Jump to content

Talk:Blink-182: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎GENRE: don't call me "kid", kid.
Line 73: Line 73:


:You're the one playing games: putting words in my mouth, telling me ''I'' need to provide sources for ''other'' articles when it's ''you'' who wants to make changes to ''this'' article...[[WP:BURDEN|The onus of proof is on you, not me.]] And don't call me "kid", I'm 31 for pete's sake. [[WP:CIVIL|Snarkiness will get you nowhere around here]]. --[[User:IllaZilla|IllaZilla]] ([[User talk:IllaZilla|talk]]) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
:You're the one playing games: putting words in my mouth, telling me ''I'' need to provide sources for ''other'' articles when it's ''you'' who wants to make changes to ''this'' article...[[WP:BURDEN|The onus of proof is on you, not me.]] And don't call me "kid", I'm 31 for pete's sake. [[WP:CIVIL|Snarkiness will get you nowhere around here]]. --[[User:IllaZilla|IllaZilla]] ([[User talk:IllaZilla|talk]]) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

::Alright kid. The only reason I brought up the thing about you playing games was because you mentioned "tag, you're it" I guess in a way we're both childish. So are you fine with the remove of alternative rock on the two latest albums? --[[Special:Contributions/121.216.40.20|121.216.40.20]] ([[User talk:121.216.40.20|talk]]) 11:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:17, 21 December 2011

After Midnight

Should this be created? I know it only has been released on radio so far, but I'm sure there are many pages that exist about singles, that wasn't released on cd. --121.212.16.220 (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it wouldn't pass WP:NSONGS, as it hasn't been released except to radio, hasn't charted (as far as I know), and there probably aren't many third-party sources yet around which to build a decent stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tours section

A slow edit war is still an edit war, so please start actually discussing this section instead of just reverting back and forth. Personally, I don't think the section should be outright removed, and IllaZilla's claim that it is "entirely unsourced" is kind of an unreasonable argument, considering a good chunk of the information (namely the blue links) is pretty uncontroversial, and sourced in their respective articles. That being said, we definitely need some verification of the less notable, earlier tours. —Akrabbimtalk 14:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is little value to a list of tours, especially if nearly all of them are unsourced. Unsourced information may be removed at any time. If they can all be sourced, then a separate list article would be the most appropriate place (say, List of Blink-182 concert tours) with a link provided in the navbox. As it stands, the bluelinked tours are already linked via the navbox so there is little point to sticking a list of them in the article body as well. To use a Featured Article for comparison, Metallica does not have a section for tours, yet there is List of Metallica concert tours which is a Featured List and is linked via the navbox. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make Neighborhoods its own section.

Does anybody else feel that it would be a good idea to either put reformation along with the hiatus or make that a completely independent section, and make Neighborhoods a section of its own, to give a better feel for how long it's been between albums? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDPeterson (talkcontribs) 08:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At present there is a lot of overlap between the "Reformation" section and the Neighborhoods article that could be tightened up. In my opinion the details on the hiatus and reformation in the Neighborhoods article could be pared down, whereas in this article the details on the recording of Neighborhoods could be pared down. That way the two articles will complement/supplement each other rather than repeating a bunch of the same information. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes much more sense to put that on the band's page, since it's much more directly related to the band then that album in particular. A brief mention that it was their first album in 8 years after reforming is enough. DanielDPeterson (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Things

  1. Could someone take a look at my suppage? It has been tried out in the incubator but was unsuccessful in 'hatching.' I hope this could finally state to the laymen that "Dammit" was not Blink's first single.
  2. I think "Heart's All Gone" should be labelled in an "Other songs" section in the template at the bottom of the page, with "Anthem Part Two" as they have both received significant airplay. Incidentally, "Heart's All Gone" is Blink's latest video, so it'd make sense to make an article.

