Talk:Blink-182/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Formation date

What's with the writing of this article? It starts of by saying that the band formed in 1991, yet Tom and Mark didn't meet until 92. Nice. --Vision4bg (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2005 (UTC)

Tried to clean it up a bit. --Lan3y (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2005 (UTC)

An article, not fan site

I threw out the back-and-forth about the band's possible breakup that had been dumped on top of the article - let's wait until there's an event worthy of an encyclopedia article before putting in material, please - and took out some first-person point of view. --DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2005 (UTC)

Right, I have put a single sentence at the top now. I think that this should be placed in a prominent position, and together with the text at the bottom is sufficiently clear. --Lan3y (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2005 (UTC)

Angels and Airwaves

Recently, information has surfaced regarding Delonge's solo album. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, he registered the name "Angels and Airwaves" on June 24th 2005 and also claimed that "It is so much more powerful, emotional and melodic than Box Car and Blink put together". Many are skeptical regarding the authenticiy of the statement and the project itself and it is confirmed that the supposed Angels and Airwaves website is not official, that's the reason why it is using a UK domain name. Anyway it is assumed that the band's MySpace page has been registered by Geffen. This statement, along with much of the information disclosed about reasons for the break, presents a greater sense of ambiguity.

The domain is registered to David Rossiter, who stated on the supposed Angels and Airwaves website this: "Hey guys, I've seen loads of comments on other forums or postings in news articles questioning whether this site is official. No, is the answer, it is not an official website, but it is officially the first fan site for the band! Please join this board and start building up an awesome community. A website will follow shortly, stay tuned!"

The whois lookup for the domains "angelsandairwaves.com" and "angelsandairwaves.net" leave Geffen Records as the owner of both of them, since May 11, 2005... so this may have been planned since a long time.

I hope this helps to clarify things a little. Someone please add some of this information to the article. --Greedy (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Request clarification: Radio codeword

Regarding this phrase from the article:

"...Travis stated that the "182" was the U.S. radio codeword meaning 'homicide' (apparently confusing "182", the radio codeword for conspiracy, for "187")."

Could someone please clarify what is meant by a radio codeword for conspiracy? Is the word 'radio' referring to U.S. commercial broadcasters? Perhaps it refers to U.S. law enforcement, but 'conspiracy' seems an odd (and rather nebulous) crime to require a code number. Thanks to anyone who might be able to clear this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutgraph (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reedit the last article about the "divorce"

It's big, messy and not so clarifying. I think it should be edited significantly so that it can summarise the whole situation about the band current status. Otherwise I don't see need for so much information. Most peoeple new to the band won't give a shit and won't read it at all. Better something smaller, but tighter and stricter. --Mad Hatter (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

New Discography

Who the hell put up that crappy new discography?!? It is very disjointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.200.248 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Name

Uh, are you sure it's blink with a lower case b? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.15.207 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. blink-182. EQuintan (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Songs lost stubs etc..

I care little for the music category, but i noticed that there are allot of satelite floater pages like this one [1]. --..micky (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus 44 sixty second song?

Hello everyone, I removed the sentence On February 26, 2006 a sixty-second clip of a song was released that many suspect is Plus-44. The clip has a very electronic, synth feel to it, and would be a huge change of pace for punk rock veterans, Mark Hoppus and Travis Barker.. If anyone has any sources for this please post them here. --Greedy (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How many members?

The article says the band consists of seven members, and then goes on to list three. Are there three or seven members? --Markkawika (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is really only three members in the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.106.160.8 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Scott Raynor the original drummer makes 4 hommie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.124.231 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

i think it started with Markus Allen Hoppus and Thomas Mathhew Delonge. They found a drummer who is Scott Raynor, then they get rid of him and got Travis Landon Barkar. Hes an awsome drummer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.44.43 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, 'hommie'! --BabuBhatt (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

well kind of, not really though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.44.46 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Teah the part about Mathhew and Barkar is is a little suspect. --BabuBhatt (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Genre confusion

I belive that blink 182 are basicly what people say it is "pop/punk".Many people say that there early stuff was more punk and there later stuff were more pop but I disagree. If you listen to flyswatter and buddah... sure songs like alone, point of view, dicklips or fentloozer could be slightly classified as punk (but not proper punk) but basicly cheshire cat, buddah are all about getting girls or leaving relationships. Enema of the state is mostly pop exept for anthem. TOYPAJ (Take Off Your Pants and Jacket) is possibly there most punk album whit songs such as Anthem Part Two, Reackless Abandon, Give Me One Good Reason and Shut Up. The self titeles or untiled whatever you want to call it album is there most differnt music they have made with much more serios songs such as Violence, Stolkholme Syndrome,Go ,Astenia and Easy target, which cannot be clasified as punk or pop. Also adding to this you can notice alot of elements of Angels and Airwaves in Asthenia, Always and Im Lost With Out you. --Jordans (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

i think there just "punk" --Supmyman7 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

This article is in desperate need of fair use images to support the text --Wisdom89 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"blink-182 was" vs. "blink-182 is"

First it's blink-182/Blink-182 now this. Next the article will be listed as Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. --CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does someone keep editing this page to change "blink-182 was" to "blink-182 is"? The band is still on hiatus. I sometimes follow the news of blink-182 and there has been no evidence that the band is still together during the hiatus. Singer Tom DeLonge said that he hasn't heard from the rest of the members (Mark Hoppus and Travis Barker) since the day the band went on hiatus. So, that's why we should leave it as "blink-182 was". If anyone changes it back to "blink-182 is", that means the band is no longer on hiatus, but they still are. --65.222.216.15 (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why User:64.142.89.105 reverts the compromise with the note "please discuss on talk page" when there is no immediate evidence that this user is discussing this. The compromise text eliminates the argument. RadioKirk talk to me 16:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Per Merriam-Webster, hiatus is defined as "an interruption in time or continuity" while the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as an "interruption (or) break in sequence". In each case, the definitions require the continuation of the "pattern" when the hiatus concludes. In my estimation, this means a band on (even an indefinite) hiatus exists until at least one member says it's over; therefore, it still is (and, may I present The Eagles ["(The band will perform together) when hell freezes over." —Don Henley, 1982, v. "We never broke up, we just took a 14-year vacation." —Glen Frey, 1994] and Styx as proof). It should also be noted that "was a ... band" (paragraph 1) and "the current and official rendering of the band's name" (paragraph 3) cannot coexist. RadioKirk talk to me 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I keep changing "blink-182 is" to "blink-182 was" because they are no longer together as Tom DeLonge said that he hasn't spoken to the other members Mark Hoppus and Travis Barker. As I said before, the band is still on hiatus, but indefinitely, that means that they would be on hiatus for a very long time, because that's what "indefinitely" means. I researched some links wether the band is still together or not.

• Status of blink-182
  • Disbanded: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
  • On hiatus/On hold: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]
  • Still active: [16], [17], [18]

So. Believe it, it's true that blink-182 is no longer together. --64.142.89.105 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! Now, include the information and WP:CITE it in the article. Even better, write in both arguments and WP:CITE them, as in, "so-and-so says the band is still on hiatus<ref>(source)</ref> while the other so-and-so says they're over.<ref>(source)</ref>":) RadioKirk talk to me 17:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if it says "is" or "was" but every time someone changes it then someone else changes it back. But being called a vandal for trying to put in a compromise is not too polite. --CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The revert war stops, now. The following note has been left on the IPs' talk pages:

By reverting once more to the "was/is" war, it is clear you have every intention of using Wikipedia to prove you're "right" while willfully avoiding any attempt at compromise. In addition, IPs 64.142.89.105 and 65.222.216.15 are being used for tag-team reversions in attempt to avoid Wikipedia's rules against revert-wars. This language is factual, and it is to remain intact because it should be the goal of all of us for Wikipedia to be correct, not its editors. Further reversions will violate WP:3RR and WP:POINT and will be dealt with either through page proection or blocking your ability to edit the encyclopedia, or both.

