Talk:Blink-182

Archives
Genre discussions 1

MCA was absorbed by Geffen

I'm going to change where it says they left MCA for Geffen. Its not true, MCA records was absorbed by Geffen. Both labels were under (and Geffen still is) Universal Music Group. NArca9 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Former Members / Curent Members

Could someone please explain why Barker and Hoppus are listed as current members and Delonge as a former member? Did DeLonge officially state he had left the band before it went on "indefinate hiatus"? I didn't think he did. SeaFlat 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UT

well, heres whats up... techinically blink are still together, but its just mark and travis. tom sed he doesnt want to be in b182 anymore but mark and travis have both sed they could still tour as blink 182 if they wanted 2, but they just dont want to. :( SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. I don't think he ever said he'd leave blink-182 when I first heard the hiatus. Alex 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tom Delonge left the band, officially giving Mark Hpoous and Travis Barker full control of Blink-182. If Mark and Travis watned to, they could hire a new guitarist and still be Blink-182. Mark has previously stated that he would not do that, but they legally could carry on as blink-182. 69.15.134.74 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

blinkkk was wayy better thann +44 and angels and airwaves.theyyy hadd betterrr songgs,andd wayy betterr videos Chance 6:51pm,09.21.07

Bold textI HAVE FOUND A SOURCE AND PROVEN THAT TOM QUIT THE BAND. STOP PUTTING TOM BACK IN CURRENT MEMBERS, HE QUIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NArca9 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Ok, so I know I saw an interview where Mark stated that he and Travis still consider themselves Blink 182, I'll have to dig that up. However, I do have proof from Hoppus that Tom quit the band when they went on hiatus. http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/interviews/mark_hoppus_tells_all_about_blink-182_plus_44.html

-NArca9

Missing Albums and Demos

Before Chesire cat there were two albums not mentioned on the Discography section. There were "flyswatter", and "chesire cat"

Im sorry that i have no source . but if any one does, i would appreciate it. im new to Wiki so and help would be nice. FuzzyTheGood 18:15, 26 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FuzzyTheGood (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

To answer your question read what it says on the page edit:

Please DO NOT include any other releases (example: demos, EPs, compilations, live recordings, etc.) on this section and this is only intended to list the studio albums of Blink-182's discography. The reason why there is a new page for the discography is that the band has put up many releases other than studio recordings, so this clutters up this article.

You can find the demos listed in the article blink-182 discography.Hoponpop69 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Typography

Should anyone doubt that our Manual of Style for trademarks is applicable for band names, the articles "KISS" and "matchbox twenty" have both been moved with consensus to Kiss (band) and Matchbox Twenty respectively. A notice that Blink-128's name is sometimes given in all-lowercase has been added right to the first paragraph, so grammar rules, style guidelines and purists are all equally being served. Cyrus XIII 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all putting in "sometimes typeset" is incorrect as it indicates that only a few people do it that way, thus "commonly written" is correct as it is the common name.Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) is a guideline and not a policy. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines where it says "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." On the other hand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (which is policy that is a a list of guidelines) says to use the common name, which in this case is blink-182. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yo, the band name is blink-182, not Blink-182!! WereWolf 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat much of the rationale behind standardized capitalization, since I have already elaborated on this at length during the move request discussions attached to the precedents I previously named. But since you have brought up the issue of common sense, let's talk about that. To me, it is common sense to...

• ...not just take official or fan-driven, but also independent sources into consideration, when assessing whether an eccentric typeset is used "commonly" or "sometimes". Major newspapers, retailers and music networks apparently don't care that much, which bears the question why a general-purpose publication like an encyclopedia should.

• ...capitalize proper names, which kids in English-speaking countries are taught in kindergarten and most other people around the world during their first English lesson.

• ...consider the Wikipedia-wide ramifications before calling for the "occasional exception" from a guideline. Which by the way is a rhetoric I probably get like four times out of five when applying certain guidelines to a pop-culture-centered article - you know, occasionally.

