Talk:Simple Plan

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



Please leave all arguments about SP's genre here. -- Ian Lee 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Role Model Clothing and other fictions[edit]

As you guys know, not all Wikipedia articles are true, just watch Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction. Now, let's just put all the facts and not fictions, for example: Simple Plan members: Pierre Bouvier, Chuck Comeau and the band's best friend Patrick Langlois founded the apparel company Role Model Clothing and I want to add the section on the Wikipedia. It will need citations and verifications. Also, please do not change the "pop-punk" band thingy,, they are pop-punk not just simply "rock". And, Simple Plan is also associated with Bring Me the Horizon lead singer Oliver Sykes and My Chemical Romance rhythm guitarist and backing vocalist Frank Iero. Add it to the associated acts section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanMars (talkcontribs) 05:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Who gives a crap about Patrick Landis?[edit]

Seems like petty promotion considering the guy is NOT in the band, doesn't produce their albums, or really do anything except being friends with the band. Kind of petty and a waste of good space, right? I mean, these guys are hated enough for being complete tools of the music industry without any real indentification of genre's (they're about as Punk as Mozart) but that aside, I just think it's a personal kudos to have their Webmaster and Merchandiser listed on the page. Not to mention incredibly tacky! Since we allllll love comparisons (i'm already guilty of a few) that's like listing Tom Petty's roadies on his page with little Playboy-esque bios!

Conflict of interest disclosure here, since I know the band and Langlois. But he is the public face of the band in many ways, and gets more publicity and fan attention than one or two members of the band, judging by fan posts on SPO, the main fan site. No one is proposing putting in the names of their techs and roadies. But sometimes you get a case where a non band member is significant. I do not, however, think Langlois is notable to the point of getting his own article, though he did tell me that he had an article about himself in some French language newspaper. I haven't bothered to look, though.--Wehwalt 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Also... please sign your posts. I have a question: how come when I sign my posts with the four tildas, I dont get a link to my userpage like most other people? (I know this doesn't belong here, and I'll hapily strike this out after my question is answered.) Ian Lee 23:19, 11 February 2007)
Nevermind... I found out on my own... Ian Lee 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


LOL...I totally agreee partrick is a BIG part of simple plan he does alot 4 the guy and i know how 2 spell davids last name its: ♥David Desrosiers♥ LOL ignore the hearts i just love all the guys in the band!!! SP ROCKS!!! THEY R THE BEST BAND IN THIS WHOLE ENTIRE FUCKEN WORLD!!!!

Wow, you guys are really into caps. Umm.. yea, I think you should sign your posts, so everyone can know who the people are that post useless opinions. Thanks. --Blank24 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

hey they never said theyre a PUNK BAND, they said they r JUST a BAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Criticisms[edit]

Let's run this by you guys, feedback and POV editing please... I was blocked by some foaming-at-the-mouth Simple Plan fan for editing this in after he took it out. broke 3RR he says. anyways, let's get some consensus. please verify:

Although Simple Plan maintains a devoted following and has produced two multiplatinum records with numerous hit singles, it remains one of the most bashed rock groups of recent time. The band is particularly hounded by devoted fans of the punk movement, and is frequently accused of being a pop-punk band although they describe themselves otherwise. Moreover, the juvenile subject matter of their work prompts further accusations due to the fact that its members are approaching their 30s. Many identify Simple Plan as evidence of the shameless corporatization of rock and roll music in the relentless efforts of record companies to exploit every possible commercial demographic. Nevertheless, the members of Simple Plan have stated quite clearly that they enjoy the backlash of critics, as they believe in the old adage, "all publicity is good publicity," and they will never stop doing what they In addition, the group continues to enjoy considerable mainstream success, as evidence by the aforementioned record sales.

  • I have reverted the page after the vandalism... (again). I think its obvious that this page needs a criticisms section. the page is hit by vandals every fucking week

I personally think that it depends on what song you're talking about. Although none of their songs are pure punk, some of them or more pop than others, but not pure pop (cause eww). Even though they do suck other mens "parts" ~Melissa

Such a criticism is not unreasonable, but it could also be applied to countless other musicians and "performers". Perhaps if you had a formal critique it would not be removed from the article. The link you provided is not working. What you're saying is fairly obvious to a neutral observer, so I don't see why it should be challenged the way it has been. You have my support in your endeavour. XJeanLuc (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Look I would be almost paraphrasing User:XJeanLuc so I wont, my views are inline with that users comment. So I support your proposal. However a few critic sources would be ideal if sources across the time period of their album releases is to be had then this really is a no brainer.Jcislowski (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


Why are people always deleating the pictures of Simple Plan? before there was a picture & now there isnt. >:/

  • Because no one bothers to include source information for the photos. No source information = deleted. android79 12:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The most recent photo has source info; I've tagged it as a fair-use {{promophoto}}. I think that will suffice, though I'm no expert. android79 15:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that the picture I added? Stoyce

Individual Band Members[edit]

The articles on the individual band members (Charles Comeau, Pierre Bouvier, Jeff Stinco, David Desrosiers, Stormi McLightning, and Sebastien Lefebvre) are largely redundant with one another and some contain quite trivial information (favorite colors, etc.) that sounds rather fannish. I plan to merge and redirect all of those articles into this one and excise the trivial stuff. Sebastien Lefebvre is on VfD currently and I will wait until that discussion closes to perform the redirect of that article (assuming the consensus is to merge). androidtalk 02:39, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Since when has there been a member called "Stormi McLightning". The band only has five members. And really, though the information may sound "fannish", it's still valid information on the band members. GuruGurl 23:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Heart removing....[edit]

It's ok to remove those awkward hearts? I think they don't fit with the Wikipedia look... and they're unnecessary... --Greedy 21:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're gone. Embarrassing; it made the article look as though it was written by a fifteen-year old girl with a crush on the band. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can't change the content.... at least don't make it so obvious would think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Horizontal rule[edit]

The horizontal rule is hideous and should remain deleted. I have never seen a disambig notice at the top of an article with a horizontal rule. Please do not "rollback" my removal of it as if it were vandalism. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 11:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  1. I give reasons for my reverts when a reason is given for the original edit. Why you associate the rollback with vandalism I've no idea
    I associate the rollback with vandalism because the purpose of the rollback is to combat vandalism, and it is inappropriate to use it to revert edits you simply disagree with. I believe this is common practice on Wikipedia. See here, here and here for examples of others who state this. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  2. The claim that it looks hideous is at best exaggerated; it's certainly a matter of taste. It can be seen on many articles, and no-one else seems to share your aesthetic response.
    I believe plenty of people share my aesthetic response, but since Simple Plan is the only article I follow where you insist on doing this, I won't press the issue further. If I notice you adding the hr to the disambig notices in a large number of articles, or to a template such as Template:For, then I will press the issue at that time. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. The rule serves a useful purpose in keeping the disambiguation notice clearly separated from the article, to which it is irrelevant. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like the horizontal rule, but Template:For is used on about 50 pages, and it has no horizontal rule. It would look like the following on this article:

For the 1993 novel and 1998 film, see A Simple Plan.

This should probably be discussed at the template's talk page, as consistency is a good thing in disambig notices, no? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Mel has posted there. We'll see what people think. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
It was pointed out (perfectly correctly) that, if the line is made part of the template, then double uses will end up separated by the line, which would be a Bad Thing. There's no objection to following it with a horizontal line, it just can't be done in the template. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Individual band members redux[edit]

Once again, we do not need articles on the individual band members, especially if they include such trivia as each members' favorite color. This is an encyclopedia, not a teen magazine. android79 01:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

punk rock


ok now i want to know why their english is so good. being both from montreal, why does Gilles Duceppe have a much heavier accent in comparison to simple plan?

Yeah, Simple Plan has toured all over America so they have to have good english, and when you grow up in Montreal, you learn english and french. Did you know some of their songs are sung (and recorded) in french too?

Actually, none of SP's songs are in French. When they tour in French speaking areas, they talk to the crowd in French.

As for their English, most of them went to a private high school in Montreal which is fairly bilingual in teaching. David Desrosiers is the exception to that, and his English isn't as good as the others, as he grew up near Gaspe.Wehwalt 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah most Quebecers know english and french as well as a lot of Ontarians in the vicinity of Quebec.

I happen to go to a lot of the band's shows, and I assure you, Quebeckers outside the major cities, and away from the US or Ontario border, are not fluent in English. When SP played Chicoutimi and Rimouski, almost no one spoke any English--Chuck Comeau commented on it in an interview, in fact.--Wehwalt 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you listen really close David and Chuck from Simple Plan have a thick frnech accent. There's alot of english words that David doesn't know. You just have to listen really closely

Criticisms section[edit]

This article needs one. Simple Plan is one of of the most bashed bands in recent history, as you could see by the constant vandalism. Carolaman 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The section about criticism of the band isn't very accurate. Their most recent album was not "critically panned" - it received "generally positive" reviews according to Metacritic, a website that combines reviews and scores from leading critics and publications:

There are a couple of negative reviews out there, but this is hardly a hated group.