RadioKirk talk to me 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia?

Most of the trivia section reads like a Tom DeLonge fan-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inmate42 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

blink-182/Blink-182

I just noticed that the inital listing of the bands name is starting to get capitalized and reverted. Let's not start an edit war here. I went through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) but couldn't find anything to indicate which is correct. So, what do people want or feel is correct? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand it's "blink-182". At the beginning of a sentence, you still capitalize letters that normally are lowercase. Such as Al-Qaeda and others in Category:Article titles with lowercase initial letters. To avoid the problem, perhaps the sentence should be rewritten. --BabuBhatt (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "Formed in 1992 blink-182 was a Southern-Californian Pop-Punk band founded by Tom Delonge, Mark Hoppus, and Scott Raynor in the northern San Diego suburb of Poway, California."? --CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just edited without checking here. After having a read around, I think I would go with BabuBhatt, following the same sort of idea we use for numerals, as in if any numeral must be used at the beginning of a sentence, it is always spelt out. For definite clarity the sentence shouldn't begin with 'blink-182'. However, the above suggestion sounds a bit forced. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to add something to my own post, and a quick comment back to BabuBhatt, surely al-Quaeda should be displayed like normal words (i.e. not capitalised except at the beginning of sentences etc.), whereas you would be referring to something like pH? Incidentally, pH is written 'pH' at the beginning of a sentence in its own article. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont really know. It may be blink-182 however proper nouns are generally capitalised and with "blink-182" being the name of a band that makes it a proper noun so maybe it should be capitalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.208.111 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardcore my ass

Not only that, but in the article the author said that the release of their untitled record brought them back into the hardcore scene, even though they never have and probably never will be a hardcore band. I highly doubt the author of this article even knows what hardcore sounds like, and it needs to be revised. In fact, I'm gonna do that right now.

By the way, the author of this article sounds like they're in 7th grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.109.153 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 January 2005 (UTC)

blink-182 hardcore? thats a larf, compare this pop punk to a band like Casey Jones to understand. --Avenged Evanfold (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Transplants

All the things say "The Transplants." I've changed it to "Transplants," because I was watching Jimmy Kimmel interview Travis Barker, and Barker said that the band was "Transplants," not "The Transplants." If I am mistaken, change it back and reply inform me here, and if I am wrong about this tell me where you get your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopherbassist (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Jimmy said "Transplants" too...but their old website was thetransplants.com, and their myspace was myspace.com/thetransplants. --Atticus2020 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

any way to change the title

i know cause of the technical restrictions it won't let us change the "Blink-182" to "blink-182" but once i saw, that the lower case one(blink-182)was on top of the other once at one point in time. how can you do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aly.b (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

pop punk revival

please leave the genre as pop punk revival. see the simple plan talk page for why we're using it to desbribe these kinds of bands --67.66.95.196 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A Spoof of Whaaa?

Somebody wrote the following in the Trivia section: "A Spoof of "Violence" is in Date Movie". First of all, the syntax is incorrect. Second of all, what the hell does this sentence say? I have no idea, and I'm sure other readers will be confused too. --Ido50 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

whoever said that has no clue what they are talking about. there is a similar drum beat, but it is not the same song at all. --Jds10912 (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark's Interviews

We should really add Mark's interviews in the article because:

1. It's about blink-182 and it's an important part of the article
2. According to Mark blink-182 is now a defunct group
3. The interview had revealed Mark's feelings towards Tom.

So, I think the interviews are required. --Cory pratt (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

if you want to edit down the interview into something that would fit here. i think it is a good idea, but i do not have the time to do so myself. there was a lot in that interview that should be mentioned in the article. --Jds10912 (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

I've removed all the fansites - they're unencyclopedic and it's just a target for people to put their own personal fansite. since we can't list ALL fansites I think it's better to have none, if someone really wants to find a fansite they can use google.

Extended content
Boltzies-blink A blink fan site. Easy target 182 blink182foreverandever Punk Disasters blink-182 by Atomik Fan site. --GrahameS (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

this might be a little POV, but i think we should leave punkdisasters. im pretty sure that it is the #1 visited blink-182 fan site. but then we might have to start letting everyone put their fansites here... oh well --Jds10912 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite Hiatus

I think the "Indefinite Hiatus" section should be renamed "Break-Up" as Mark Hoppus made it pretty clear that Tom quit the band, and that he and Travis have no intention of playing under the blink-182 name. If they ever get back together it will be considered as a reunion. --MrPink (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the official statement made by Mark was " ... going on indefinite hiatus", not "we're breaking up". I say we just leaving it saying indefinate hiatus. --WereWolf (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Mark said they have no intention of playing under the blink-182 name but that doesn't mean its gone forever. Mark doesnt say anywhere in his interviews that the band has broken up --68.5.246.25 (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You never know if one day they settle their differences and getback together. There not broken up, their just at a point where they dont know what will happen to Blink 182. --Toasty! | Available at your local store 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all just semantics. Indefinite hiatus is essentially just another way of saying "broken up". And on that point, since when is breaking up an immutable binding contract? Countless bands break up and reform all the time. What does it matter what you call it? --Wisdom89 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture section

Most of this section is pretty boring and irrelevant - I don't think we need to list every single TV show or movie that featured a blink song, that's a little too much IMO. Here's the stuff I took out. Also a bunch of stuff that only related to the band members individually and not the band.

Extended content

DeLonge had one line as a fast-food worker in the film Idle Hands. Barker appears in print and TV advertisements for Boost Mobile. "All the Small Things" and "First Date" appeared in the film "Clockstoppers". In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Something Blue", Willow gets drunk and dances to "All The Small Things". In "Stick It" when Haley is doing her floor routine she is dancing to "Anthem Part 2." Hoppus appeared on episode #7 of Haunted as the dead father of a living girl. "All The Small Things" is covered by an unnamed band on the Gamecube game Donkey Konga "Rock Show" appears in the PS2 game Amplitude. "Blink 182 appears in a concert playing "what's my age again?" on the show Laguna Beach" Blink 182's song First Date appeared on the show Still Standing, when the daughter went to one of there concerts. "Dammit" appears constantly in the movies Bubble Boy, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, and Can't Hardly Wait. It also appeared on the Daria episode, "Arts 'n Crass" and an episode of the WB teen drama, Dawson's Creek. Barker and wife Shanna Moakler co-star in Meet the Barkers, an MTV reality show.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahameS (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

That section looks wrong. It's just a large list of unrealted material. Most, if not all, should be removed as unencyclopedic. --CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, so I took out most of it. This section is just an indiscriminate collection of info.

Extended content

Tom DeLonge was #15 on Cosmogirl's top fifty hottest rockers. Barker started playing the drums when he was four. An early band containing Mark Hoppus was called The Attic Children. Before blink-182, Tom was in a band called Big Oily Men, Mark was in a band called the Pier 69, then Of All Things, until he moved to San Diego to start The Attic Children (which later turned into blink, and grew on to become a part of the name of the clothing company, Atticus, which Mark and Tom co-founded), and before the Aquabats and the Vandals, Travis was in an amateur band called Feeble. When approached on the street by fans seeking insight, Mark Hoppus reportedly has replied with: "I'm the guy with the flat voice in Blink 182. Why are you paying any attention me? I have nothing to offer anyone." On the inside of the spine on the album Enema of the State you will find the words "Viking wizard eyes, Wizard full of lies" The song "Dick Lips" was not originally called "Dick Lips". Hoppus was very fond of those two words, and called everybody in the studio that. When the producer came to the studio to ask what the name of the song was. Hoppus and DeLonge both blurted out "Dick Lips". They were going to change the name to better suit the song, but the name stuck with it. The cover of Greatest Hits looks similar to The Offspring's Greatest Hits' cover, an apparent homage to "real punk rock" according to Travis.