Apparently all this is not common sense to you, hence my common sense now tells me, that we should just agree to disagree. After all, I'm just here to fix a minor style issue ("minor" from aforementioned Wikipedia-wide point of view), not to have my good faith questioned by having conclusive edit summaries on my part denoted as empty "just because" statements in a borderline-3RR revert war. - Cyrus XIII 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the official band name is "blink-182", not "Blink-182" with a capital B. So why is it up, yo? WereWolf 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus XIII, my apologies, the edit summary should have been "Just because (it's listed as sometimes typeset in other articles) is not a valid reason for that particular edit (phrase to be used here)." It was in no way ment to belittle your edits nor question the fact that the edits you were making are in good faith.

WereWolf, good work on helping Cyrus XIII make his points. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Fuck this. Fuck all of this bullshit. I'm done. WereWolf 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I just checked my blink-182 albums and its written as "blink-182". Why should be unmine their naming by effectivly grammar naziing them on their own name whilst writing an article about them. There is no reason for it to ever be written with a b just because "thats what normally happens". Some bands wrte the names WiTh WeIrD choices of case, and you dont see some self important person come and grammar nazi the name, do you?

Proposed edit: blink-182 (written with a lower case B)

this acknowledges the lower case b, and informs the reader its not a typo

Olir 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when bands write their names WiTh WeIrD choices of case, most mainstream print sources choose not to follow that lead, and apply standard rules, just like we do in most such articles here. You ask why we would do that? I think the best reason is that we're not trying to assist trademark holders in brand management, we're trying to convey information. Weird typesettings are a marketing choice, and it's not our place to do their marketing. See WT:MOSTM#Suggested revision for clarity of mixed internal capitalization for more discussion of this point. It turns out there are valid, non-Nazi reasons for applying the standard rules of English. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also, if we have to conform to some stupid rule that says we should be wrong and put a capital b, why do we say "sometimes typeset" its always typeset as blink 182, never as Blink 182. Only people who have made a mistake write it like that, and that mistake was to capitalise. So i say blank out the "sometimes" as its not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olir (talk • contribs) 10:44, March 1, 2007 (UTC).

  I'm not sure we can say that The New York Times, Amazon.com and MTV News are making a "mistake". I think they're applying their house style to a proper noun. It's not correct that the name is "always" typeset with a lower-case 'b', it turns out. Both the upper-case and lower-case versions are routinely used, and we're free to choose either, according to our house style. Our house style, it turns out, is to capitalize proper nouns in the standard fashion, even in cases where trademark holders do it differently. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't we say "offcially" typeset as blink 182? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olir (talk • contribs).

  Because it would put an emphasis on the stylistic preferences of the group/its label, once again bringing up the issue of brand management, GTBachus mentioned earlier. - Cyrus XIII 10:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've observed the rule that we should capitalise the b when talking about them, however common sense tells us that the offcial way of spelling it is with a lower case b, thats what you'll find on all the merch, on your albums on your gig tickets on their websites forums etc.
  Now, with the rule standing that we capitalise the b when we type the name, someone who doesnt know blink has no idea that the real name is with a capital b. The statement "sometimes" is ambiguous and will lead people to believe that maybe on their albums the b will be capitalised or maybe not, basically that current bracketed statement says nothing. The fact is on anything offcial the b wont be capitalised currently we are not recognisining that. Its cool that we write the article with the upper case B, thats the rule, however we must state that on any real blink 182 stuff, you'll never find a capital b. That does NOT mean we write the aricle with lower case b's everytime we say their name it just means that a minor explanation needs to be put, perferrably in that bracketed space explaining that the lower case b is the correct way. I think saying "offcially" instead of "sometimes" would be a perfect way of saying this.