Hardly a hated group? Hell no. They're despised. --Switch 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is necessary, but on, Simple Plan is the artist with the most tags for: "officially shit"--I'm neutral and don't hate nor like the band, I'm just saying that this could be added to the criticism section if needed.

Please note most of the bashing is by the american crowd.

Why? I am canadian and I hate simple plan just as much - if not more - than all the americans. Country of origin has little to do with musical preferance. Cameronrobson 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They give Canada a REALLY bad name for music... and it's not just americans that bash them to, it's most candaians.

This being an encyclopedia, I think personal opinions should be kept OUT of the articles to keep it neutral. Whether or not you like the band doesn;t change how they were formed, when their singles were lreleased, how they got their big break, etc....GuruGurl 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Discography Charting[edit]

Those chart numbers are pretty whack. According to, "Addicted" made it to #45, "Welcome to My Life" hit #40, "Untitled" reached #49, and "Shut Up" only charted at #99. "Crazy" and "I'm Just a Kid" never charted on the Hot 100, and there's definitely no position #261. The only correct one listed is "I'd Do Anything" at #51. Maybe these are positions from the Modern Rock charts or some other chart, but they shouldn't be listed as they currently are. Anyone else agree?

Anyway, I trust Billboard, so I'm gonna go ahead and make the change. Especially as "Crazy" has gotten very little airplay around here and I really doubt that it ever reached #7.
I found out where most of those incorrect numbers are from ... ARC Top 40. If someone wants to list those numbers they can as long as they make that distinction. Still, though, "Crazy" only hit #33 on ARC, so where that #7 came from I'm still not sure.
  • EDIT* I didnt know where else to put this but I signed up the SP mailing list and just recieved an email saying thier going back in studios soon so if someone could edit the discography to something like, Untitled Album (2007)

Yes Simple Plan has been in the studio for the third time and they are using Bob Rock again.They've been in since about Febuary and the new record should be out in the spring of 2007.There has been10-11 songs recorded.

Propose block[edit]

Virtually every day, I or some other user must spend time reverting this article. Therefore, I'd like (I'm not sure on the procedure) to propose that this article not be allowed to be edited by new or unregistered users.--Wehwalt 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted a request for semi-page protection at WP:RPP. GilliamJF 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, they turned us down. Guess we will just have to stay on the ball.--Wehwalt 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
people need to learn that just because they made it said something, doesnt mean that it is true. for clarification, please see the "Elephant" talk page.Jds10912 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

there is always vandalism from peeps who hate simple plan :( 07:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... Simple Plan didnt ask for you guys to like them therefore you dont have to even look them up on the net or listen to them.So why bother?Simple Plan are not Punk and they are not Emo if you have there albums you will see that it says rock or pop/rock or punk/rock sooo stop with saying they are punk.And it doesnt mean they are punk they are a rock or pop version of punk..they are not pop.And honestly if you hate SP why would you be searching them?I dont hate them..they are actually my favourite band and have been for almost more then 4 years and i repect other peoples opinions in music just stop critising them.THEY MAKE THEIR MUSIC FOR PEOPLE WHO LOVE THEM AND ARE FANS LIKE ME :D

^ I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this was written by an 11 year old girl. They own that demographic by the looks of it.

I agree. And I wish that users would keep their opinions of the band out of this article and talk page. Though I have to agree, since the band is so widely disputed, at least partial protection would be beneficial. GuruGurl 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Simple Plan's songs 'Welcome To My Life', 'Untitled (How Could This Happen To Me)' and 'When I'm With You' can be heard in three episodes of the television show Smallville

Look, why don't we move all the TV appearances of their songs to a new subsection, say 5.5, and renumber the existing 5.5 as 5.6?--Wehwalt 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take an axe and cut back on the trivia section soon. This is not a fan site.--Wehwalt 16:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the item regarding David Desrosiers dating "ME", who is ME? An item that vague should be removed, unless someone can expand upon it and/or cite a source.

I cut it. It is obviously teenage fantasy. We get those a lot here. That one must have slipped through. I intend to follow the tag's advice and cut the trivia section entirely, integrating anything worthwhile into the article, when I get a chance.--Wehwalt 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple plan is citied in Son of Dork's song murdered in the mosh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:06:02, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

What Criticism?[edit]

I guess they are criticized for being commercial? The main article just says that they are criticized, but no specifics. If that can't be improved, maybe the whole criticism section should be deleted

I deleted the specific criticisms because they were unsourced and violated WP:WEASEL. --Wehwalt 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Just got an email from thier mailing list saying thier going back in to studios soon so if the guy who made this article could add Untitled Album (2007) to the discography that would be nice.

It is referenced in the article that the 3rd CD is being prepared. Until there is an official announcement that the CD is done and will be released, let us leave it at that. They've been very slow on this one. Remember, this CD was originally supposed to come out in the late spring or summer of 2006. Much as I love the band, I hate to put up stuff that may not turn out to be accurate.--Wehwalt 14:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I'd suggest a temporary block be put on this page...vandals are sneaking stuff in here constantly. JesseZinVT 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is some disgusting stuff they've put in there. I agree, a block and cleanup is nescessary.

I do some of the reverting, but I don't see what good a block will really do. It will have to come off sooner or later. We've had blocks in the past, they haven't helped. I suggest we just roll up our sleeves and keep reverting.Wehwalt 14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Man Of The Hour[edit]

Since it's an actual band with an actual release we should split it off into it's own article. I'm trying to do some research about it so that I can make one but they don't have much to work with. Is it even worth it? Of course this wll probably get lost within all of the topics like if Simple Plan is emo.... good god... DarkAvenger280 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it is a real band (I have never actually heard the EP), the band would fail WP:NOT. Let us face it. The podcasts are listened to by SP fans and by no one else. If Man of the Hour was by Jean Deaux and his buddy (John Doe, in other words), it would be trivial. As MOTH does not have a huge amount of info to put in an article, the project derives from SP, and has very little life of its own, and the casual reader interested in SP would expect to find it here, let us leave it here. If Seb has his article, put a mention in it there too. I doubt if Patrick has his own article (it would be interesting to see if an article on him would survive AfD).--Wehwalt 11:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Still Not Getting Any...[edit]

I remember reading that Still Not Getting Any... went double platinum. I'm not that sure though. Can someone find a source, or at least verify this? — Ian Lee (Talk|contribs) 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

SNGA is not double platinum in the US as of 2007, March 11th, according to the RIAA database : [1]. I don't know about certification in other countries. --Kitiara99 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Album?[edit]

Does Simple Plan plan to publish a new album? when? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

The band has announced that the CD should be released this year. Specifics are scarce. It looks like they are planning the recording stage, judging by Pierre's blog, but they still have some writing to do. Probably in the fall. And keep in mind, this area is not for the purpose of discussing the band, but discussing improvements to the article.--Wehwalt 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not good[edit]

Stop saying simple plan rules. Go to there chat sites with there grade 8 fans and comment there. This is NOT a page to post your opioin about simple plan if it does not contriubute to the article. ( 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

And neither is this the place to create new topics just to tell people that. — Ian Lee (Talk - Contribs - Sign - Gimme!) 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And judging by your educated use of "there grade 8 fans" and "opioin", may I assume that Grade 8 is not something you will have to worry about for quite some time? I agree, the Talk Page has a specific function, but I generally cut people some slack.--Wehwalt 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But a video they posted on Myspace said mabe 2007..maybe 2008, but definatly before 2010.

Simple Plan Awards[edit]

Juno Awards 2006-Simple Plan Won The Fan Choice Award

2005-Simple Plan Was Nominated For Group Of The Year, But Lost To Billy Talent

   -Simple Plan Was Nominated For Album Of The Year With Their New CD Still Not Getting Any..., But Lost To Billy Talent, And Their Self Titled Album Billy Talent.
   -Simple Plan Was Nominated For POP Album Of The Year With Their New CD Still Not Getting Any..., But Lost To Avril Lavigne, And Her Album Under My Skin

2004-Simple Plan Was Nominated For Best Music DVD A Big Package For You 1999-2003

Personnal Life??[edit]

Hi there, in the article it is said that Personally, Bouvier is engaged and will get married in the near future., but what's the link with the rest of the article??