--GrahameS (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but, the album covers look NOTHING alike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.1.22 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Years active

Hi, somebody put that Blink's years active ending 2006. However, just five days ago, it siad 2005. Which year is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmith319 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the band announced their hiatus in early 2005. Some sources say that Tom DeLonge said he hadn't spoken to Mark Hoppus and Travis Barker ever since. So, that would be a "yes" that they broke up. Read part of this section for more proof. --Alex (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Come Back?

What is that about? Making one last album or something? --Supmyman7 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

not true :-( --Jds10912 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To me, unless I get real proof I can't rust taht info. Please prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmith319 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Behind the Music

On the Behind the Music arcticle it says an episode on blink-182 is in production just wanted to know if this was true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmypop1994 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is i watched it a few weeks back its like their DVDS The Cronicles --RetroSpect741 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

New Album

someone posted something about a new album. There are no citations and I can't find anything anywhere else about it. Does anyone have any proof it's real? --Theonegreatx (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pop punk

They're pop punk. They're practically the definition of pop punk. --Rhobite (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

when they won the award for best new act or whatever i quote 'thanks guys and just keep on supporting punk rock, thankyou. SO YOU ARE WRONG THEY CALL THEMSELVES PUNK ROCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1link82 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

Allmusicguide: [19] see "Styles". Google search [20] 62,000 hits. Please stop removing the fact that they're "pop punk". --Rhobite (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

So google is right and the band members are wrong, i am not allowed to call you an idiot but if i was allowed to i would. --B1link82 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

Oh, what a clever way to get around "No personal attacks". I'm sorry, but they are pop-punk. User:Rhobite is correct. --Lan3y (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

The band members aren't necessarily right about their genre just beacause they are the band members. In fact, I think they are less likely to recognise their genre, as bands don't usually listen to themselves an awful lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.199.126 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

blink-182 is pop punk as hell. Someone earlier also stated that if he or she calls himself king of the world, it doesn't mean he is king of the world. Even though the blink-182 members might have thought they were punk rock, I see no reason as to why to believe that. Some of their songs definitely has punk rock influence, but this is not enough to label them punk rock. They're pop punk, end of story. --Scotteh (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blink 182 are not a Pop Punk Band. Look at it Busted and Son of Dork are pop punk they have the clean guitar, pop drum beats, lyrics about childish attractions for the opposite sex, whilst Blink swear, have fast punk drumming and overdriven guitar, deading and palm muting. Think about it they are Punk Rock like Greenday (who are also not Pop Punk) and Offspring. --Paladin91 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Ok, let's see if we can get some kind of consensus going here. What genre should the band be referred to in the article? Please sign votes. --Lan3y (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

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

Poll is now closed. I count 8 Pop punk and 1 Punk rock votes. The result is Pop punk. Lan3y (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2005 (UTC)

Pop punk

1. It seems to be clear to me from their music that they are more punk rock than pop punk. --Lan3y (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
2. Of course they're pop punk. B1link82 please remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Three revert rule. --Rhobite (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
3. they're pop punk.  ALKIVAR™ 20:38, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

   Interesting... User:Alkivar's boyfriend now editing the main article. --Katefan0 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

   now banned indefinately for impersonation (likely b1link82) ... cause it sure as fuck wasnt a bf since i'm single :)  ALKIVAR™ 16:37, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

4. Obvious. I can call myself a giant banana split, but that doesn't make me one. (Tasty!) --Katefan0 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
5. I'd vote for pop, but that isn't an option. So, I'm going with Pop Punk. --TheGrza 22:30, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
6. Pop. Definately. --Kiand (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

   BTW, the user User:Bl1nk82 is now vandalising the user pages of those who vote for 'pop'. And changing my user signature. --Kiand (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

   And he erased my comment. I think I'm flattered. --Katefan0 (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

7. Clearly. I don't see how anyone could dispute that they are both punk and pop. Since this issue has come up on multiple articles (e.g. Avril Lavigne, Green Day), it may be an issue worth discussing in depth in punk pop. --Tuf-Kat(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2005 (UTC)
8. Commercialisation of the original punk idiom. Lots of emotion, hardly anti-establishment not nearly hardcore enough to call it emo. Definitely "Pop punk", I'm afraid. I happen to find it quite listenable, but not punk rock. --Mike C (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

Punk rock

1. punk rock because they band say they are, obviously Lan3y knows more about the band than mark and tom, an example of Stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1link82 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
2. b1link82 is right they are a punk rock band along with green day, new found glory etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.4.49 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

   Please see [21]. This vote is the user's sole contrib. --Lan3y (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

   This IP belongs to the UK ISP, Energis. The offending user in this case is in the UK. Horribly tenous link, but... --Kiand (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

   In fact, the user in question *does* use Energis, so I'm going to call w:sockpuppet on this one. --Kiand (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Definitely Punk Rock as attitude, but pop punk as music, even that their last disc sounds as Punk Rock, let's ask Greg Graffin... --Greedyredbag (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
2. Googling for "pop punk" "blink-182" produces 66,400 results; "punk rock" "blink-182" produces 222,000 results. FWIW... -- Vanished user 03 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

   and also for what its worth: Results 1 - 100 of about 911,000 for "pop" "blink 182".  ALKIVAR™ 18:21, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

   That means fuck all you idiot pop is a short word and pop can mean loads of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1link82 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

   Lovely above missive by User:B1link82. --Katefan0 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

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

• By all the definitions offered here, they count as pop punk. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:31, 11 April 2005 (UTC)
• Blink-182 obviously wants to call themselves punk, and they have a right to. Are any of you in succesful bands that make albums as good as "Dude Ranch" or the other albums? No you are not. That's what I thought. Punk is a genre that has changed since it first came around. Blink-182, especially new blink-182, is obviously not like the Ramones, nor are they as new-punk as, say, NOFX. Also, Punk should transcend politics. The topics blink-182 choose to sing about are fine by me as long as they continue to be good. Please, do not compare blink-182 to Avril Lavigne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.40.35.15 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
• Punk rock is [what 4.40.35.15 said] or even punk, a style or genre that varies (and varied) along history so, who we are to consider or categorize a band? Categorization is a commercial resource, along with trends and fashion, so let's don't focus on categories, and make a deeper analysis of the situation... --Greedyredbag 03:37, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
• blink 182 in their early years they were mostly punk rock.. but now their recent album is more pop punk... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.54.34 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 June 2005 (UTC)
• If 'pop punk' won the poll, why does the article say 'punk rock'? I'm going to change it now, hope that's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.199.126 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oh for christ's sakes why the hell do you all have to argue about every single bloody band's genre?? no band can be restricted to any one genre. NO BAND. Anyway, whats the big difference between punk, punk rock and pop punk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.18.125 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• pop punk (or skater punk). Look Greenday are thought of as pop punk and they are much more punk than blink 182. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.100.245 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Why don't you just call them nu metal, which is half way between. As i've seen them classed in that genre on some websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigc2 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  hahahahah "nu metal" very funny! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.6.178 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• They are clearly Punk Rock. Although they could have been classified as pop punk during the Take Off Your Pants and Jacket era when describing the band they should be described in reference to their latest album. Their untitlied album was clearly a move away from pop punk using distorted guitar and far darker lyrics and musical sound. Songs like Easy Target, Violence and Stokholm Sydnrome back this up. Untitled is definitely not pop punk. Pop punk involves clean guitar, simple melodies and zero distortian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.4.27 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Right kids. I am giving you a homework of listening to dude ranch and cheshire cat and coming back to me and calling them pop-punk, nu-metal or whatever. I think you'll find these two albums as raw punk rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkerruleslines (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

name

can be pronounced "one eight two" aswell you know. here they say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