Olir 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Olir. In addition Wikipedia already has enough credibility problems as it is. Changing band and artist names (good intentions or not) only adds to the problem. Beau99 talk 7:38 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Should the name be capitalized (Blink-182) or not (blink-182)? Just for the sake of consistency, shouldn't it be one way throughout? vLaDsINgEr 02:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, whenever i changed the capitalisation/explanation of the capitalisation, some nerdy tw*t would always come and change it back and maybe wave the policy in my face. Why is it now a lower case b with no complaints or disscussion? Olir 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I just went to the official website and they call themselves "blink-182" therefore it is now correct with the no capitalization. Another issue i would like to discuss are the names of the other articles within wikipedia related to blink-182 such as "Blink-182's Discography". Lets change the names from "Blink-182" to "blink-182". Those of you who see this take the time when coming across a blink-182 article, copy and paste this when editing the article: {{lower}} or else simply rename (move) the article with "blink-182" in it, and also rename every Blink-182 to blink-182 (unless it cannot be done such as pictures or important wikipedia links and therefore Blink-182 cannot be decapitalized). Xangel 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style for trademarks basically says your completely wrong to do that, and that it should be a higher case B. But i think it's silly. Olir 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. lol now i noe where the rule is applied. For others who are seeing this check that wikipedia link given by Olir. Ill give the rules here as well: "Lowercased trademarks with NO INTERNAL CAPITALS (such as eBay and iPod with capitalized B and P) should always be capitalized" and blink-182 does not have any internal capitals. Thou i still beieve the name still should be blink-182 if maybe we can have a exception. Otherwise all articles relating to blink-182 should be Blink-182. I'll go fix up a few articles i messed with. lol. whoops. Xangel 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, naturally every editor who feels strongly about a certain subject would want an exception from this guideline or that policy and then there would be little point in having them at all. Anyway, it's nice to see the Manual of Style finally becoming the accepted standard for this and its related articles. - Cyrus XIII 13:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When you find out if its blink-182 or Blink-182, can't you just redirect from a site to another? (someone was speaking of editing all links...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.250.14 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blink-182 (album)

Okay, for about four months, "Blink-182 (album)" was called "(untitled) (blink-182 album)". Now, all of a sudden, it's cited as Blink-182, a self-titled album, for no reason. All of the band members have cited the album as untitled, not self-titled. And what really bugs me is that, in the first sentence: "...is a self- or un-titled album", which is false. I have worked on the article many times, reverted the title, and I'm sick of doing it. References on MTV.com have also said the album was untitled. Anyone who calls the album self-titled, that is WP:NPOV. WereWolf 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is a violation of WP:NPOV (if that's the policy you mean), to refer to an album by a handle that is used on the album discography of the band's official website? Lets take a look at Amazon or the All Music Guide, which by the way is one of the few independent sources to indulge the previously discussed typesetting for the band name. Also, we do not invent new formats when referring to an article's subject and "(untitled)" is pretty much unheard of. - Cyrus XIII 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the webmaster obviously doesn't know shit, and amazon and all music guide suck. I have even gone so far to actually meeting blink in real life and asking them. THEY SAID IT WAS UN-FUCKING-TITLED! WereWolf 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, how nice of them. I just had dinner with Ringo Starr, he told me, Paul was indeed dead - I'm sure you catch my drift. - Cyrus XIII 02:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen mark call it self titled, i think ive seen them saying it's untitled too. Olir 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it is a little awkward to use. The band originally looked at the album as 'untitled'. This is easy to see as only the band's name is included on the CD cover. Brandonluvsapril (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Brandon

Here are is an interview with the band prior to the album's relase. They seem to be in agreement that the album is in fact untitled. I believe quotes from the band trump any websites such as amazon or All Music guide. Link: [[]]

Reason for '182'

Hi there,

The Blink 182 band members went to Poway High School. Poway High School's biggest rival is Rancho Bernardo High School (nicknamed RB). R is the 18th letter of the alphabet and B is the second, thus thus 182. It is a possibility that Blink 182 actually means "Blink" RB, where "Blink" might mean "Beep", or something in place of a cuss word, such as "Fuck RB".