The MYplash sub-section[edit]

The MYplash sub-section is very biased. I tried to change it, but then realised that I would be destoying all the content. This needs to be worked on, perhaps by adding more content in a NPOV manner. — Ian Lee (Talk - Sign - Gimme!) 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What, in particular? Frankly, I don't even think we need the section in the article and would just as soon see it deleted. It was a marketing thing, they did it and a bunch of other musical artists did it, probably wasn't very successful. Does any other band that had a Myplash even mention it?--Wehwalt 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(responding to 'what in particlular) First of all, just the overall tone of the article is very anti-MYplash. Secondly, there is nothing really good said about MYplash, just "anti-MYplashtic" stuff. The only good thing really said about it, was "parents would like it since it would provide the teens with financial experience with no risk of overspending; the teens would like the music theme and the feeling of having their own 'credit card'", but that is folowed up by a 2 paragraphs basically explain why that was completly useless.
(responding does any other band that had a MYplash even mention it) Well, no, but I don't really see anything wrong with it. — Ian Lee (Talk - Sign - Gimme!) 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Mainly because it was . . . I'll poke around for neutral sources on this, but it isn't like it was something that was really covered by the media. They made an announcement on, fans started looking into it, and discovered the high fees. And found out what I said about the merch. I have a Simple Plan blue "tennis rackets" shirt from the MYplash merch page (normal color is green). From finding out the password.
Anyway, whatever you want to do about it is fine.--Wehwalt 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll do some research, and rewrite it Friday, because I have like a 1000 projects/essays/homeworks for school, and my science teacher completly f**ked up my grade so I have to correct his stupid mistakes... in fact I should be doing homework right now. — Ian Lee (Talk - Sign - Gimme!) 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. I looked a bit on the net, and the only stories I saw were publicitity stories from around the time of the release of the card. SP supposedly painted the bus with a card. Don't remember one way or the other on that. No later stories about how it sold. Check out the MYplash FAQ. First time I've ever seen a gift card with overdraft fees . . . no wonder it didn't do well.--Wehwalt 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Quebecois or Canadian?[edit]

They are from Quebec, and are obviously of French heritage (the members themselves, I mean), so are they Quebecois or Canadian? Arbiteroftruth 02:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They're both... see: QuebecoisIan Lee (Talk) 06:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple Plan chronology[edit]

I personally think that 7 inch and A Big Pakage for You are too minor to be put in the Simple Plan album chronology. What do you guys think? — Ian Lee (Talk) 20:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. ABPFY may merit brief attention in the article. But I don't think many fans know (or really, care) about the vinyl, which didn't get a lot of exposure. For a long time you could buy it through merchdirect, where official SP merch is sold, haven't checked that in a while. But it is sort of pointless. Frankly, CDs are what counts.--Wehwalt 16:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should nominate the 7 inch for deletion all together (I mean what can you really write about?), and disinclude A Big Package for You in the chronology because it isn't a CD, and I don't think other band articles' chronologies include DVDs although I could be wrong. If no one objects, I'll do so. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
7 inch is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 InchIan Lee (Talk) 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the proposals have been done. — Ian Lee (Talk) 07:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Role Model Clothing[edit]

Patrick Langlois is also one of the owners of Role Model, as stated in the officiel record for that company [2]. I think the Role Model Clothing section should mention it. Kitiara99 21:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Interesting, I never knew that... — Ian Lee (Talk) 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding the "Rock" genre[edit]

I agree that Simple Plan are not punk rock, they are definitely pop-punk, but it's clear that if bands like Busted can qualify as rock, which they do, then Simple Plan are obviously a rock band too. I'll be adding this now, if anybody wishes to discuss it, please do before removing it.

Thanks for your contribution. I am going to remove it on the basis of previous discussions on this page which say we will only go by sources when it comes to SP's genre. Your logic is no doubt valid, but we have to go by sources.--Wehwalt 00:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So if I can find a citation from a reliable source, which shouldn't be too difficult, I can add it? James25402 09:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that isn't using "rock" as a generic term. I mean, by some standard, almost every band since 1960 is a rock band. Let's see the source first.--Wehwalt 14:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
...well... they did win the Teen Choice Award for Choice Rock Group... didn't they? Just throwing out thoughts... — Ian Lee (Talk) 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, are the other nominees for that award described as "rock" on WP?--Wehwalt 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Many of them, have some type of rock (ie punk rock, alt. rock) attached to them. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the punk in "pop punk" implicitly short for "punk rock"?--Wehwalt 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about genres but I'd disagree. "Pop punk rock" shouldn't sound right to you... and "alternative hip hop" doesn't mean "alternative rock hip hop" for sure... but if you have prior education that I'm not aware of, then you're probably right... — Ian Lee (Talk) 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We're getting a bit sidetracked. Let's see if James25402 comes up with sources, then debate.--Wehwalt 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazon - Still Not Getting Any Review - it is an editorial review, not a user review. While I wouldn't always trust Amazon, he has acknowledged that Simple Plan are also a pop-punk band, particularly on No Pads...but that their music took a new direction on Still Not Getting Any, 'settling in as a straight ahead rock band'.

All Music Guide - Still Not Getting Any Review - 'Simple Plan's Still Not Getting Any... de-emphasizes punk-pop hyperactivity in favor of straightforward, well-crafted modern rock.'

There're two, I can find more if necessary, but I would've thought those would be enough. James25402 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, they all describe SNGA. We could put the descriptions in the discussion of that CD.--Wehwalt 16:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We could and it wouldn't be wrong, but as rock is seen as the primary genre of that CD as a whole by many critics, surely that would come under Simple Plan's primary genres as well? James25402 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When does two become many? Did you check out the sources I put on the genre talk page? I think that if a large majority of sources (and I think that is what it is) describes them as a pop punk band then that is what they are. We can make reference that their music, especially SNGA includes elements of rock.--Wehwalt 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never said they aren't a pop-punk band. Their first CD was pop-punk, their second CD has a lot of pop-punk to it as well. However, it's possible to be a mixture of genres. Two sources aren't "many", you just asked for sources so I posted a couple, I could find many more and post them but you obviously have decided the rock genre is only applicable to SNGA and thus doesn't count as an overall genre, even when I think it should as it reflects their change in style. Rock IS one of the styles Simple Plan have used. Sum 41 used to be a pop-punk band and still do retain pop-punk influences over their songs, but they have used other styles, which is why they are not listed as just a pop-punk band. If you want more sources, I'd be happy to provide them. James25402 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about we say they are a "pop punk rock band"--Wehwalt 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring more to the genre box than the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is fine, as they are probably more well-known as a pop-punk band, which is important for users who aren't too familiar with the band. Surely a "pop punk rock band" is just another way of saying pop punk + pop-rock, which could be added to the genre box. James25402 02:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think pop-rock has a distinct meaning which isn't justified by the references and doesn't cover SP.--Wehwalt 08:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to but in, but, wouldn't SP (even snga) largely fall under Power pop. Read the 2nd paragraph and you'll see what I mean... — Ian Lee (Talk) 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe (I read it), but that would be our opinion and thus original research. We'd need sources to call SP power pop.--Wehwalt 01:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess at this point we should be debating which form of rock Simple Plan should come under based upon the source. The sources seem to be implying Simple Plan moved towards a mainstream rock type of sound, which I have seen listed under genres before for other bands, but would not really agree with as a genre to classify people under. James25402 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... if you want to go on pure sources (which I really think that we shouldn't because all the sources are biased and it is trivial information) it would be pop punk because 90% of the sources say so... — Ian Lee (Talk) 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How can we throw out 90 percent of sources because we think they are biased? The thing is, regardless of how SNGA sounded or did not sound, SP is widely considered a pop punk band. And bands are more than their last CD anyway. There are many, many more sources that say pop punk than anything else. I've offered a couple of different compromise ways of putting in the opinion of a few reviewers that they have moved towards rock (though I am not sure what that means, almost all bands fall under rock in one way or another), but apparently James25402 is suggesting replacing the pop punk label entirely or else put another label on the same footing. I do not think it is justified.--Wehwalt 11:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

When you put it like that, pop-punk is clearly their main genre, I don't question that. If some form of rock is not to be added under the list of genres (which needn't just be limited to pop-punk, many other bands have more than one genre), there at least needs to be some mention in the article that some critics have seen SNGA as a change in style, moving away from just being a pop-punk band to include elements of mainstream rock. I see there is mention of the change in style, but it isn't specific enough imo. It doesn't say how their style moved away from pop-punk and it is not cited. It probably should also be noted in the article that Simple Plan have been labelled under the new version of 'emo', although their music differs greatly to the emo style (possibly under the criticisms section?). I can also find sources for that if necessary. I would strongly disagree with calling Simple Plan an emo band, but enough people have said it to at least warrant a mention in the article. James25402 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, your sources should be included in the discussion of SNGA. As for the emo thing, I really don't think you will find very many reliable sources that say they are emo. I would suggest you insert a sentence or two in the SNGA section re the rock sound, and then let's see where we go from there. --Wehwalt 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I dont think we should throw out 90% of the sources, I was just saying that I personally don't agree that SP is JUST pop punk. As for mentioning that SP has moved away from pop punk, I did already write that, but if you want to expand upon that and make it more prevalent in the article, I won't object. As for SP being emo, huh? They are WAY TO HAPPY to be anything near emo... so yeah, like you said, no. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the SNGA section, more specifically the part describing the change in style, as I didn't feel the original made enough reference to how Simple Plan had moved away from pop-punk (i.e. to a rockier sound). I think describing Simple Plan as simply pop-punk is a little simplistic, as they have, especially recently, incorporated a far rockier sound (i.e. songs like "Me Against the World", "Crazy" and some others), but if you were to throw Simple Plan under just one umbrella, pop-punk would definitely be it. I also concede the sources do acknowledge Simple Plan as a pop-punk band first and foremost over any other kind of style, but I would say that is because they originally made their name and had their breakthrough album as a pop-punk band. I would expect Simple Plan to continue their evolution as a rock band well past their next album, so maybe we can debate Simple Plan as a rock band when that comes out. James25402 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what to expect for the third album, so I wouldn't be to sure about that. Are we all happy as it is right now? I am. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks OK.--Wehwalt 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, no complaints here. James25402 00:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ok. can some one change the genre from death metal to Rock / Pop / Pop Punk. Please Thank you

Consensus was not to do that.--Wehwalt 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I know thats but one of them is better the having death metal

Its should be Rock, Pop, Pop Punk because there my space page says there Rock / Pop / Pop Punk.