in that case, i propose deleting the pronounciation altogether. --24.129.92.210 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Can we not list both, more than one? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 24.129.92.210—if there's more than one "correct" way to pronounce the name, its inclusion becomes entirely moot. Also, may I remind editors to please use the edit summary (directly below the text box within the edit page) to help other editors recognize that something finally includes a source when it had been added repeatedly without one? Your edit will be less likely to be reverted as a matter of course. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be said like that, but the proper way is "eighty". Just like Kerrang! spelling it Blink 182 - just because it does, it doesn't make it right. --Jamdav86 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I put the word correct in quotation marks; while "one eighty two" (or, even more properly, "one hundred eighty two") is technically the correct way to enunciate the numerical entity, we're talking about the name of a band. If its members use more than one pronunciation, there is no one "correct" way. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still failing to see why having more than one way to pronounce something means that including those pronunciations is moot. There are stil a great many of "incorrect" pronunciations, and this shows which ones are "correct". --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It becomes inconsequential. If there's one, and only one, way to pronounce something, according to its originator(s), then it's significant; once more than one is established, particularly if it's numerical (where there're often several alternatives), then it's fancruft at best. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that "one eighty two" is the only "correct" way of saying it. "one eight two" and "one hundred and eighty two" are wrong, and that is a well-known fact. --Jamdav86 (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Very little within an encyclopedia can be considered "well-known fact". "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis as written), meaning you must cite a reliable source for the data to remain. This is incontrovertible Wikipedia policy. Meantime, I would consider the video linked above to be proof that the band members liked both "one eighty two" and "one eight two", again rendering this whole thing unencyclopedic. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom's myspace

IS FAKE SO TAKE IT OFF I took it off twice and it keeps getting added back on. IT'S FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caillou1337 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mixed up lables and incorect info

This things on crack they got all the lables mixed up buddah/cargo chesire cat/MCA and flyswatter was recorded in Toms Garage he said it in "Road Homes" on MTV... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.65.140 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Albums from discography not included

Lemmings (A split), Flyswatter, Buddha, The Mark, Tom, and Travis show (Live album), and Greatest Hits. I'm not sure what years these were released but they should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KuntifiedRIOT (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the hidden note on the discography section. Alex (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Enema Of The State Demo

i have just seen a page of enema of the state demo. anyone clarify if this real album or fake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.13.234 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?

They had three albums go diamond? --69.113.131.124 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

How about we just say pop punk/punk rock as their genre? --Johhny-turbo (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it that important? "Pop punk" means what it's come to mean, and blink-182 falls into that definition. It's difficult to see striking similarities between sum41 and blink-182, and say The Sex Pistols, Bad Religion or NOFX. --Artiste-extraordinaire (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, blink are not punk rock --Dan027 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing Albums and Demos

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

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

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

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

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

Typography

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

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

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

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

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

• ...not just take official or fan-driven, but also independent sources into consideration, when assessing whether an eccentric typeset is used "commonly" or "sometimes". Major newspapers, retailers and music networks apparently don't care that much, which bears the question why a general-purpose publication like an encyclopedia should.
• ...capitalize proper names, which kids in English-speaking countries are taught in kindergarten and most other people around the world during their first English lesson.
• ...consider the Wikipedia-wide ramifications before calling for the "occasional exception" from a guideline. Which by the way is a rhetoric I probably get like four times out of five when applying certain guidelines to a pop-culture-centered article - you know, occasionally.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed edit: blink-182 (written with a lower case B) this acknowledges the lower case b, and informs the reader its not a typo --Olir (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we have to conform to some stupid rule that says we should be wrong and put a capital b, why do we say "sometimes typeset" its always typeset as blink 182, never as Blink 182. Only people who have made a mistake write it like that, and that mistake was to capitalise. So i say blank out the "sometimes" as its not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Why don't we say "offcially" typeset as blink 182? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 10:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I've observed the rule that we should capitalise the b when talking about them, however common sense tells us that the offcial way of spelling it is with a lower case b, thats what you'll find on all the merch, on your albums on your gig tickets on their websites forums etc. ::::::::::Now, with the rule standing that we capitalise the b when we type the name, someone who doesnt know blink has no idea that the real name is with a capital b. The statement "sometimes" is ambiguous and will lead people to believe that maybe on their albums the b will be capitalised or maybe not, basically that current bracketed statement says nothing. The fact is on anything offcial the b wont be capitalised currently we are not recognisining that. Its cool that we write the article with the upper case B, thats the rule, however we must state that on any real blink 182 stuff, you'll never find a capital b. That does NOT mean we write the aricle with lower case b's everytime we say their name it just means that a minor explanation needs to be put, perferrably in that bracketed space explaining that the lower case b is the correct way. I think saying "offcially" instead of "sometimes" would be a perfect way of saying this. --Olir (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Right

To the guy who sent me that new message. I never said blink-182 was an emo band, I just think they hit emo with their last album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.168.148 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Blinks untitled/self titled album is not an emo album. its got some punk rock, some more alt rock kind of stuff on it. I wouldnt call it pop punk at all, and i certainly wouldnt call it emo --Olir (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blink 182 is an example of a band that fits the current pejorative and typical description of Emo: Hitler hairdos, piercings (especially lips and eyebrows), self-pity, complaining about teenage years (especially high school), etc. --Jordinho (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Last.fm

Check out blink 182 at last.fm's similar artists.[22]

Looking at the page blink 182 has similar sound to 6 pop punk bands, 1 pop punk\punk rock band and a blink182's side project.

If we search for more we get to Simple Plan, The All-American Rejects, My Chemical Romance etc. Should I continue? --Psychomelodic (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

POP PUNK ; POP PUNK; POP PUNK

MAN YOU CAN HEAR IT!!! THEY ARE JUST POP PUNK AND NOT PUNKROCK!!! POP PUNK BANDS ARE LIKE Good Charlotte / Sum 41 or Simple Plan and they sounds like them! real punkrock are more like Rancid / [Bad Religion]] or Anti-Flag!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minutes to Rise (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, it is resolved. Don't dreg it up again, and if you can't be bothered to read the above to find out why it is like it is then i have no sympathy for you. --Jamdav86 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why blink-182 is "punk rock" and not "pop-punk".

Ok. The prefix "pop" is short for "popular". There is no dispute about that. The Beatles are almost definately the most popular band in the history of music. Would you call their music "pop-rock"? Eminem and Snoop Dogg are also extemely popular. But would you call their music "pop-rap"? Would you call Tim McGraw's music "pop-country"? Or Beethoven's music "pop-classical"? No, you wouldn't.

If there is a Wikipedia page on a musical artist or group, it is most likely at least a somewhat popular artist. So most music is popular in its own right. There is absolutely no need to add the prefix "pop" to a genre to let people know the artist or group is extremely popular. "Pop" is used to describe status, not musical style.

blink-182 describes themselves as "punk", so they are who we should go by. (See: [23] at around the 50 second mark) If you want to let people know of blink-182's tremendous popularity, that is fine. Just don't include that in their music style. Leave that as "punk rock". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkypunk (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The prefix pop in this case refers to the style of music, if we refer to the Pop Punk article we will see it says "Pop punk music is more melodic and cleaner-sounding than the original punk rock music of the late 1970s." and refer to the consensus further up the page [24]. --Dan027 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Refferring to other Wikipedia pages gets us nowhere because everything can be edited by anybody. blink-182 calls themselves punk-rock, so we should go by that, not what other people want to call them. And "pop" is short for POPULAR!!! --Hawkypunk (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop stood for any popular music in the 1960's but it's evolved to a more distinct genre. Pop-punk is punk sound which has little to no focus on politics and has lighter music. And I don't think they we should go just by what they say, especially since they just said in a passing way and diddn't deny being pop-punk. If a band with say an obvious black metal sound called themselves metal band should we just say their metal because they diddn't mention the black part? And what exactly is your problem with the pop punk article? If it's because anyone can edit it why do you use wikipedia at all then? --Johhny-turbo (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Blink 182 refer to themselves as punk rock on many occasions and never as pop-punk. Thats what we have to go with. --Olir (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Alr8 then, i'll sort dis out...the kooks are an indie band...and there not independent at all! so if u reckon that pop actually means popular anymore...shut up...and finally, if u proper care about this r8 bad to answer me bk, ur r8 sad...get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.35.7 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pop's short for popular, but it doesnt mean the music's necessarily popular, it means its a certain style that is generally popular and in the mainstream (although rap isn't pop for example cos it's not the same style as pop music). blink-182 is punk but it's influenced by pop music. so this is kinda stupid, pop punk is a poppier version of punk. it doesn't matter whether its more popular than regular punk (the misfits and sex pistols are both very popular but not "pop") pop is a genre not a musical style. and also, it doesn't matter what the artist says. if satyricon said they were gangsta rap, it wouldn't mean they were actually gangsta rap, they'd still be (clearly metal influenced) black metal. if kylie minogue describes hersel as hard rock, her music isn't hard rock just cos she said that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpmuscillo (talk • contribs) 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Why go with what the band says? They've given bullshit answers to questions so many times, how could you take anything they say seriously? They gave, what, six different ways they came up with the 182 in their name? They gave at least two reasons why Scott left. Why would we go with what they say? They've obviously proven themselves totally unreliable as a source of information, especially for an encyclopedic project. Think please. --69.108.139.69 (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Josh