Just another possibility that should be added to the article :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.212.235 (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

this is just one conspiracy. but mark said it means nothing in an interview

thats an ingenious idea but it is incorrect based on more accurate infromation of the band saying it has no meaning but i really like that idea maybe there should be a section about the conspiracys behind the 182

the real meaning of 182

{{editprotected}} On November 15th 2001, Tom Delonge was a guest on "The Late Late Show With Craig Kilborn". On this Show among other things Tom says the the number 182 was just made up and added to the name. That means that there is no conspiracy meaning behind it. hopefully this will be helpful to some as i have heard literally dozens of rumored explanations. this video can be viewed several places on the net including youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkZwWalE_4A

71.35.243.127 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)forum2003 March 31st, 2007

along with that Tom was interviewed on "Larry King Live", in 2006, on that show he stated that the 182 was just made up despite all the rumors. once again this video can be found in several places including youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h60DfTOZHvE

71.35.243.127 04:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)forum2003 March 31st, 2007

{{editprotected}} This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance. CMummert · talk 04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I have seen the aforementioned clips with Tom saying that 182 didn't mean anything, I'm still doubtful, especially since Tom is was generally so negative about Blink 182 in the later years. I once read a rumour that the band decided to put a number after Blink to protect themselves from litigation and counted the number of times that Al Pacino says the 'f' word in their favourite film 'Scarface', which is apparently 182 times! I was recently in a bar where you if you answer the trivia question on the wall you recieve a free martini, the question read "how many times does Al Pacino say FUCK in Scarface?" and i remembered the tale and guessed 182, and i was right, the barman was shocked, but Blink were my favourite band growing up! Anyone else heard this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.169.226 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this one too as an avid blink fan. It is possible there is a connection, but this seems not to be the case, as Tom says. Any number could have been chosen in the hurry to rename the band after the actual band 'blink' attacked them. Brandonluvsapril (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a movie called Turk 182. Monosyllabic, same ending sound, same number. Is there truly no connection? 71.197.37.141 23:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In the book about the band by Mark's sister (Anne) they say although they keep hearing rumours about where it came from it was in fact made up. So unfortunately no really interesting story! They had to rename the band after a challenge from and Irish techno band apparently. Trixxy (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The 182 was mark's ideal weight as he says in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i664eUuNCVg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.234.245 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The 182 does not mean anyhing what you are doing shows the actual spirit of the 182 which was too let kids think about what it meant the part about them havening to add a number is true because they did not want to be sued by the irish techno band blink. also the scar face fact is incorrct because mark states in an interview with a radio station that his favorite movie is star wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.209.196 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dancing with myself

I have a song called dancing with myself by blink 182 and i cant find anywhere what album this is on. i am sure it is blink 182 because the voice is tom and you can hear some mark in the backround. can someone please tell me what album its on thank you.--Jaylee182 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaylee182 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

• Its from one of those crappy "Punk goes" albums. I think it's called "Punk goes 80s".Hoponpop69 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a really cool cover on punk goes 80s Olir 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's from a compilation called Five Years On The Streets [[1]] Alistic 02:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

im confused- blink-182 were founded in 1992... not 1982!!! so it cant be on punk goes 80's. i agree with Alistic|Alistic. SkaterBoy182 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

...you don't have to be formed in the 80's to be on that compilation. That's the point of it. 80's covers. Either way, it's not on that. I do believe it's on Loose Change soundtrack (below) --- Fantasy Dragon (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure of other rumors about this song, but it is included on the soundtrack for a movie called Loose Change. This link proves this. http://www.buymusichere.net/rel/v2_viewupc.php?storenr=20&upc=72061671172&affnr=-1 Brandonluvsapril (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a Billy Idol cover song and yes it was on the compilation cover record "Punk Goes 80s" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.192.35 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the introduction

It says it was formed by Mark hoppus, tom and scott when i'm pretty sure tom has said he started the band and recruited mark and scott? This is true no? I think ill go and find a source Olir 21:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i cant remember wher i heard this, but a third party source (not Tom or Mark) said that Mark went down to visit his sister or something after the break up of his former band. There, his sister (or something) mentioned Tom's name, and he went and found him in a skatepark. The two then decided to form a band, and quickly recruited Scott Raynor on drums. -- Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.182.31 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I was wondering why Angels and Airwaves is listed as a different genre and +44 is not? Blink's last untitled CD sounds similar to Angels and Airwaves 66.82.9.75 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Mark's sister was friends with Tom. They met and hit it off and played music in their garage. Then they added Scott and the rest is history. Trixxy (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not "Former" Members