What counts is not how they characterize themselves . . . --Wehwalt 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, and a few more things. The death metal thing was vandilism that since has been changed. And their myspace page is not a reliable resource. Please read other past discussions on this page before posting. — Ian Lee (Talk) 01:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildas '~~~~'. — Ian Lee (Talk) 01:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Incidently, I had a conversation with someone with the band who has heard some of the new music (not a band member) and he described the new songs as "good, but different." We shall see . . . --Wehwalt 12:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, idk... Last time they worked with a hard rock producer, and now they're working with a nu metal producer, which is perfectly fine with me because sp r0xorz, but I personally enjoy their pop-ier music (although I think the second record was better)... but that's just me and my opinion doesn't matter... I don't know what to expect... — Ian Lee (Talk) 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new section called "Musical styles", hopefully npov, to clarify. — Ian Lee (Talk) 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw. Let me think about it for a while. Certainly, it is problematic. But it may be worth it to keep it.--Wehwalt 03:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say when you go to the links of their songs, please do not put down their genre is emo because it is not emo.--SimplePlan4ever89 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, correction. They're not Alternative Rock. ~Goldenfox17~ 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenfox17 (talkcontribs)

French Canadian v. Quebecer[edit]

I don't really care which way this goes, but there are francophone Canadians outside Quebec, just as there are anglophone Canadians inside Quebec. The two terms are not identical. What are we trying to tell the reader? Or would we be best off just to say that they are Montreal-based? As I say, I don't have a dog in this fight.--Wehwalt 11:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been my knowledge that French Canadians in Quebec are by definition Quebecer, and I also think that more people would understand who a "French Canadian" is, so that's basically my logic there. — Ian Lee (Talk) 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There are certainly anglophone (English speaking) communities in Quebec, and also French speakers outside. The Dionne Quintuplets were from a French-speaking community well away from Quebec, for example. But in view of people's understanding, French Canadian is probably the better option. I think in view of most people's views, they'll understand what is being said. This has been an awkward part of the article all along, as you'll recall.--Wehwalt 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't do it myself, but if you or someone else were just to remove it all together I wouldn't protest. Just want to state that. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Plan[edit]

I'd never heard that the band was once called Canadian Plan. I am certainly raising eyebrows at this one. I don't pretend to know everything about the band's naming and early history, but I did ask Pat how the band got its name, and he gave substantially the answer that we have in the article--that they needed a name, liked the movie, and adopted it as a temporary name and never changed it. That's OR, of course, but I can't find anything on "Canadian Plan" on the web and it isn't in that online bio on SPO. I'm going to change the reference, by the way, so readers know it is a "Simple Plan Online" bio rather than a "Simple Plan" Online bio, if you see the difference. --Wehwalt 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Third page of comments by sebsprincess and vickyw6255 is what I'm baseing it off of. This is really shakey for WP:V so I'll leave it your call. Smart move on the Simple Plan Online thing. — Ian Lee (Talk) 22:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Found another ref (first question's answer) and more on google search but I think That Pat is more reliable, so I don't know... you should ask one of the band when you get the chance. — Ian Lee (Talk) 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is possible. It's not like I knew this when I asked Pat the question. So it is possible we miscommunicated. It was last summer by the way. I'll see if I can clear it up when I get a chance.--Wehwalt 22:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MYplash section[edit]

This section should be removed, it contributes nothing to the article or the artist, and is, with the exception of the opening mention of the band, completely about the MYplash card and not the band. Ejfetters 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. It is an advertising sponsor they were involved with. Not much different from Samsung and Cingular (as it then was) sponsoring the last U.S. tour. We wouldn't do a section about them.--Wehwalt 11:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Album art[edit]

I have removed the album art from the list of albums per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #8 - please don't readd them, read the policy. Ejfetters 11:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This Fair Use Nonsense[edit]

Is it just me, or is it just odd that every single image in this article has either been deleted or is up for deletion? This seriously annoys me. I understand how Wikipedia has to follow guidlines that tell us what to do with copyrighted images, but this has just gone to far. Please, for the sake of having a good and editable encyclopedia, voice your opinion here: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#A rational change (pun intended). — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is no coincidence. However, I dug through my photobucket and found a decent shot I took back in '05 when they played that theme park near Springfield. I bought a good camera today and will get a better shot when they come back out.--Wehwalt 00:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is annoying when people keep changing it. Leave the photo alone and only update it if it necessarliy. --SimplePlan4ever89 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure to upload your photo to the Commons so that it can go on Commons:Simple Plan. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not out to delete every image of the band. First off, the first image nominated for deletion violated the policy, it was fair use. I also nominated images for several biographical pages. Then it was replaced with another fair use, album cover, again violates policy. Then the "charicature" violates policy as well, its a copy of fair use. Wehwalt above states he has a free use image, that's great, scan it and upload it, thats what I am saying needs to be done. The credit card primarily talks about MYplash in general, not about Simple plan, I read it, and read it again. Talks about the myplash program, create an article for Myplash then. Furthermore, the credit card image is fair use and no source is known. Then i removed the album covers, they also violate policy, and have been removed from several discographies. Just look at Madonna's discography, with far more albums than simple plan, and has no album covers, they were there, and were removed also. Ejfetters 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to get into an argument over that. Ian, your drawing is going to get deleted. I suggest we restore my image, however lacking it may be, until we can come up with a better one.--Wehwalt 11:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Better image supplied. I'm rather proud of this one. I was standing just in front of the stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
          • It's definitely better! — Ian Lee (Talk) 04:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we can't replace it with the single art. Once the Europe tour starts later in the month, I'll try to catch them at a meet n greet or something so I can get all five with faces clear at the small size we have to deal with in WP. It will work out, and we will still have the concert pic to use further down in the article or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have the image problem fairly under control this time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You Tube and External Links[edit]

Sorry if this is not the right place but i think that there You Tube Channel should be include in there external links as it os official and all and plus there my space is there so i think it's the same as the myspace. Sorry if doesn't make sense. (Julesy202 11:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Fine. Seems OK. I will correct to YouTube.--Wehwalt 14:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Remeber to use templates when applicable. — Ian Lee (Talk) 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ive added the official Rolemodel Clothing My Space its only new and it seems to be offical and I didnt use the template because everytime i do it say Simple Plan my space when its not ok(Julesy202 11:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

The deletion of the "Critisms" and "In popular culture" sections[edit]

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk) seems to keep on deleting the "Critisms" and "In popular culture" sections of the article because they are unsourced. I personally believe that the "In popular culture" section would never be properly documented for our use in Wikipedia and therefor shouldn't be deleted along those lines. The critisms section might have some references but I doubt it. I wanted to know what are your guy's thoughts on this matter before I added it back or not did anything. — Ian Lee (Talk) 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been a foe of the criticism section on the grounds it violates WP:WEASEL, that it makes someone's opinion into "some say" or the equivalent. I started the "In Popular Culture" section with two verifiable uses, for example, the MC Lars song, which could be referenced to a lyrics site. It has grown too much. I think, though, that Clown is overreacting. He/she should put a warning in that the section or article is unsourced, and leave us to correct, rather than deleted.--Wehwalt 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag for additional references[edit]

I tagged this article for additional references. These are the sections that, in my opinion, need additional sources. (under WP:WHEN):

  • Discography - Charts, etc. should be cited
  • 2006-present - Next studio album, including the Pierre quote
  • Side projects - Minus the info. on the SPF and perhaps Damage Control, could also use a few references
  • Musical style - Seems to be somewhat of an opinion, so a citation should be included