i fail to see any link between them and the punk rock movement at all. I'd say they were far more influenced by power pop and new wave bands. --79.64.75.86 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

LMAO, how on earth?

On the Blink 182 article, in the infobox it says "punk rock" as their genre?... how, what, why, who? This factual inaccuracy needs fixing, at present the article contradicts others on Wikipedia. --The Daddy (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt contradict any other articles. It merely highlights the mainstream opinion (as characterised by the sources) that they play punk rock music. Its true they do - pop punk is merely a sub-section of punk rock anyway, so by calling them that you call them punk rock. Anyway, towards the start and end of their careers pop punk was not an acurate description. Would you call the song stockholm syndrome pop punk? maybe if you were deaf. Inside the introduction pop punk is used to describe them, as i think it should, but in the box punk rock needs to be there. --Olir (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, calling it pop punk does not make it punk rock, but to almost punk rock. --Psychomelodic (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

no its a subgenre, not an independant genre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They are neither, they may have been influenced by both, certainly by pop-punk bands like the ramones, buzzcocks etc but they certainly have nothing in the slighest in common with punk rock like the MC5 and the Stooges. They are pop-rock/power-pop. Pop music is clearly a far biggest influence than rock music on their style. --79.64.75.86 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop Punk vs Punk Rock Vote

ok after recent edits i would like to propose a vote towards a consensus on what the accepted genre of the band is, vote either Pop Punk or Punk Rock below. --Dan027 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The result of the poll was pop punk.

Pop Punk

1. Dan027 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Hoponpop69 (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
3. OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Artiste-extraordinaire (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Jamdav86 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
6. piper108 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Alex (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Inhumer (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
9. icelandic hurricane #12 _(talk) 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Definitely Pop Punk --JediLofty (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Yup, & note that "Pop Punk" is a subset of "Punk Rock" ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Johhny-turbo (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Ambrosia- (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Bsroiaadn (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
15. The Daddy (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Sittingonfence (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Psychomelodic (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Punk Rock

1. Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.27.22 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes - Due to the only valid primary sources stating they are punk rock. Only secondary sources coming from other listeners ever state they are punk pop. Its fair to say on the article people believe them to be this, but it is false to flat out lie and say they are "pop punk". In my opinion this is an anti-blink 182 charge lead by User:dan027 (as you can see he encourages other users to vote with him, take 'Alex's' page, for example). We need to keep wikipedia factual and not opinion based. --Olir (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: The comment you refer to was sent out to all recent contributors of the page, disregarding their personaly opinion of the bands genre. A similar comment was left on WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Punk music, and WikiProject Albums --Dan027 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Yes --69.15.134.74 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop Rock

1.  Grue  (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
2. The Daddy (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Pop punk is a subgenre of punk rock. So both belong. --WesleyDodds (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see why you can't have both. --Jamdav86 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the genre should be pop punk/alt rock, because i think that is the best way to describe them. --DavidJJJ (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think the article should mention that they are are pop punk band with enough elements of pop rock that some people classify them as such. --CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• I lean towards pop punk, but both should be listed. --Teemu08 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Whatever they sayed they were is what we should say they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.27.22 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Listen people - if there is a genre controversy regarding a band, then it's Wikipedia's duty to report that - not to brand them with a label reflecting the "editorial majority". Mention the dispute in the lead and provide references which support both claims. --Wisdom89 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Have to agree with Wisdom. List either a broad category or multiple genres for the infobox. ~Switch ^{t c g} 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bands evolve and so do their music. I think earlier Blink-182 leaned towards Punk rock, Enema and Take Off were Pop punk and Untitled was more Alternative. But Wisdom is correct, all genres should be listed with references included. --kollision (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• PLEASE stop this LIE. Don't call them pop-punk. It's an insult to the band. They refer to themselves as punk rock on many occasions, never as pop-punk. Pop punk is a genre simply made up to insult them, based off a couple of melodic ballads such as atst and wmag. STOP IT. You cannot vote for a lie to become true. --Olir (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  "Pop punk is a genre simply made up to insult them"- wow that's one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. You must know absolutely nothing about music. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Doesn't make them punk pop. They are punk rock. The band say they are. they are. Podcast 14 of mimynameismark also refers to hoppus being punk rock. --Olir (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  It is a complete fallacy to suggest that they are something they are not because a group of 10 or so misinformed people "say so" Why not actually look at what they say. In my edit i have left the only valid sources ive seen on the whole topic. --Olir (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  I would like to draw your attention to Blink-182's official MySpace, here they list themselfs at Pop/Punk [25]. also User:Olir i would like to draw your attention to three of Wikipedia's Official Policys; WP:TROLL, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Consensus, in the event that you havent read over them before. --Dan027 (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  @Olir: Really, and if the members of blink-182 labeled themselves as folk punk or death metal, would this hold any weight in this discussion? Rhetorical question of course, but the answer is no. The band assuming a categorization is meaningless. --Wisdom89 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that blink 182 is classified, in my humble opinion, as "BUBBLEGUM ROCK" --Jsherbundy (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I love Blink, but they're definitely not punk. Listen to some punk, compare it, you'll see why they're not punk rock. They're pop-punk, I don't see why you have so much trouble accepting that. They even label themselves as pop-punk. Wouldn't they be the best source, rather than some random fans? --Bsroiaadn (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

List of primary sources: Blink 182 are punk rock

Whenever i edit the artice to say blink 182 are punk rock, leaving my sources for all to see, some self righteous twit changes it and delete mys sources along with it. I personally believe customer reviews calling blink "pop punk" is no better evidense then the 10 people who have only ever listen to enema of the state (and probably only all the small things and whats my age again) saying that blink 182 are uniformily "pop punk"

1. [26] - Tom upon describing "Give me one good reason"
2. [27] - At the end tom describes himself as punk rock
3. Apple Shampoo (song: Dude Ranch) - Lyrics describe blink 182 as a punk rock band, playing in punk rock clubs
4. Collin Murray - "in the company of" +44 - The most recent interview of mark hoppus, hoppus and murray refer to hoppus' genre as "punk rock"
5. Podcast 14 of mimynameismark availible at [28] - refers to hoppus being punk rock.
6. [29] - Hoppus and DeLonge refer to themseves as punk