Why are Mark, Tom and Travis all listed as former members? While it has been said by Mark that Tom had quit the band, it has never been officially stated and thus leaves this to be a disputed topic. Tom and Travis are still part of Blink-182. Even though the band is not currently active, it does not mean that all the members have left. The term "indefinite hiatus" was used for a reason.

• I think to make it simple we are assuming blink 182 disbanded when delonge left as travis and mark said "they could have got a new guitarist and carried on" but they didnt, implying blink 182 came to an end when tom stopped, and is now on hiatus Olir 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the guideline for the template in use, Template:Infobox Musical artist, recommends using the Past_members field for all members of an inactive band, regardless of whether they've quit. --Zytsef 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you check out the talk page, it is not that simple, and leaves it open for editors to use the past and current members fields to distinguish between final line up, and members that left prior to the split. This is more informative, as it provides a quick and easy way of distinguishing between members that previously left the band, rather than having them all heaped in one list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouse4aname (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark says that BLink-182 never broke up. He says all that happened was one member decided to stop so they recruited two new members(see [2] article for more information). In reality Tom did quit and Tom says becuase he started the band and he quit its over but Mark says it is still going under a differant name. Those are the facts but when you listne to the sounds +44 stayed more on track with Blink-182 but +44 has a much more electronic sound. I think becuase of this they may have taken Blink-182 back but they also have changed genres so you might want to put that in if you wite about where people are now. Also Tom in his new band has drastically changed style and his own voice and turned many fans down and in everything's magic he uses the intro from Anthem Part II just in case anyone wants to use that information.

Mark Hoppus

Mark Hoppus was born 15 Mars 1972 in Carlifonia, USA. Marks parents get divors when he was 14 years old. He lived with his father. He gets his first bas buy his father, when he hade helpt him to paint the house. From the start (when he was a school-boy) he want to be a English-teacher. But he choose the music instead. He meted Tom when he was 18 years old. From the first day that they meets, they starts writing some songs. His start a new band with Travis Barker, Craig Fairbaugt and Shane Gallagher after that Blink 182 flitter away. They called them selves “+44”. Them´s first CD “When your heart stops beating” comes 2006 and it be a success. He and Travis also own “La salle records”, it´s a record company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.134.28 (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

--Yes, thank you....... we know CZMQFRG 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blink-182

is it pronounced one eighty two or one eight two —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.63.252 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blink have stated in an interview that it can be pronounced either way. I prefer to say "one eight two". Rolls off of the tongue ;] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.24.116 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen them in England and they've picked up on the fact that we call it "one eight two". They called themselves "one eighty two" but they don't really seem to care what other people call them. Trixxy (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In an interview Tom talks about how when they first started Australian fans seemed to really tkae to the band . He called it thier second home and Australians pronounced it one eight two so he said either way works and the pronunciation doesn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.209.196 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

A while ago, this page's semi-protection stopped. Since then, it's been vandalised al the time. I'd say we put the semi-protection back. It's not like all registered users are gonna miss any big news...--GraafGeorge (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been vandalized a lot recently. I'm going to put in a request at WP:RPP. Timmeh! 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please someone put the smi-protection back and can we please leave the band members part there please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman108 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirection to band-site

The link given redirects to a shock page and advertises porn. Can someone post the real one please? 217.82.32.8 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reformation