Dh993 02:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Side projects section should have more references, but I'll have to disagree with everything else. First off, the discography section would fall under "subject-specific common knowledge", and can be looked up by anyone. No one would actually raise a brow, and so references are not needed. Most other band pages do not have references for discography sections. Secondly, the 2006-present section is in fact a speculative section. I agree. However, no one is ever going to professionally document any of the information for us, and no fan is going to raise a brow. Plus, most of the section's info directly tells which blogs/vlogs to look at for ourselves. Uncontroversial, and not needed. Thirdly, the musical style is somewhat documented as evident by James a few discussion up of this. I personally don't think it's needed, but if you want to add them, be my guest. — Ian Lee (Talk) 04:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I probably should have elaborated bit further on why I thought the different articles need additional sources.
  • OK, so we've agreed that side projects need work.
  • By discography, I was referring more to the charts and billboard information. Are those not data/statistics (eg. how many albums have been sold, what charts they have peaked on) ? I don't really consider that "common-knowledge".
  • For the 2006-present section, at least the Pierre quote should have some form of source. Whether or not a fan would "raise a brow" - it's not really common knowledge, is it?
  • Though some sections may tell what blogs/vlogs to look at, what if you were a new reader to an SP article? Don't assume that all SP fans are diehard and know what you're talking about. Certainly a quick Google search may provide research, but then you have to search through the blogs, etc. Why not just give them the primary source, right there and then?
  • I've read the discussion above and it seems that everyone came to a consensus, so I'll leave the musical style section. But does the article even need a section on 'musical style'? It's already touched upon under the albums, in regards to the 'modern rock' and 'pop rock' and etc. It seems that it merely reiterates what has already been said.
Dh993 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, I really don't know why we're arguing, but if you want to add sources, no one's stopping you. Go ahead. Really. Just don't make such a fuss about it. I don't think it's needed, but you obviously do. You seem willing to spend time on it, but I don't. Therfor, I think there isn't really much conflict here, but I'm just saying that you're the only one so far that has nagged about it. Use your time, but you're not going to use mines.
I will however say that I will not revert your contribution because unneeded sources are always better than no sources. I also will sugest that you read the band's blogs and watch their vlogs (how to site video is present in the Scooby Doo section). SimplePla nOnline .com will be of great help to you, as it's kind of a summary of their doings. They even have the news section of the site split into subsections, so if you wanted to learn about Bouvier's quote it should be there. Good luck and happy editing! — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because no one else makes a "fuss", as you so kindly put it, about an article, doesn't necessarily mean that it's in perfect condition. Besides, with the exception of a couple users, the majority of the edits to the SP article seem to be coming from you anyway. As you disagree with me on references, obviously the issue would never be brought up.
I will be looking for additional citations and be adding them to the article in the near future. Dh993 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do. Ian has greatly improved this article, which is far better referenced than most 2000's music articles. But the more the merrier when it comes to articles. And Ian is not a one-man band on this, I have made many edits to this article, but recently I haven't done that much since we are all waiting on the new CD.--Wehwalt 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think we will have to be rigid on insisting on sources if anyone puts in the name of the new CD, the release date, and any pre- or post-release activities (touring, singles, the like). We are getting unsourced information in there that I've taken out.--Wehwalt 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be over-reacting as the unsourced new album information was all put there by one user, Tytoonz (talk), but I do agree. — Ian Lee (Talk) 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

grammar edit[edit]

Could someone change this: Charles-André (Chuck) Comeau -> Charles-André "Chuck" Comeau

I'd change it, but the page is locked. 19:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. (Julesy202 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

Third CD[edit]

Once we have a title for the third CD and start the article, suggest we move all the "blow by blow" discussion of how the third CD came to be to the new article, in a section to be titled "Production". We won't need it in the main article anymore but it would be a shame to delete it.--Wehwalt 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It really would be a regretful situation to see something we've worked on for so long be deleted. It's well written at that too. I also suspect heavy editing (with increased vandilism) and major fun for us in the next month or two. Perhaps we will recieve more members in WP:SPW, or maybe not. I don't know. Can't wait! — Ian Lee (Talk) 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple Plan discography[edit]

With the new single and album coming out, I moved the Simple Plan discography article back to Simple Plan song list, so we can create a proper discography article sort of the way The Living End has both a The Living End discography and a The Living End song list article. The before-Simple Plan discography in all truthfullness is not really a discography. — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Incidently, where did you get the info on the demo? I've heard "First Date" but I've never heard "Red Radio".--Wehwalt 19:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it's done. We have two distinct articles now. As for where I got my info, I honestly don't remember. If you want to delete it that's fine with me (WP:N). — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No, just curious. I've never heard them talk about the old days, except once I asked David about "One By One" which is my favorite, but they mostly did it before he joined the band.--Wehwalt 19:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just listned to it and it's really good. You know what they should do? They should make a B-sides compilation CD of all their obscure songs, pre-David songs, soundtracks, and what not, because (at least in my opinion) a lot of their better songs are on it. I know I'd buy it. — Ian Lee (Talk) 20:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What did you listen to? One by One? Yes, I would agree. Like Silverstein did. They rereleased their first two EPs and some live stuff and remixes as "18 Candles: The Early Years".--Wehwalt 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I listened to "One by One". The non-live version of First Date (and any version of Red Radio and Summer Lies for that matter) are not to be found anywhere. We should probably take this off WP is you want to continue. — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:M 2fbccf7ad15192674ee18cb225fa5fcb.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:M 2fbccf7ad15192674ee18cb225fa5fcb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Self titled?[edit] is reporting that the CD is self-titled. My German's not the best, but that is the way it reads to me. It's also reporting a track listing. The site says it is an official site. Do we go with it?--Wehwalt 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Google translater agrees. Going to do it now. — Ian Lee (Talk) 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we be sure this is an official site? Where does it say it? ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It says it. Upper left I think. I am not really surprised, that logo looked to finished to insert an album name later.--Wehwalt 13:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Band name - new evidence[edit]

Yay! Let's bring it up again. We have a new source(click) from the first answer to the first question. Do you guys think we should do something with it? — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

David's statement (though secondhand) seems to support what we have in the article. I suggest we just add it as a ref. By the way, he doesn't say a word about the Canadian Plan thing which was brought up a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you asked them about it yet? I'm going to add the ref now. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The text was based on what Patrick had told me--this pretty much confirms it. There really hasn't been the chance for me to ask them in person, and I had better things to talk about the one time I've seen them recently.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a video where Chuck and Seb talk about how the band name came to be. It generally confirms what we have in the article.[3]. Actually, that is one of the best and most factual interviews I've seen with them in a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding the "Rock" genre, cont'd...[edit]

This is a continuation upon the previous discussion titled "Adding the "Rock" genre" upward of this. With the third album being released, the reviews have flooded in, and with that, we have more sources. I propose that we re-open the discussion of Simple Plan's genre(s). Your thoughts with the new album in mind? — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should reopen it. I really haven't read the reviews yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
On the basis of two main references, I'm re-opening the discussion on whether or not to call Simple Plan "Modern Rock". This one flat out calls When I'm Gone modern rock, while this one notes of how the 3rd album hit #4 in the modern rock album charts. What do you people think of this? — Poe Joe (formerly Ian Lee) (Talk) 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, does the chart equal the genre?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I know the chart equals a reliable source if that's what you're asking. — Poe Joe (formerly Ian Lee) (Talk) 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous Management?[edit]

Weren't they managed by Acobix Records / Management, prior to signing with Lava? Should this be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if you can provide a reference on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And the manager is not the same as the label, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is probably where he is getting the idea. Not reliable. — Ian Lee (Talk) 02:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And the unsigned contributor is making more of it than it actually is. They've only had one manager. I am not quite clear on whether he signed on before or after Lava signed them (I think before), but my understanding is that they were self managed before then. However, I don't think band management is really encyclopedic, except, say, you're dealing with The Beatles or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

French Canadian and yet...[edit]

It seems to me a bit misleading that we start this article saying Simple Plan French Canadian and then fail to mention at any point that the majority (perhaps all) of Simple Plan's work has been in English. Perhaps we should clarify that, or simply say that they are from Montreal and leave it at that.--ASA-IRULE (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think it needs to be said, but if you want a shot at it, let's see! — Poe Joe (formerly Ian Lee) (Talk) 01:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should call them Quebecois. After all, there are French Canadians in other provinces, esp. New Brunswick and Ontario. The Dionne Quintuplets lived a hundred miles outside the province, yet they were French Canadian. I don't see any need to note the language.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
My only objection to Quebecois is that many people will not understand what the terms means. I think it's fine as is. — Poe Joe (formerly Ian Lee) (Talk) 21:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess. We seem to go around in circles on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
My only issue is that there is a french Canadian music scene and Simple Plan isn't a part of it. While the band members may be francophone that's just a part of Canadian life. Jean Chrétien's page doesn't mention that he is francophone until the 3rd section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shnoble (talkcontribs) 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


In many simple plan songs there is piano. From what i know pierre plays piano, this link shows a picture of him playing piano.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

...and Seb played the piano in the bonus DVD of SNGA. Unless he is given credit for it on the CD (which he isn't) we can not put it in the article. We must have relevant and reliable sources to make such a claim. — Poe Joe (formerly Ian Lee) (Talk) 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Simple Plan (2006-present)" section[edit]