I am constantly finding more relivent evidense, and i will keep adding it. We need to edit this fictional idea that blink 182 can be described as pop punk. Hell, their last album wasnt even punk, how can this false genre labeling stand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all wikipedia relies on third party information, so if members of the band claim to be of a certain genre it is worthless. Second there are hundreds of sources listing them as pop punk, I only put up 4 as to not cluster up the boards. Third you have made ridicolous statements such as "pop-punk was a genre made up to criticise blink-182" or something along those lines so I don't see how you excpect us to take your opinions seriously. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly pop/punk is not "pop punk" and secondly that page was not created by the band. However I do agree its a more valid source then any produced by you beforehand. I would agree that enema of the state and take off your pants and jacket were pop albums. However, defining blink 182 as uniformally "pop punk" ignoring their eariler albums and their later albums (probably because you and many others just never listend to them) is wrong. It should be changed. The sources i have produced prove this, their music proves it as well. I think a compromise is in order at least. However i do recognise that you are being very stubborn over this issue and refuse to be sensible at this current state of time. I'm working on it. --Olir (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the pages aren't created by the band, the fact that the band members were the ocne who made the statements make your sources worthless. I'm willing to compromise as long as you find VALID sources. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this editorial pissing match really needs an immediate cease and desist. Voting and consensus building are not synonymous. Obviously if a couple of google searches yields innumerable "sources" describing the band as either pop-punk or punk rock then there is dissension within the community. Wikipedia was founded on WP:NPOV, which doesn't translate to WP:CITE in order to support whichever moniker you feel is correct - it means ALL angles and sides needed to be mentioned in the article to achieve non-partisanship. The lead and info box need to be updated to reflect this. Alternatively, a subsection could be created to talk about the genre dispute among fans, the derision associated with the term "pop punk", and band's punk rock roots/influences. --Wisdom89 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally i think wisdom is right, i've been arguing from his angle for a while now, but dan027 reverts anything i write, i think it may be because he dislikes blink 182, even if i just leave it in note form he still deletes it. The only thing he doesnt completely delete are my messages on the discussion board. Anyway soon i will try and write a line or two about the genre dispute if no one gets there before me. --Olir (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine but the fact is that the four sources Olir presviously presnted are all inelgible. I'm all for adding some secondary genres to this page, but they have to be sourced, and can't be quotes from members of the band. If I have some spare time I'll try finding one. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• i've been arguing from his angle for a while now, but dan027 reverts anything i write, i think it may be because he dislikes blink 182

yes i dislike blink-182 thats why i own all their cds, have seen them live and even seen angels and airwaves live and seeing +44 this week, yes i cant stand them one bit!

• even if i just leave it in note form he still deletes it

I revert your notes because of the way you word them, be more polite and direct people to the talk.

• The only thing he doesnt completely delete are my messages on the discussion board.

completely? where have i partly deleted what you have said?

• Anyway soon i will try and write a line or two about the genre dispute if no one gets there before me.

good, post it to the talk page first so we can discuss it first to avoid further dispute. also please stop refering to me in such negitive ways, what you have said are considered personaly attacks, ive simply brought this issue back up on the talk page because no one else was. --Dan027 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what you've done, I'm not here for a public row, i'm not here to score points. I just want the genre dispute to be recongnised. However i think it's fair to believe that no fan who has listened to (and owns) all their cds and seen them live would demand they be called "pop punk", bu that can remain my own personal musing. As for the edit, I'm glad we've finally agreed. I'll post it on the talk page when I have enough time. --Olir (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious what other bands you would classify as punk, and what bands you would classify as pop punk. You seem to have a different viewpoint from everyone else.

I agree with you that some of their songs from their first two albums can be called punk, it seems that the large majority of their catalouge should be considered pop punk. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, on flyswatter they do covers of punk rock bands, for exmaple. Their earlier stuff on buddah and cheshire cat and to some extent dude ranch is faster, harder and more similar from track to track, its punk rock. then i'd say they had two pop punk albums in enema of the state and take off your pants and jacket. Then obviously their final album is alt. rock. Not punk or pop. So with a total of about 2 1/2 albums out of 6 being pop punk i'd say it was wrong to have a sentence saying "blink 182 were a pop punk band". Especially since the band call themselves punk rockers on so many occasions, yet theres no source with them defining themselves as pop punk. So basically, what i am saying is not to label them pop punk as a uniformal description of all their work. Because right now thats what it is saying. --Olir (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude ranch is mostly a pop punk album, and flyswatter isnt even an album, it's a short demo. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

←green day are much more punk than blink and they are often labelled pop punk. --DavidJJJ (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well green day are listed as pop punk, punk rock and alt. rock. Dookie and american idiot for example are totally pop punk, like blink have toyp&j and eots, yet blink are forceablly labeled as only pop punk, ignoring chesire cat, dude ranch, flyswatter, buddah and the untitled album --Olir (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Ranch is a pop punk album! Flyswatter is a short demo! And I've yet to listen to Cheshire Cat or Buddha (both of which contain many of the same songs) but I'm pretty sure they're both pop punk as well! I'll give them a listen later today. I also did a search for "Blink-182 alternative rock and found no valid sources. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the album booklet. Also, the bands they liken themselves to in that booklet are like pink flloyd, and zepplin, etc. Just listen to it if you need proof, to be honest. I propose that the uniformal statement that they are pop punk be removed as it just doesnt need to be there. Then they can be listed as punk rock/pop punk and alt rock. Then later on a paragraph explaining their genre dispute can be written. Right now its a lie, and people read this for facts not opinion based lies made up by dan027 and alex, etc. sorry to name and shame. --Olir (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on now, you say they mention Led Zeppelin and Pink FLoyd as infulences? If you're saying that they are punk rock, then you deserve a slap with a white glove. do you know what punk rock is? Listen to The Sex Pistols. Listen to The Ramones. Listen to The Distillers. Listen to Agent Orange. They are pure Punk rock. Do you know what makes punk rock? Punk rock is abotu going against everything that society stands for, not making toilet jokes and having a picture of a nurse putting on a white glove. That's light and comical. That's POP PUNK. Learn your genres before you go coomplaining about something that everybody else knows to be true. Can you tell me what makes you right and everybody else wrong? --Violask81976 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Invalid sources given for universal "pop punk" genre label

Not only is their overwhelming sources stating blink being punk rock, you cant even come up with valid sources saying their pop punk even from random users like yourselves!

• [30] - State blink 182 and alt rock, punk rock and pop punk!!! not just pop punk!!
• [31] - Describes Barker as punk (not pop punk), however they loosely mention blink as pop punk, however being an article over the drummer their authority over calling blink pop punk is hollow, whilst it also refers to them as "domniating the alternative rock charts". Not to mention it has been written after the release of enema of the state, their mainstrem pop punk album
• [32] - Although it refers to blink as pop punk, it also refers to them as punk rock and says this about the untitled album (supporting the claim that its not pop punk or punk rock: "Armed with this new sense of creative freedom, blink-182's new album is quite the departure from their previous efforts of primarily guitar/bass/drums pop punk rock"

This whole thing is completely stupid. How can you people continue with this vandalism? The changes are to be made and stuck with. --Olir (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

get off your high horse and talk civily to everyone and maybe they will listen to what you have to say, present your case of why they are punk rock, not why they are not pop punk. --Dan027 (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated that case quite heavily, now i am stating the weakness of the pop punk case. The article seems to have stuck over the genre issue, which is good. I think it should satsify everyone. --Olir (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources were invalid! Please read over what can and can't qualify as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said the above ^^ were shamefully wrong, weren't they. --Olir (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for punk rock

These sources have been published and reprisent the view of the publisher. Wikipedia in itself is not a primary source, as in everything must be cited, this is cited by an outside published source. I think the record label and whoever published UC2 are being referenced by these videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[33] this source refers to a punk rock monk actually. --Dan027 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[34] this one says they are pop punk --Dan027 (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[35] this one seems to refer to [+44] not blink-182 --Dan027 (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[36] this one refers to an album which you have even conceded is pop punk. --Dan027 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for coming to discuss the sources dan. reference 8 is an example of them talking about their punk rock roots, they are making a joke about (as they usually do) it but its a clear stand out reference. They arent trained by a pop punk monk! 9 is also beign used as a reference for pop punk, since it also says they are punk rock i thought why not have this source for punk rock aswell? 10 refers to mark hoppus, a member of blink 182 and finally 11 is tom delonge refering to his roots again, when he was in school he was punk rock, he also wrote cheshire cat, flyswatter, dude ranch and buddah around that time then departed from the roots a little bit, here he acknowledges how they still affect him. it's a perfect source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference 6

This reference does not refer to blink 182 as pop punk at all. If you googled this and automatically added it without checking you wouldnt have known that a customer mentions the word punk pop when describing good charlotte and NFG but refers to blink as "rock". Added to the fact a person like this is not a valid source in the first place, this source holds no ground. I'm sure you can go and find others. Therefore I have removed this as it is not a source. If you wish to argue that this is a source somehow then please leave a reason --Olir (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? Look here in the product description:

This "greatest hits" collection spans the short career of one of pop-punk's most celebrated outfits Blink 182. The album features tracks from their 1994 debut 'Buddha' through to the more experimental final album, 2003's 'Blink 182'. The album serves as a perfect introduction into the band's hook driven pop-punk which has always involved a large dose of frat-boy toilet humour.