TDW 18:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this user subpage? Sorry, but I don't think the sources cited there look very reliable, and I doubt the song passes WP:NSONGS as it hasn't received signifianct coverage in reliable third-party sources. One of the problems here is that a lot of people misunderstand the definition of a single: A single is a format, a song released separately from the album as a stand-alone item. Usually this takes the form of a vinyl record (7", 10", or 12"), a CD single, or a stand-alone digital download, typically with its own sleeve &/or cover art. Unfortunately many people (and many Wikipedia editors) broadly interepret "single" as "any song played on the radio", "any song with a music video", "any song that charts", or sometimes even "any song the band posts on the internet". None of these are the case. Certainly these things often go hand in hand: many singles receive radio play, have music videos, and have charted, as most singles are released to promote albums, but none of these things individually or in and of themselves constitute a single. A song can have a music video, be played on the radio, and even chart or win awards without ever being given a stand-alone release as a single. Likewise, a single can be released without ever getting played on the radio, having a video, or charting. "M+M's" is a good example of the former case, while "Apple Shampoo" and "Dick Lips" are good examples of the latter (I used to own the CD singles of "Apple Shampoo" and "Dick Lips", purchased sometime in 1998).
Blink-182 never released "M+M's" as a single. Yes, they made a music video, and yes the song received some radio play (especially here in San Diego; it was the first Blink-182 song I heard as an impressionable high school freshman, prompting me to run out and buy Cheshire Cat), but it was never given a stand-alone release (promo-only CDs sent to radio stations for airplay purposes don't count...NSONGS again). "Wasting Time" was the first actual single the band released, though they called it an EP and it was a special release for an Australian tour ([1] [2] [3]). "Lemmings" was their second single, released as a split single with Swindle in 1996 (this was an earlier version of the song, it was re-recorded for Dude Ranch [4] [5]). "Dammit" was the first single from Dude Ranch, and third single overall.
As for "Heart's All Gone", "Anthem Part Two", and any other assorted songs, WP:N and more specifically WP:NSONGS are always the base criteria. The most basic threshold is that the song must have received significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. That doesn't appear to be the case for any of these songs, despite any radio play or chart activity they may have had (chart activity & sales certifactions are already covered in Blink-182 discography). And only article links go in a navbox, as it is a navigation aid and not a discography. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GENRE

THE OFFICIAL GENRES OF BLINK 182 - THESE ARE THE GENRES ACCORDING TO THEIR SOUND: POP PUNK, SOME ALTERNATIVE ROCK, SOME PUNK ROCK BUT A LOT OF PUNK ROCK IN THE 90S, SKATE PUNK(EARLY) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talkcontribs) 02:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the relevant policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:POV, as well as the essays WP:GENRE TROLL and WP:GWAR. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can add alternative rock to the genre because the two latest album blink-182, and Neighborhoods both suggests alternative rock as its genre. If it shouldn't be added should alternative rock be deleted on these albums? Please answer why, and why not for all sections. --121.216.40.20 (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new album is also a bit prog, but not enough to warrant an addition of that to the genre. I agree with with the alternative rock thing though, cause of the last two albums. Punk rock also seems acceptable due to the early stuff. Glacialfox (talk)
As I said above, please see WP:V and WP:NOR. You would need to cite reliable sources supporting classifying Blink-182 as an alternative rock band in order for this to hold any water. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that alternative rock should be removed from the untitled album, and Neighborhoods? --121.216.40.20 (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth; I certainly didn't say that. It depends on whether those articles cite sources for that genre, and what those sources are. At present this article (A) doesn't mention "alterantive rock" anywhere in the article text, and (B) doesn't cite any sources to support such. If you would like to look up some sources that describe Blink-182's transition toward alternative rock on later albums, and add content to the "Musical style and influences" section to that effect, then the infobox can be updated to reflect the article text. That's what the infobox is supposed to do: summarize key details from the article. And the album is titled Blink-182...let's not beat that horse again. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words is there/do you have any source/s that the last two albums are alternative rock? Please share with us, thank you. Also everyone knows what I mean by the untitled album. No need to mention it. --121.216.40.20 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the question I am posing to you: Do you have any sources describing Blink-182 as alternative rock or the evolution of their style from pop-punk to alternative rock? If you do, please share them. You're asking for the change here, so you need to find the relevant sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the question I should ask you... Seeming you won't approve the removing of alternative rock from the untitled album, and Neighborhoods. --121.216.40.20 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to play "tag, you're it". We're discussing this article; If you want this article to describe Blink-182 as an alternative rock act, pony up some sources to support that claim. Otherwise, peace out. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I only have one thing to say kid. I'm not going to play your childish game. Let's just leave it at that ok? Just whoever can find the source/s will claim it right? Also I have removed alternative rock from the untitled album, and Neighborhoods due to lack of source. --121.216.40.20 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one playing games: putting words in my mouth, telling me I need to provide sources for other articles when it's you who wants to make changes to this article...The onus of proof is on you, not me. And don't call me "kid", I'm 31 for pete's sake. Snarkiness will get you nowhere around here. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright kid. The only reason I brought up the thing about you playing games was because you mentioned "tag, you're it" I guess in a way we're both childish. So are you fine with the remove of alternative rock on the two latest albums? --121.216.40.20 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]