The second sentence of the first paragraph reads: "As announced in Bouvier's official MySpace blog, Bouvier headed to Miami as on about March 21, 2007 to work with an unnamed producer, who later proved to be Dave Fortman." My knowledge of the recording process is hazy, but are we sure that it wasn't Danja they went to work with? They went to him for inspiration, and to the best of my knowledge, they were still writing songs at that point. Dave Fortman (to the best of my knowledge) came in later. What do we think? — Poe Joe (formerly Ian Lee) (Talk) 02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My recollection on the point isn't as clear as it used to be, and I don't recall if I wrote that from knowledge or assumption.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "canadacharts" :
    • [ CANOE - JAM! Music SoundScan Charts]
    • [ Certificaciones AMPROFON 2008]

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This Page Really Needs a Criticism Section[edit]

It's one of the most hated bands ever, but if someone adds a criticism section, it's immediately deleted by rabid Simple Plan fans. (talk)

Criticism sections are frowned upon by WP guidelines. Any sourced matter should be integrated into the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Wehwalt. There just aren't enough reliable sources we could use to write such a section. Also, the last criticism section was deleted months ago. I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And disregarding your slanderous statement that SP fans are "rabid", Simple Plan is far from the most hated band ever. Simple Plan hate died out a long time ago; it was very short-lived. Get with the program. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 23:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually. they ARE one of the most hated bands, by those who actually listen to rock and are not faux-rockers who really just like pop-rock, and Simple Plan hate didn't die out due to time, it died out when the band's cultural significance died out. If you still ask most people, and if they even remember Simple Plan, they will agree, they still hate them. Though until a Rolling Stone or equivalent music authority can produce an article labeling them as the worst band we all know they are, no criticism page should exist. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple Plan's genre[edit]

About a week ago I started a new discussion at the Genre page, however it appears that page is not regularly frequented. I would be happy to move the discussion here if that would make it more accessible to other editors. Aurum ore (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. But I don't think you'll get very far. Only one (the one you defended, that I personally raise my eyebrows at) even comes close to calling SP emo, the other two do not do so, and compared with the overwhelming number of "pop punk" or similar references out there, I think including "emo" as you propose even as an alternative would give it undue weight.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have two quotes which directly apply the term to them:
"This Canadian quintet went platinum with its first two albums, which offered arena emo..."[5]
"Canadian quintet Simple Plan became firmly rooted in the emo bracket..."[6]
Yes I know the band has also been called pop punk but nowhere on wikipedia does it say that a band can only be listed as one genre. Many bands are listed as both emo and pop punk. Since we have relaible sources to back up the emo statement I don't see why they shouldn't be listed as both.
Aurum ore (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the quotes applies to their albums, not to them. They are heavily outweighed by the "pop punk" references, which you'd see by running a comparative google search. Undue weight. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The first quote calls their music emo. I don't care if the band themselves acts/looks emo, I'm arguing that reliable sources have said their music falls into the emo genre. This is exactly what the first quote says, it refers to their music as emo.
WP:DUE says "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source". Rolling Stone calls their music emo, it is a a significant viewpoint published by a reliable source. WP:DUE says this should be included not excluded. Not including the information when it has been published by mutlipel reliable sources would be violating NPOV. Aurum ore (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You're quoting way out of context. Go read WP:UNDUE. This is a view held by a small minority, and therefore is not deserving of space in Wikipedia. Most sources refer to SP as pop punk or a slight variant on that. You, on the other hand, not only want your view (about which you're being pointy) included, but included as coequal with pop punk. In a nutshell--you have a couple of reviews that call them emo, which may or may not be RS, it doesn't matter. But I'm looking at the news stories on the recent tour, and news article after news article calls them pop punk and doesn't call them emo.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Wehwalt has pretty much said it all. The sources calling SP emo are, like he said, in a very, very small minority. "Emo" should not be included as a genre. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 04:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I'm simply trying to assume good faith and follow Wikipedia's guidelines. NPOV is a core tennant of wikipedia. The beginning of WP:NPOV states "multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented objectively". Simple Plan's genre is the source of multiple perspectives. WP:UNDUE says that extreme minority views such as "the flat earth theory" should not be included. These statements were printed by major components of the mainstream media, this does not consitute an extreme minority. It may however, constitute a less popular view and therefore should not receive as much detail. It is a viewpoint. It has reliable sources to back it up. NPOV says "each should be presented objectively" not allowing the topic to be presented at all is not objective.Aurum ore (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:UNDUE, small minority views (which you seem to admit yours is, they are the views of individual reviewers, you have two of them, and one refers to the music on the first two CDs) are not to be given space on WP. Reviews are close to personal opinion, which are not to be used for WP:RS except under limited conditions that don't apply here, where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo? Here's a few of the recent ones that call them pop punk! I'm in a hurry or I'd put in more.[7][8][9][10] (there are many more, and news articles are far more reliable than reviews) I would hesitate to call your UK source a "major component of the mainstream media", leaving a brief Rolling Stone review. Whereas newspapers routinely refer to SP as a pop punk band. WP:UNDUE is a subset of WP:NPOV. Those who call SP emo are not a significant minority, therefore we do not put them in. And to paraphrase Poe Joe, that pretty much says it all!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you are misinterprating the purpose of WP:DUE. You keep refering to a single phrase, whereas it's main purpose is to ensure that a single viewpoint doesn't dominate an article, as is the case here. The view I am proposing is not an extreme minority view, and I never claimed it was. I simply said it may be less popular and WP:NPOV says that less popular views need to be included if they have reliable sources, i.e. the statement "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" or "various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one", or "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Not allowing a viewpoint different than your own to even be included in the article runs contrary to the purpose of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV as a whole. Aurum ore (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You've given a couple of opinion pieces about music, reviews in other words. You haven't shown a single news piece. If this is a significant minority view, and not just "flat earth", you should be able to show that there are many news reports that refer to them as an emo band. Two reviewers are "flat earth", not a significant minority. You know, the sort of coverage they get when they play a city. Not just the opinion of two reviewers, but offhand references in serious news reports.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There are scientific facts to disprove the flat-earth theory, there are is nothing in the article to say that Simple Plan can't be emo, it merely says that they are pop punk. Numerous band related articles show that these two genres can exist. It doesn't matter whether the references are from newspapers, magazines or sites. If they're reliable they're reliable. In my last post I cited several passages from WP:NPOV to back up my position. I do not believe WP:DUE appies here, but even if it did it would not allow us to ignore the rest of WP:NPOV. Aurum ore (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Wehwalt, it has come to my attention that you may have a Conflict of Interest regarding this article. Aurum ore (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope. I don't work for them. I know them, and they let me into the shows for free. I have no financial interest in what happens to the band, and aside from show admission and a minimal amount of food and drink, I've never had anything of value from them. I even pay for my own merch. All this is well known, and I make no secret of it. No COI. I simply choose not to be part of the Simple Plan Wikiproject because of it. My knowing the band has improved the article, who do you think takes the photos? I'm simply the quote-unquote "biggest fan".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You stated in this comment that you quit the WP over COI concerns. Why would those same concerns not apply to the article itself? You have a real-life relationship with that band and that relationship appears to be affecting your willingness to allow NPOV statement to be included in this article. Aurum ore (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that is simple. Since, as I said, this is all above board, I didn't want to be perceived as a "leader" of the group or anything else because of my real life standing. The only leaders we have on WP are the admins and so forth. I know, almost certainly excessive caution on my part, I didn't have to do it either ethically or by WP rules, by which I don't have a COI. But I never try to make more of myself than I am, like I tell people, "I'm just a fan". But in editing the articles, everyone is an editor on an equal footing, all trying to improve the article. The goal is to improve the article. I seek to improve the article, thus no COI. And as for my willingness, etc., you haven't convinced anyone else either.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)This, [11], seems to me to be a reliable source, Rolling Stone is a very well known magazine, so why not add it to the article, along with a suitable source for pop punk, like this

  • Simple Plan is a French Canadian pop punk[1]/Emo[2] band

alternatively, since it appears that the emo genre view isn't held by all

  • Simple Plan is a French Canadian pop punk band[3] (Although some sources have referred to them as an Emo band[4])