Tom's recent interview proves they're about touring in Canada this summer. Should I mention it? Estonius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.201.169.202 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you read this interview? You should only mention it if you have found a source. Also, if you do have an account, it would help if you would sign into it and sign your comments with four tildes - ~~~~. Timmeh! 20:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to ask why one minute it will say Blink-182 is back kids, then the next minute it won't say that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.32.118 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PUT IT IN BRO, EVEN IF U CANT FIND A SOURCE. GIVE US WIKIPEDIANS HOPE FOR BLINK 182!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Blink-182 is over stop vandalizing and who would want Tom back after he made his voice so deep and tries to make songs like reckless abandon acoustic if it isn't valid it doesn't make it. that's like putting that the halocoust never happened in an encyclopedia. Blink-182 was a band that influenced tons of people and will change music forever. I don't think we should put invalid information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.209.196 (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I just wanted to ask why one minute it will say that Blink is back, kids, than the next minute it won't say that, why do things change so much here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.33.234 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Because anyone can edit Wikipedia and people think they're cool doing that. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop putting Tom Delonge back in current members

I have found a source where Hoppus states that Tom officially left the band. Please stop accusing me of vandalizing this article, it is uncalled for. http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/interviews/mark_hoppus_tells_all_about_blink-182_plus_44.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by NArca9 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

When Tom left the band, it ceased to exist, broke up, went on indefinite haitus, whatever you want to call it. However, the band is no longer active. I know your edits were in good faith and absolutely should not have been considered vandalism, but you probably should've discussed it when your first edit got reverted. An edit note needs to be placed there though to notify editors. Timmeh! 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The B

tthe b on blink-182 is supposed to be lower case along with a hyphen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.204.150 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:MOS, we can't have the b lowercase. It must be capitalized. I think this has been discussed already. It might be in one of the archives. Timmeh! 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hung vs. Hanged

In the article where it says "...as 17-year-old Greg Barnes hanged himself...", I noticed people were changing it from hung to hanged, back and forth. The proper word, I believe, is hanged. Hidden comment I added: The proper word here IS hanged, not hung. Please refer to [3] Thought that would clear up some confusion and edits...Fantasy Dragon (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

b182 COMING BACK???

I heard that blink-182 are coming back 2gether in 2008 (now) and want to know if it is true. i tried to add it in the article but it got deleted. thats the reason i am now "skaterboy182" and not "lawrence!atthedisco", cos the thing kept saying that my account would be terminated because of "repetitive malicious editing". so i closed the account myself and went on 2 "skaterboy182". will some1 else please put it back, cos i am sick of setting up new wikipedia accounts. :( SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources and add it to the article. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay... http://unasked.com/Question2953.htm%20 http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/haha/signatures/8 http://www.buzznet.com/web/music/polls/47371/ forum.letssingit.com/topic/128417-1 http://forums.comingsoon.net/printthread.php?s=b7cbfe7168e3a3f921d263cdc2ddf598&t=36681

Dont know if this kounts but i tried. :) (...) SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are not at all reliable. By the way, Wikipedia is not a forum but an encyclopedia - content should be accurate. And try to speak English.--GraafGeorge (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Graaf, please be civil here. Skater, those links you provided aren't reliable. Take a moment to careful read WP:RS and WP:V. Generally speaking, forums and petitions are unreliable for fact checking. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

okay. thanx SkaterBoy182 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

another idea is that even though you shoulden't put OMG BLINK IS GETTING TOGETHER!!!!! you can put an articale near the bottem about rumors telling about links to sights to actually try and give some hope this way information would not be innacurate it would actually show how well the band was liked by showing how many rumrs were started i thinking writeing this could be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.209.196 (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre Flummox!!!!!

Bold text Okay, in the genres list on the b182 taable 2 right, it says poppunk, alt rock and punk, but in the beginin of the article it only sez pop-punk. pleez edit or something!!! SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The info box is useful for mentioning tangential genres. It's redundant to name them all in the lead. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

got it, thanks! :) SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently read Anne Hoppus's book "Tales from beneath your mom" on blink-182, it was really in-depth about the beginning of the band up to Enema of the State (7+ years). Maybe an article could be started about the book/beginning of blink-182?? I think that would be very good, and that way the main article wouldnt be as long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarneke (talk • contribs) 05:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

blink-182 PICTURES

Recently, I tried to change the picture of the band in the info box. several things went wrong.