Furthermore I've had to remove soem of your sources for reasons explained on the edit page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see nothing titled Apple Shampoo on this url (blink182.com), if it is something inside the site, please give the correct url.

The give me one good reason thing, is not a valid source, while he calls himself a punk, it does not mean his band plays punk rock music, the two can be seperate.) --Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive changed the source to the apple shampoo lyrics as opposed to the website. You can buy it off the website but i guess the lyrics is a better source. The give me one good reason source is a perfect source, delonge calls himself a punk rocker whilst refering to his music and his fans thus --Olir (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The lyrics to a song mentioning a genre do not constitute the band as that genre, furthermore I watched the video from Sydney and they do not refer to themselves as a punk rock band.

Again the give me one good reason thing is absolutely not a good source. He calls himself a "punker" which can mean a punk rocker or a punk in general (a menace). Even if he did mean a punk rocker (which he probably did) he himself being one would not automatically make his band a punk rock band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He refers to his genre of music being punk rock, at that time he wasnt in angels and airwaves --Olir (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He says punk rock was the only music he LISTENED to, his says nothign about the music he himself played. {{Subst:Unsigned|Hoponpop69|23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)}

If you are going tp be extremely pedantic he doesnt refer to blink 182 as punk rock although the summation of his rhetoric concludeds that the sum of his work is punk rock. but why delete several other valid sources aswell? thats reidiculous and you should be blocked --Olir (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is we can't jump to conclussions, and it seems like thats all you are doing (for example the video where they mention a punk monk). Please explain how the other sources I've removed were valid, I've already explained why they are not.

Also can you explain how the +44disasters site is a valid source? --Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thats where you can get the podcast where mark refers to himself as punk rock. I'd also like to add this source where raynor calls blink 182 punk rock: [37] however the page is blocked --Olir (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again the problem is he is not reffering to blink-182 as punk rock. Look we have to reach an agreement and get this page able to be edited again. I propose you take down that plus-44 source and we keep the other current punk rock sources up. Are there any pop punk sources you feel should be removed? --Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i'd have to listen to the podcast again, which i dont have time to do, its podcast 6, if you could find the reference and type it out here that would be helpful - however in the interest of unlocking the article i'd say remove it and we can discuss it later. however the meaning for give me one good reason should be up there - the meaning for give me one good reason combined with the song provide such a good source i see no reason why it should not be regarded as a good source for wiki readers. as i say pedanticism may lead you to think it isnt a source, but i would say open your eyes, why deny readers this as a reference? its such a good reference, especially for their earlier stuff. apple shampoo also directly refers to blink 182, we need a range of sources, what bettter then a song. Also the you tube video is a valid source, they say they are trained by a punk rock monk, a direct reference to what they believe as their genre, the video was later published on dvd. --Olir (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also that "bull shit pop music" quote was taken out of context i believe --Olir (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

←I'll give you the one good reason source in exchange for the plus44 source, and the agreement that from here on in we stop adding sources to the genres, as they are getting too clustered. Deal? --Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what sources you are suggesting we keep, could you post them. There is one source about scott raynor that i would like to add. I think about 5 each will do, the current 5 pop punk sources are all 2nd party sources, perhaps add the amazon one instead of the other one you recently posted as the amazon is a better known source. --Olir (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, right now the only source that I know is valid for punk rock is the last fm one. The ask Mark and +44disasters sources may be valid as well but I haven't gotten a chance to listen or read them due to their length. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All the ones you deleted were also valid. --Olir (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[38] i also want to add this --Olir (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times does it have to be explained to you why they are not? --Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not valid either as it only refers to one track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

it refers to blink 182 music. travis implys its their typical style --Olir (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It refers to one track. Look I'm sick of this debate we already have enough sources for both of these. Lets just end this now. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is one song it wouldnt matter, but if you analyse his rhetoric you can see that he is speaking in the infinitive (hence "straight up" refering to the regular or the norm, also please refer to my note in the history, and do not vandalise --Olir (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Olir, I have reviewed this edit (this article is on my watchlist) and it appears Hoponpop69 removed external links he honestly deemed invalid. I do not have time to review said links for the correctness of this action, but it clearly was not vandalism. I must ask that you use greater care in characterizing others' edits. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." is what he is doing. He doesnt find valid reasons to take off sources, doesnt discuss it, only occasionally does he post an unsatisfactory message or two, always acts before refering to the discussion, even when asked because he doesnt like what he sees (he thinks blink are only pop punk, i guess, many fans who only listen to the mainstream stuff think this way) --Olir (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Olir you are being both a jerk and an idiot, I have explained NUMEROUS times why certain sources are invalid but are you too thick headed to accept it. I know I'll be blocked for this, but I can not deal with your nonsense anymore, go fuck yourself. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Bullshit pop music"

I was shocked when I read this. So shocked i couldn't believe it. Then i realised, i shouldnt believe it, because its not true, and i was right. The famous you tube video was taken out of context, he was telling a story about how he was trying to start blink 182 and people told him this, its not at all what he said. Think about it, did he actually say thats what he feels about blink 182? no. Would he ever say that about blink 182? of course not. Find a source to prove me wrong. Currently the source provided is just some stupid gossip site, and the video link is down --Olir (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

you like to fragment the conversation dont you? --Dan027 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Read here Olir

You're the one who added the sources after we came to the agreement to discuss them on the talk page first! And your reasons for why things are valid do not cut it as they include, only mention a song, a distant mention of the word punk, a source about one of the members other bands, or a source that downright does not even mention a genre.

Now if you want to discuss this here go ahead, but you have to understand why I am so upset with you. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I said we should choose 5 sources out of all the valid ones which i have presented (and given reason for 1000 times). But you just wipe them all again and again and refuse to go to the discussion board as you were told to, so i keep having to put them back. Your actions are contradictary of your agreements during the lock. You also keep putting "sometimes" instead of "officially" which i can only presume is you vandalising the page as you havent commented on the discussion which reached a consensus march 3rd. --Olir (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez - how many times does this need to be said. Create a subsection dedicated strictly to providing info about this genre categorization conflict, as there obviously is one. Provide your sources THERE with all angles equally weighted. That is in accordance with WP:NPOV. Also, content disputes are not vandalism. --Wisdom89 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets settle this once and for all. Show all the sources you want listed and I'll find passages from wikipedia explain why certain sources are not valid. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh we've gone through this, you havent agreed to what you said in the lock, and you keep changing "officially" to "sometimes" which is vandalism. Oh and you know where the sources are, you remove them so many times --Olir (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to solve this but you're just being counter productive. If you refuse to work with me I'll list the sources myself and explain AGAIN why according to wikipedia they are not valid. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate, content disputes ARE NOT VANDALISM --Wisdom89 (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, just as user-edited (Last FM) and the vast majority of self-published sources (i.e. fansites) are not considered reliable. Hence a few of them had to go anyway. --Cyrus XIII (talk 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I've been telling him about his sources since the beggining, but whenever I remove them he just calls it vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, vandalism is when you kept changing "officially" to "sometimes", i dont know how many times ive told you that. The sources we agreed to cut down on through discussion, but you just hacked them off, now almost all are gone and most were valid. And why are you not banned? --Olir (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

because hes not being a headcase like you are, if you had actually read the wikipedia policys i pointed out to you weeks ago you would of seen a content dispute like this is not vandalism, when you were blocked it was to do with the 3rr rule and your attitude towards everyone else on this page, i think you just like having a bitch everytime someone else has a different view to you, the article is never going to improve aslong as your around. --Dan027 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

←If you actually looked at the edit history you'd see I haven't been the one changing sometimes to officially. The only time I changed it was on accident when I reverted vandalism and in doing so reverted that as well.

