Talk:Blink-182

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blink-182 article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives
1 2 3

Contents 1 This is why blink-182 is "punk rock" and not "pop-punk". 2 Compromise? 3 WHAT? 4 Pop Punk vs Punk Rock Vote 4.1 Pop Rock 4.2 Pop Punk votes 4.3 Punk Rock votes 4.4 Comments 5 PUNK ROCK 6 List of primary sources: Blink 182 are punk rock 7 Missing Albums and Demos 8 Invalid sources given for universal "pop punk" genre label 9 Typography 10 Sources for punk rock 11 Reference 6 12 Blink-182 (album) 13 "Bullshit pop music" 14 Read here Olir 15 Reason for '182'

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

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

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: [[1]] 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". —The preceding unsigned comment was 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[2]. --Dan027 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 01:38, 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 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 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

How about we just say pop punk/punk rock as their genre? Johhny-turbo 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 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] WHAT?

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

[edit] 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 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Rock

1. Pop Rock -- Grue  09:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Punk votes

1. Pop Punk --Dan027 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Pop Punk --Hoponpop69 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Pop Punk --OuroborosCobra 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Pop Punk --Artiste-extraordinaire 08:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Pop Punk --Jamdav86 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Pop Punk --piper108 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Pop Punk --Alex 17:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Pop Punk --Inhumer 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Pop Punk icelandic hurricane #12 _(talk) 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Definitely Pop Punk --JediLofty 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. Pop Punk -- Johhny-turbo 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Pop Punk --Ambrosia- 07:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Pop Punk --Bsroiaadn 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Rock votes

1. Yes - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.27.22 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 19 February 2007.
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 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 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

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

I don't see why you can't have both. --Jamdav86 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 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 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Whatever they sayed they were is what we should say they are.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.27.22 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 February 2007.
• 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 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 02:23, 20 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 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to draw your attention to Blink-182's official Myspace, here they list themselfs at Pop/Punk[3]. 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 08:39, 24 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 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PUNK ROCK

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 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that blink 182 is classified, in my humble opinion, as "BUBBLEGUM ROCK"Jsherbundy 18:58, 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 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 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. [4] - Tom upon describing "Give me one good reason"
2. [5] - 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 [6] - refers to hoppus being punk rock.
6. [7] - 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:32, 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 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 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 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 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 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• green day are much more punk than blink and they are often labelled pop punk. DavidJJJ 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 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 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 11:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Albums and Demos

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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!

http://www.last.fm/music/blink-182 - State blink 182 and alt rock, punk rock and pop punk!!! not just pop punk!! http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Travis_Barker.html - 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
http://www.muchmusic.com/music/artists/index.asp?artist=52 - 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 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 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 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources were invalid! Please read over what can and can't qualify as a source.

[edit] Typography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olir 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olir 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olir (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

[11] this one refers to an album which you have even conceded is pop punk. --Dan027 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.

[edit] 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 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:

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 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 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.

• He refers to his genre of music being punk rock, at that time he wasnt in angels and airwaves Olir 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.

• 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 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 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: http://web.archive.org/web/20020602190348/gladstone.uoregon.edu/~asivam/inter3.html however the page is blocked Olir 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?00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Hoponpop69

• 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 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also that "bull shit pop music" quote was taken out of context i believeOlir 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 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 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 23:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

http://www.punkdisasters.com/?side=travis_trackbytrack i also want to add this Olir 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• That is not valid either as it only refers to one track.

• it refers to blink 182 music. travis implys its their typical style Olir 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 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 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 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 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blink-182 (album)

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

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

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

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

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

The album is actually untitled.

[edit] "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 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Read here Olir

Hoponpop69 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)==Listen 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 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 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 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 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 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 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I reiterate, content disputes ARE NOT VANDALISM Wisdom89 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Why not? why is untrustworthy and unreliable. Its published non-user based. Olir 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?

against drummer world much music and ministry media, yes. I think all of them should go, or kidsword should be returned. Olir 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 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 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Reason for '182'

Hi there,

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

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