1) When I put the pic in (http://cdn.purevolume.com/cdnImages/crop_345x235/-554-1119991486-blink3.jpg), the finished page only displayed a link to the picture. When I clicked on it, it told me "page does not exist". How can I make it show the picture and not the link?

2) Another user reverted my edit and told me to discuss it here.

3) What does "Landscape=Yes" in the info box coding mean?

HELP!, thanks.

SkaterBoy182 (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all: why do you think it's necessary to change the picture?--GraafGeorge (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can only add pictures that have been uploaded to Wikipedia. You could upload a picture and then put it in the infobox however. I would welcome a new picture as the old one has been up way too long IMO. Timmeh! 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture that you tried to change to is copyrighted. As free images can be (and have been) found for Blink-182, there is no reason to use a non-free (copyrighted) image. (See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) New images may be uploaded as long as they are free. However, they will most likely not be used in the infobox unless they are better than the one currently in use (which is, frankly, pretty hard to beat). New images could be uploaded to complement the one in the infobox in the body of the article. And I don't see why not, the article only has one image currently. Maybe one of the band performing? - kollision (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

how about this one... http://cd02.static.jango.com/images/artists/a11/a114b60369b5175115da7e00140b6d9f_lg.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No. That image is also copyrighted. For a photo of Blink-182 to be uploaded to Wikipedia, it needs to be under a Free or Public domain license, stated explicitly by the creator. - kollision (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

okay, any suggestions? SkaterBoy182 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother googling any photos of the members of Blink-192, such images are almost certainly not free. If you are truly interested in obtaining a free image, try and procure one from someone you know who has photographed the band (perhaps at concert) and is willing to release the rights to it. Otherwise, your other option is try and get permission from the copyright holder of non-free images, which is difficult to do. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone has any live picture that they took at a blink 182 gig on there PC then by all means upload them, but other than that don't bother.(LemonLemonLemons (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

theres 1 on flickr here, does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No! Look to the right it has a copyright symbol and it says "All rights reserved". The image description also says it is from RollingStone magazine. This image is copyrighted. Please look at the above two users comments and also read WP:NONFREE in full. kollision (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Page restyling

I just changed some things in the article.
- Added subtitles in 'history' to add structure.
- Changed some things according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, such as discography.
- I replaced some of the information in de heading to the body of the article.
- Deleted the 'recruited Mark Hoppus'-part. The reference isn't clear about how long Tom and Scott were alone - it may even have been a couple of hours or something. Thus, the order of their names is enough as hierarchy.
- Unwritten Law seems to be a bigger influence than Dinosaur Jr.
- Shortened and updates information about Start The Machine.
- Added 'legacy'-heading - with little information for now.

To do:
- More pictures needed to illustrate the history (and break the long block of text). Maybe music video-screenshots or older livepics?
- More information needed in subheadings to create a good, comprehensive article. Let this structure be a start to get there!
- Correct any mistakes I made.

Any comments/criticism/threats?--GraafGeorge (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Page references and quality

Ok, well if this page is B class, then i'll be damned, it's horribly sourced. Probably because of an abundence of deletions by IP addresses, since the class was given. Anyway.. i thought i'd compile a list of references to use, since this article is lacking.

Breakup: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Imaturity/maturity: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

Influence: Tribute album [15], [16], [17]

Other: [18]

Various article archives: [19], [20], [21]

Subsections

This adverses readibility. I am against using subsections. Does Led Zeppelin have sections? No. Does Rolling Stones have? Select a reason to put on this albeit smaller and unremarkable article on as such smaller and unremarkable band as blink-182. Ok, there maybe fans, but we don't need subsections guys. We need proper sections, not subones. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should move away from these types of subsections because, as you said, they affect the readability of the article. However, before this can be done, we need to restructure the history section so that the paragraphs are no longer formatted entirely around an individual album. Or, perhaps we can do away with the existing sections (i.e. the ones indicated by the years) and turn the subsections into sections. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of producer

There producer is gone and Blink-182 is talking again after four years.Meowdon (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)