One of the above would make a nice compromise which doesn't give any extra weight to a POV, please consider this, and also consider the fact that this is an extremely trivial matter, you really don't want to be wasting your time arguing over something so small. Although as another solution, Aurum, if you know the band, or at least talk to them on occasion, why not ask them to definitively state one way or the other in an interview or something, that would be the perfect way to end this--Jac16888 (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not know the band personally, I agree the matter is fairly trivial and would be completely open to such a solution. Thank you for suggesting it. Aurum ore (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I am the one who has met them repeatedly, I would hesitate to say I "know" them. I would never ask them to say something for the purposes of repetition on WP; they say what they want to say, not what I want them to say. That would be wrong of me. Besides, it wouldn't eliminate the content dispute. And what they have said in past interviews is that they are indifferent to how they are characterized.
I appreciate Jac16888's help, but what he proposes would violate WP:WEASEL and be an inaccurate statement besides. Reviews are by their very nature opinion pieces. Per WP:RS, we don't use opinion pieces as sources, except to report, for example, how many stars they gave the CD. And the two reviews say very different things. One says SP was "firmly rooted in the emo bracket"; the other that the first two CDs (not the third, current one) offered "arena emo", whatever that is. Aurum ore wants to conflate the two opinions into a factual statement that SP is an emo band, whether or not it is also pop punk. This is a fringe view, as evidenced by the fact that Aurum ore has not cited any news story, which are undoubtedly RS, that say SP is emo, while I have cited four and can easily cite forty which say "pop punk".
The proper guideline on the appropriate evaluation of minority views for purposes of WP:NPOV is WP:UNDUE. Given the tiny number of sources, whether or not reliable, cited by Aurum ore, they do not seem to constitute a significant minority view. Accordingly, WP:UNDUE prescribes that we do not insert those views.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Rolling Stone seems to be a good enough source. If there were already 4 or 5 genres in the cited info box i would hesitate to add it but seen as there are not, it should be fine. As genre itself is subjective opinion, the infobox should be used to show every opinion and every style they have been described as at every stage of their careers (within reason) I see no reason not to include it. Remember that wikipedia is not based on personal opinions and we do not discard information simply because we do not like it or disagree with it. Claims that it gives it undue weight are plainly ridiculous. This is Rolling Stone! All genres in the infobox have equal weight as policy demands. Use some other good quality band article as examples on how to approach this. --neon white talk 10:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. Please take as included in the response my previous responses to Aurum ore. In addition, an opinion piece, which you yourself seem to admit a review is, is an opinion piece, whether it is in Rolling Stone, the New York Times, or the Pennysaver. Accordingly, it is not a RS. If there was a significant minority in the music community that considered Simple Plan emo, then there would be no difficulty finding multiple news articles about SP referring to SP as an emo band. There aren't. The fact that there aren't means that this is not a view held by a signifcant portion of the music community, and therefore we do not include it per WP:UNDUE.
Being mentioned in a doubtful source may be good enough to be labeled as emo for purposes of your list, in which, to paraphrase Jerome Kern, "a drop of emo blood makes you emo in this state". Here, though, we do not include claims because there is room for it. We include them because they are supported, and we exclude marginal claims.
Aurum ore's proposed edits did not achieve consensus on this page. While I appreciate your efforts, I am not convinced by your argument, and accordingly you also have, at least so far, failed to achieve consensus, though I am willing to listen to anything else you might have to say, though I hope you can avoid repeating the previous debate.Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Wehwalt. Extreme minority opinions can not be included in the article (WP:UNDUE). -- Poe Joe (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Your constant misusing and cherry picking of the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policy is bordering on gaming the system (see example 1). Consider this a friendly warning. This policy is about minority and fringe views, not about keeping out info we don't agree with. There is no weight given to anything in the infobox, none of the genres are represented as any more significant than another. Policy says represent every POV, the article does not. NPOV is not achieved by removing info. What the infobox should represent is a summary of the style section which is missing. I suggest your time would be better spent improving this part of the article rather than this campaigning. Rolling Stone is possibly the most important music publication ever, it's circulation is 1.5 million making it the biggest selling music magazine. The view of this magazine is very significant and enough to be represented. Wikipedia does not represent our personal views or what you like or do not like. It's based on reliable sources like Rolling Stone. All wikipedia policy and guidelines apply to this article as all articles there is no different rules for different articles. We do not exclude cited information because of editor's personal feelings about it. There are serious ownership issues here that need to be resolved. Please remember that editors do not own article and remain civil with discussions. --neon white talk 12:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We have been most civil with you. You must gain consensus for an addition. You do not have consensus. It is not the other way around. I've asked you and Aurum ore to submit serious news articles, not a review/opinion piece, stating that SP is emo. That's my reading of WP:RS. WP:UNDUE is dead on point. If SP is to be considered emo, you should have no trouble submitting a few news articles (not review/opinion pieces) saying that SP is emo. We make no claim of ownership and have been most receptive to including information sourced to WP:RS. An opinion piece, and a review is personal opinion, is no less opinion for being in Rolling Stone than it is in the Pennysaver. Opinion is opinion. Please don't stand on principle, just give me, let's say five news pieces, such as SP generate whenever they play a city, saying they are emo. Come on, there are hundreds, if not thousands of articles on SP out there. If this is a serious minority view, there should be no trouble at all with this. I say again, news pieces, not opinion/reviews. Why not humor me?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Civil with me but with previous editors there is a lack of explaination and a lot of beating with policies. You are incorrect additions to an article do not need consensus. They need sources and citations but they do not need any consensus unless they are controversial, however removing cited info should not be done unilaterally in the way you have been doing with this article. Any editor is free to make any change to an article. As i have stated, a review in Rolling Stone by a major critic is significant. Reviews are not considered to be editorials they are subject to the editors approval and yes a review in a very trusted reliable source like rollingstone is more significant that in smaller local publications. You seem to misunderstand policy there is not a required amount of sources need for a piece of information. Ultimately the discussion is pointless, the genre section of the infobox is likely to be removed. I suggest removing it for now and concentrating on a decent section on style in which opinion can be attributed. With your help i think we can achieve a good article here. --neon white talk 12:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you propose some language that makes it clear that the emo thing is very much a minority view? Also show some good faith by improving parts of the article NOT related to genre? I'm not going to revert again and risk a charge of edit warring or 3RR, at least not today. Not controversial? Umm, humor. Given the amount of time we've spent debating it all over WP, that's rather funny! Anyway, propose some language here, something with "While most news reports and other sources consider Simple Plan to be a pop punk band, reviewer (whoever) of Rolling Stone (insert quote from piece)"--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)You didn't feel like waiting? Anyway, I'm not going to revert for now, but it does not have my consent, and other editors may have views on the subject. Please edit along the lines I've proposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not for editors to decide what is or what is not a minority view or create an original commentary about it. Umless of course we have a source that says so, we should simply stick to stating the facts with the citations. It's up to the reader to make judgements. It's quite plain to readers what term is favoured by reliable sources by the numbers but we can't dictate to them that one is favoured. Good faith should be assumed, i dont need to or have no desire to show it. It'd be useful to add info on influences. --neon white talk 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It's quite funny Neon white. You accuse Wehwalt of not cooperating, yet you have not shown the least bit of interest in finding a reliable source. You continually evade finding a source. If there truly exists a minority opinion, then find it! -- Poe Joe (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't accused anyone of not cooperating, he/she is discussing it so obviously he/she is cooperating. --neon white talk 01:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I am discussing it, but Neon White, you continuously reverting rather than discussing additions on talk page is not good practice. In addition, you've arguably violated 3RR with that latest edit. The Style paragraph is ridiculous, it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL, not to mention the reliable source violations. It does not have consensus, it is controversial, it will be deleted for lack of consensus unless you are able to propose a version that meets mine and Poe Joe's concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I have edited in accordance with all policies and guidelines, i have violated no rules on edit warring at all. Please remember remember that any editor can edit the page, there is no requirement for consensus and no requirement to discuss first or gain permission. Please also remember to give explainations when you quote policies rather than just throwing around the policy links, this may be seen as wikilawyering. There is noting really controversial about this information it is all well sourced in very reliable sources and makes no unusual or inflammatory claims --neon white talk 10:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of the style secion. I researched all the major music publishers i could think of, six referred to them as pop punk, a handful as just punk, rolling stone, as we know, described their self-titled as arena-emo and rhapsody as 'emo-dance', odd characterisation maybe but still there. If you can think of any more feel free to add them, either comments about their musical style or about particular songs or albums, all are useful to a reader. This is all stated clearly in the article without giving any hints that either is preferred or correct. Policy says state facts about opinions and that is what is done. What we cannot do is to insert our own personal analysis of this into it. --neon white talk 10:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
How is random selections from opinion reviews in the least useful to the reader? You dont have consensus for your addition, yet you are insisting on it. That isnt working with people, that is imposing your own will. You throw around accusations of wikilawyering and policies, and your original version, which you apparently thought better of, but too late, I had read it, accused me of spouting policies I hadnt read. If you would like to propose language that makes it clear that the heavy majority of sources regard them as pop punk, please feel free, otherwise I will edit to begin the section with a statement that SP is regarded in news reports as pop punk and drop in about twenty references to start, and you will be free to mention other genres mentioned in news reports, which as we both know, will not include emo. Otherwise, Im simply going to ask for a RfC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a start. I will add some news reports later, but am hampered by a Swedish keyböärd (not kidding).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry to jump in on this debate, (especially consdering that it was tl;dr) but if I have something to say about the genre, it's this:

The thing is, theyre NOT Punk. Even Pop-Punk is a real Punk genre. It's just all these Alternative bands and Emo bands jumping in that give people the wrong idea. Pop-Punk originated during the the era of the 60's when Pop Art artists pictures inspired people to write music. As far as I know, THIS is not that in the slightest. They only complain about how things hurt in life. Where's the message? Where's the action? Not in them. Only Emo bands complain and do nothing about it. So clearly they are an Emo band, claiming to be Pop-Punk rockers. And it also seems that they just wanna be well-known, not even caring if half their fans may be ignorant people. (not saying thats true, just saying) At least with Punk, their fans fight for a cause. Does this band do that? Not that I've heard of. ~Ameb!xSt!gPunk —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Is Leaving![edit]

I want to add this and I have proof. I attended SP'S concert in Melbourne, Australia on the 21st of October, 2008 and I quote Pierre saying "Tonight is Jeff's last show, he figured he found a better job." Maybe we should wait for a confirmation. - Tahlia

My information is that something was said about Pat, not Jeff, however we will await an official announcement. Everything put in is going to be subject to WP:V. With Sum 41 being a GA, we are going to keep up with the Jones's and improve this article (when I have time, and Poe Joe as well, which may not be for a couple of months). Please add topics at the bottom; I'm moving this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is Pat who is leaving. Pierre said it was Pat's last show and that there would be more info at a later time. I am in the invasion crew and fan club and it said Pat was leaving for a new job. It could only be temporary because also it coild be permanent. He is leaving to become a TV Presenter. I went to a SP concert on June 21 and got Pat's autograph and talked to the band we will miss PAT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsygirl8 (talkcontribs) 03:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Claim of "No Love" as next single[edit]

I have attached dubious tags to Hometown Kid's claim that No Love is the next single, based on an airplay chart from CHUM. I think that HK is indulging in a little bit of WP:SYNTH, that because it is getting airplay on this one station (regardless of whether they get info from other stations) therefore No Love is a single. He needs to put better sources in place, if there are any, which I rather doubt, or otherwise I or someone else will likely remove his claim.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting. If nothing happens, will delete it in a few hours. Given that today we've deleted the article on The End, claiming it is the next single, and previously did so for Generation, it is justified. HK has nothing showing that it is the next single, only that it is getting airtime on CHUM. I know of nothing that requires every song played to be a single.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Wehwalt. HK must provide an actual source. -- Poe Joe (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here, so I did a little research, and my answer is that I can't find evidence of it being a single. It appears to be an album track that is receiving airplay. These days, the distinction of "album track" and "single" is getting blurry, but it's still there. I don't see any announcements or marketing of this as an individual work.—Kww(talk) 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kww, you are the person I know who is knowledgeable about these sorts of things. I'm just a fan, I know nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I see HK has reffed it to a chart. Still, per Kww's def, with which HK has not quarrelled, it has not been shown to be a single, just a track that is receiving airplay. However, it is worth including in the album article that one of its tracks has charted, so I have noted that it has not yet been confirmed as a single. If it turns out to be a single, we delete my comment, if not we perhaps have a new part, entitled "Charted non-singles" or the like. Let's await developments.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be making up absolutely untrue facts about it not being a single, all because i haven't been apart of the discussion of this topic. You can't just assume it's a not yet a single, because it's the first week making the Canadian Hot 100 chart. You are fully doubting that it's the next single. You have no sources to provide indicating that it's not yet confirmed as a single, that's absolutely false. Hometown Kid (talk) 18:34
I think this is one of Wikipedias biggest faults, when it comes to music. There isn't a precise definition of what constitutes a "single" anymore. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't know how to, or possibly can't deal with the situation. While I personally don't believe airplay alone = "ZOMG!!!!!1!!!!11!!!! another single", why is my definition correct? It's probably not. The lines are very blurry, and Wiki has been less than pro active in making a distinction. — R2 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Me personally, I always thought a single was something released in some way, shape or form by the band. Has the band officially announced that it's a single, yet? If not, then it's not a single. Of course, this doesn't mean that this won't change in the next few days, but as of right now there are no reliable sources that say it's a single (MANY songs that have been on the charts have not been released as singles.) Therefore, it is not a single. Just wait a little bit and see if an official single release is, well, released. Then you may feel free to add such information. But for now, it's just speculation. CarpetCrawler (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That is my point. The band is very media savvy, very much so. Not a word. Not on their web site, in the newspapers, nowhere. I am not a member of the official SP Crew fan club, but I know such members, and there has been no announcement made there. There is no video. There is no promotion. SP is not on tour. They have exactly 9 show dates scheduled, and have announced they are gearing up for the next CD. All indications are, this is not a single. There is time to add the info later if it comes to pass. Let's be right, rather than first.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
HK: You bear the burden of proof. You can not find one source saying No Love is the fourth single. Thus you cannot add it to the article. -- Poe Joe (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Simple plan's genre is pop punk and alternative rock. Alternative rock makes up most of their entire third album, along with almost half the songs from Still Not Getting Any... being alternative rock of some sort. -- (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's been a long time since this page has been used. Anyway, find a good number of sources that say so, and it can be put up. -- Poe Joe (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean, usually the editor just goes ahead and ignores consensus!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest Genre Change (no flame wars!)[edit]

Someone (not me - you can check the history) has added emo to the band's genre list.

Which is something I totally agree with.

I know accusing bands left, right and centre of being "emo" is stupid, but seriously, everyone knows Simple Plan are an emo band. It's pretty much undebatable. So, before some huge stupid edit war starts over this, I'd just like to ask someone, anyone, to find as many reliable sources as possible that cite the band as emo. This whole thing needs to be cleared up. --LordNecronus (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your passages has teh gots thu non-objective, biasedness. Please read all the above topics concerning this very issue. -- Poe Joe (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I challenged the "every band is emo is one person anywhere said it is" folk to come up with a significant number of articles saying SP was emo, they didn't do very well. Please read that discussion, as Poe Joe said.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure SP would be considered as pop-punk — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Since 1999[edit]

Let's discuss this. Personally, I think "Since 1999" is both unencyclopedic and also perhaps too idiomatic for some. I personally prefer the old format. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I've reverted back to the old format but urge all parties involved to discuss it here, or agree to reopen that discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Using since and date is a more precise way of documenting information, and should be used according to the MOS. Furthermore, I can cite about 100+ band articles that currently implement this usage.... GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, there seems to be a dispute about it. Should we have a broader discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that consensus should not override the MOS? That would be like throwing all the rules out the window just because a few people feel one way about something. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is IAR, but they didn't apply that. They soberly looked at it and found that the MOS did not dictate the situation. I suggest that a discussion on this be opened at some larger venue.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but I believe that the official rules need to be followed, until such time as all of this is worked out. What did you have in mind? GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Same forum as before? But I think consensus on the page does not presently support the change. You're coming to the situation, you bear a certain version of persuasion, with both sides having right on their sides.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not catching on lol. What forum? Technically you are correct, both sides are right. But consider this... you don't say "Hey everyone look at that red bird!" You say "Hey everyone look at the Cardnial!" both are right, one is just the proper way :) GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The template talk forum I cited to above. And I'm reserving judgment. I just don't think it should be changed without discussion, and Talk:SP is too small a forum. What about the MoS talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
And doesn't WP:OTHERDATE answer things?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't answer things entirely... because I have seen MANY MANY article beginning to use the since - date as the normal formatting. Additionally, I've already posted something on the MOS discussion page GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

here you are. I was really just asking the question about which format is the proper way, or if both ways are. I just want clarification really lol. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding "alternative rock" to Genres.[edit]

Simple Plan in pretty much pop-punk but they also play alternative rock, so I would appreciate to make this option available. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeUsername555 (talkcontribs) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright. But before editing, please cite verifiable and reliable sources. --TheReaderOfOz (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Move Damage Control to the respective host's page?[edit]

Damage Control has nothing to do with the band, according to this article. I vote that it is moved to the host's page rather than the band's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDPeterson (talkcontribs) 10:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the theme song of the show is "Me Against the World", a Simple Plan song. Zappa (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I had no idea. I've never watched it. DanielDPeterson + talk 03:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Simple Plan Promo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Simple Plan Promo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


Simple Plan recorded the theme song for "What's New Scooby Doo?", and songs from "No Pads, No Helmets...Just Balls" were featured in the show, specifically the episodes "It's Mean, It's Green, It's the Mystery Machine"-featuring "I'd Do Anything"- and "Simple Plan and the Invisible Madman"-featuring "You Don't Mean Anything" and "The Worst Day Ever". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


Simple Plan is an Alternative and/or Punk band. They are not emo and are not necessarily rock. They are similar to Good Charlotte, Sum 41, and other such bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Explicit content[edit]

Is the self-titled / untitled album the only one with swear words? -- (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Simple plan's music genre emo?[edit]

Simple Plan is an Pop Punk and Alternative band. They are not Emo. They are similar to Good Charlotte, Sum 41, and other such bands. Biruxx (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Simple Plan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simple Plan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ [12]
  3. ^ 1
  4. ^ [13]