You say that most of the sources I've taken down where valid, but I and other editors have on multiple occassions pointed out why they are not valid but you just refuse to listen. Almost all of the sources you had were self-published quotes reffering to an individual song or a distant mention of the word punk. In reference to the agreement, while we both agreed ot cut down on adding more sources, we didn't agree to leave up non valid sources, which seemed to me to go without saying. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I went to go and get more "wikipedia-ish" sources, and you still continue to delete them! whats wrong with you hoponpop69? --Olir (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Attribution:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses

So while the other sources like drummer world, cnn, mtv, etc. fall under this "Kidzworld" does not --.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? why is untrustworthy and unreliable. Its published non-user based. --Olir (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude do I really have to go into this? You honestly think that compared to cnn and mtv and other well known companies that that is reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

against drummer world much music and ministry media, yes. I think all of them should go, or kidsword should be returned. --Olir (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Drummersworld is a popular and respected magazine, while Muchmusic is a Canadian tv station that is the equivelant ot mtv, and the owner of the U.S. station Fuse. Ministry media is a famous christian group that reviews entertainment media from a christian perspective.

Of course it makes sense that you wouldn't know any of this because you seem to be a dumbass. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Kidzworld.com is the leading safe, secure, content-driven community for Tweens, kids ages nine to fourteen. Established in July 1999". It's just as valid as those 3 as they are non-mainstream sites. For example they are defined into christian and canadian catagories. You can't have your cake and eat it. If you're allowing these souces, then this source is allowed too, if you're not then they go. It's called not being a hypocrit --Olir (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of cake is it though? --Dan027 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Users trying to vandalise the page

So far jared towler and alex 101 have vandalised the genre. This issue was settled a long time ago, why reopen it? we're going to come to the same conclusion again. Trying to remove the punk rock genre and its valid sources is vandalism, stop. --Olir (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And you need to stop arguing about their genre. I doubt that everybody else agrees that they are just "punk rock". Everybody at Wikipedia who voted here agree that their genre is "pop-punk". It doesn't matter what they're genre really is, the page will stay how it is for the time being and I don't want any arguing about it either. --Alex ([[User talk: (talk)|talk]]) 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the pages and pages of disscussion below that - the vote is nukl anyway ever since the valid sources have been presented. Jared Towler commited an offense yesterday by pulling down the punk rock genre tag and its sources that had been there for months, you then ignored the sources as well thinking you were in the right and also pulled it down after the revert commiting the same offence.

Now i have informed you please stop removing valid sources from the genre tags and the genre tags themselves.

NB: also, if you are a blink 182 fan you'd know about their punk rock music as well as their punk rock roots. they never refer to themselves as pop punk. But because they are labled as pop punk by outside sources, it must be included in wikipedia ASWELL as the punk rock label --Olir (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

While it's rather fascinating, how this discussion is going in on and on in circles and for months, I'd like to offer a suggestion:

1. Let's list all genres that are supported by reliable sources (be it primary or secondary) in the infobox, in a neutral (read: alphabetic) order and without that immense clutter of citations. As of now, the infobox code is not a pretty thing to look at, let alone to edit.
2. Then add a new section after the band history, that discusses the apparent disparities when it comes to classifying the group, genre-wise. This is where all the citations go and the section has to be carefully worded, with WP:NPOV in mind, so no insinuations that the press/music industry got it all wrong or that the band was trying to be considered something it wasn't.

Problem solved. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thing is punk pop is a sub-genre of punk rock, its fair to call them punk pop but it would be silly not to also label them as punk rock, theres no real debate. The band call themselves punk rock, a large number of critics further defined them as pop punk, although having said this they did experiement with their last album, it included some seriously flat out punk rock, a couple of pop rock songs and some alt... but i dont know. I dont think theres enough to make a valid disscussion --Olir (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Then where exactly did these several hundred lines of text above come from? --Cyrus XIII (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

People mistakenly didnt think they were punk rock. Most of those lines come from hoponpop69 deleting every source for punk rock that he could --Olir (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And this discussion would do a lot better without bad faith insinuations like this, especially given your hardly concealed personal fandom for the subject matter. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

it's not a case of fandom, they are a punk rock band. This place is all about the bare facts, some users didn't understand this, thats why there was such a long and pointless discussion. --Olir (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox genre

I notice there's been some stir over the band's genre. Firstly, Template:infobox musical artist says to "aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)." Now the pop punk article says it has its stylistic origins from punk rock, thus making the pop punk label redundant. For a rapper, you wouldn't wouldn't say "pop rap", you simply aim for generality and say "Hip hop" like the template says. I don't see why this should be any different here. --Spellcast (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

my god, do NOT bring the genre dispute back up. --Dan027 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. --Psychomelodic (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

no i completely understand it. --Dan027 (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was targeted for Spellcast. With you I agree. --Psychomelodic (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What if we make up a whole new subgenre of punk rock for blink 182? I can't say that I've heard any other band like them.

p.s. Whoever wrote the comment below, DONT say that Simple Plan sounds like blink 182, THAT is an insult — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.205.60 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Angels & Airwaves / +44 genres

I was wondering why Angels and Airwaves is listed as a different genre and +44 is not? Blink's last untitled CD sounds similar to Angels and Airwaves --66.82.9.75 (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you agree a source listing Blink-182 as post-grunge is a bad source...

Please speak out here [39]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A larger conversation on this has opened up here.[40] Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information. --Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit Pop Band

i remember seeing a video on youtube where AvA were performing and tom (id assume talking about mark, travis, and blink) said something like "i do not want to be the member of a fucking bullshit pop band with some bullshit pop songs wher eyou sing alone like a 14 year old girl".

has anyone else seen it and should it be mentioned?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.141 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he wasn't talking about Blink, the recorder just cut the video so people infered that he was. It was just an abstract story about his youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

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

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

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

Redirection to band-site

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

Stop putting Tom Delonge back in current members

I have found a source where Hoppus states that Tom officially left the band. Please stop accusing me of vandalizing this article, it is uncalled for. [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NArca9 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The B

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

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

Hung vs. Hanged

In the article where it says "...as 17-year-old Greg Barnes hanged himself...", I noticed people were changing it from hung to hanged, back and forth. The proper word, I believe, is hanged.

Hidden comment I added:

"The proper word here IS hanged, not hung. Please refer to [42]"

Thought that would clear up some confusion and edits... --Fantasy Dragon (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Former Members / Curent Members

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

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

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

Ok, so I know I saw an interview where Mark stated that he and Travis still consider themselves Blink 182, I'll have to dig that up. However, I do have proof from Hoppus that Tom quit the band when they went on hiatus. [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NArca9 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE FOUND A SOURCE AND PROVEN THAT TOM QUIT THE BAND. STOP PUTTING TOM BACK IN CURRENT MEMBERS, HE QUIT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NArca9 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

well, heres whats up... techinically blink are still together, but its just mark and travis. tom sed he doesnt want to be in b182 anymore but mark and travis have both sed they could still tour as blink 182 if they wanted 2, but they just dont want to. :( --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre Flummox!!!!!

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

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

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

Tales from Beneath Your Mom

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