary Award."→you can drop "In September 2012", or compose something like "at the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival held in September that year", but I prefer omitting the date.
Omitted the second "2012".
  • "available to download"→available for downloading
  • At the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards held on August 25→comma after Awards
  • the time-length of the audio samples of "The Kill" isn't according to WP:SAMPLE→10% of the length of the original song. The remaining samples have adequate rationale and appropriate timing. The images are under free-use, which means there are no copyright restrictions.
This is pretty much it. I'll list the issues which remained unresolved and I consider they should be addressed, and ask for a second opinion. After that, I'll come with the verdict whether the article will pass or fail.
Unresolved issues
  • bulleted list for "Awards"
  • dates for album sales released while ago
  • the cite is not a full sentence, the comma goes outside the quote marks→MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • "was an ambitious collection of experimental rock"→only one critic said this, and it is presented like it is the general opinion
  • is the phrase "slow-burning success" appropriate for usage in that context?
  • again, date for sales of an album released quite awhile (12 years if I'm not wrong)
  • "televised appearance" or "appearance on television"?
  • the issue with "selected territories"
  • the note with Steve Lillywhite described as collaborator

Hi, I've been asked to give a second opinion, which is as follows:

  • Dates for album sales - specific dates are required to pass a GA per the "words to watch" part of criteria 1b. See WP:REALTIME
  • MOS:QUOTEMARKS - doesn't really matter, GA criteria 1b only specifies five parts of the MOS you must adhere to, so if you can't agree, just drop it
  • "was an ambitious collection" - should be attributed to a specific author. Again, words to watch
  • "slow burning success" - doesn't mean anything, I'd go with "The album had sold two million copies worldwide by March 2011"
It is actually a term which is normally used, try to search for it on google. I'll remove it if it's not appropriate.
  • "televised appearance" vs "appearance on television" - I'd go with the latter
Added "appearance on television".
  • "selected territories" is too vague - need to specify exactly which countries it was released in. See WP:WHATPLACE
The single was not released in just two countries. Should I list fifty countries?
  • "collaborator" - I prefer this as it stops the word "producer" being used repetitively

A couple of other things I noticed:

  • You need to watch claims in the lead - everything there must be mentioned in the body. For example, the claim for selling 10 million albums is not mentioned in the body.
In which paragraph should I write that the band sold overall 10 million albums? It should stay in the lead.
  • The reason for Matt Wachter's departure from the band is unsourced - "spending time with my family" can be a cover-up for "I hate the band but don't want to fall out with them"
Added a source.--Earthh (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In terms of what to do, it doesn't look too far off passing if the issues here are the only ones outstanding. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Final note: keep "slow burning success", adapt the length of the sample "The Kill" per WP:SAMPLE, keep the total sales in the lead since there isn't a suitable place in the article's body, figure out something to replace that "selected territories" (North America/majority of the European countries, or an idea of your own) and we can finally close this review.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Earthh (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You can't keep information in the lead that isn't in the body per WP:MOSLEAD - it won't meet the GA criteria otherwise. If you can't find a suitable place in the article's body, the information should be removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You should look at other good articles about groups or singers. Removing an important information such as sales figure will certainly not improve the page.--Earthh (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've decided to close the nomination as successful. One small issue shouldn't ruin the hard work here. Congratulations.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I checked the Manual of Style and contrary to what I said, WP:MOSLEAD doesn't explicitly say every single piece in the lead should go in the body, merely a general summary (overall sales) should be expanded in the body (individual sales). So it does pass the GA criteria. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all :) Earthh (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Genre again[edit]

Hello. Noticed my edit has been suggested going to this page. You can come to a solution of what the genre of the group is all you like, but you still need a source to back up this resolve. Since there was none, we still need a source there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of genres used by critics for this band. After long discussions we found that alternative rock was the musical genre that could best describe the style and tendency of the band. The sources are multiple and the Musical style section is full of reliable sources.--Earthh (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Update the photo[edit]

I just wanted to follow up on this request -

I would like to put in a request to change the photo on Thirty Seconds To Mars Wiki page. I had done this previously but my photo was deleted. This photo came directly from the company I work for which represents the band. Can you please explain how I can get the photo changed back to the updated version of the band? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated as I am a newbie at Wikipedia and all of the rules. 

The photo is Black and white and features the three band members.

We had used this photo previously which was accepted and then deleted.

Please note this photo is the official press release photo from 2013. You can find it used on multiple news articles. I have provided a link below.

Noyes388 (talk)

Musical Genre[edit]

I suggest: Experimental rock, alternative rock, progressive rock, electronic rock.
These are the most cited genres on sources.

Request to Return Deleted Information[edit]

An edit made in September 2013 (permalink) removed some information, with the comment (improved the whole article, fixed multiple issues). I request some of this information returned, or an improved explanation for why it can't remain.

Specifically, I think the information contained in the section about The Echelon should remain. If this was a print encyclopedia trying to save space, I would concede we could leave that information out, but here I think it should be included somewhere in the end of the article. The Echelon are a significant part of the band's culture and presence, often acknowledged in their videos[8] [9] [10](look in the credits). No other article exists for the topic. The current version doesn't clearly or sufficiently explain what the Echelon is. If there are disagreements about what the Echelon is, I think the opinion of the band members should at least be included.

The information about the logos and the name's origin is also interesting, and I see no harm in leaving it at the bottom of the article.

Cammcken (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ [10][dead link]
  2. ^ "matt mcjunkins the new bassist of the band for the U.S tour". Retrieved 2011-09-15. 
  3. ^ [11][dead link]
  4. ^ "matt mcjunkins the new bassist of the band for the U.S tour". Retrieved 2011-09-15. 
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^ Cubbins, Bartholomew. "Closer to the Edge". Sisyphus. Retrieved 19 March 2015. 
  9. ^ Cubbins, Bartholomew. "Up in the Air". Sisyphus. Retrieved 19 March 2015. 
  10. ^ Cubbin, Bartholomew. "Do or Die". Virgin Records. Retrieved 19 March 2015.