Talk:Descendents

message: Well, which is it The Descendents, or The Descendants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.229.26 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 June 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably The Descendents (that's what it says throughout the article).  I'll look it up when I'm done here and fix it if necessary. --Hephaestos (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Descendents. See ALL central for a brief history. --Vern (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if the name of the band is just "Descendents"... then why not move this page there? Or "Descendents (band)" if need be? --Blue Dream (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at the All central Descendents link? Both 'the Descendents' and 'Descendents' (no the) are referred to there. I think in the original context Vern was saying it is (The) Descendents rather than ..ants. The article referenced doesn't really clear things up though, as I said. --mat_x (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my mistake. --Blue Dream (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The official title is DESCENDENTS; sometimes there is a THE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.174 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Take out the The. Just because the linked article on the All page sometimes refers to them as the Descendents (*note the lower case the, that means its not part of the name it's just there for syntax's sake). The Descendents (*note the the is capitalized because it came at the beginning of the sentence) have never been a The band. Take a look at any recording, merchandise, or flyer and you will always see just DESCENDENTS. Descendents are not a The band. The The and a million other The bands are. --Redleaf (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like The Ramones? Adding "the" to the title of certain punk bands is implicit while not stated. --69.164.100.92 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Redleaf. I notice "the" is usually prefixed to band names whose names wouldn't sound "grammatically correct" without it. Nevertheless, Descendents are just Descendents, I've never seen them officially adopt a "the" so adding it would be like calling Neutral Milk Hotel "The Neutral Milk Hotel". felt_friend 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no The in Descendents 

message: Although I do feel this article is pretty good, I think it's important to add references, because some of the sentences (Like the last sentence in the introduction) really seem like POV, even though I actually agree with them. We've gotta do a better job here. --Ido50 (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many statements in this article seem like opinion. I marked it with weasel words. Statements such as "Fans were overall somewhat disappointed with the change, but the album was still well received." and "Enjoy!, their next album (released in 1986) was not well received by critics, but fans liked it." are not fact. --Skurry (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: As of a discussion and vote concerning about this issue, it has been decided that "pop punk revival" is a neologism (specific to wikipedia), similarly, "punk-pop" is a term which is more or less a neologism (specific to the music industry, public relation firms, and especially All Music Guide. These terms are referring to the style known as pop punk. In the case of the Descendents they may actually be one of the first pop punk bands. Of course they are also considered hardcore and college rock/indie kinda fit the bill too. --Xsxex (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are in NO way pop punk. They started out as a hardcore band. They were social outcasts and sunned by the populous. They weren't mainstream or played on the radio. There wasnt even poppunk back then. Therefore it is impossible for them to e poppunk. Just so happens that when looking back on them their songs have a pop punk mold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.119.213 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seemed to have missed the point. You don't necessarily have to be super popular to be pop punk. I first heard the Descendents as a hardcore band with pop punk influence. Greenday was pop punk before they were signed to a major. --24.5.110.50 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No i think you missed the point: pop punk didnt exist. Because if it works this way Mozart was punk as hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.101.89 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had to invent a sound. It's like saying that you can't call Bauhaus goth because it didn't exist yet. Mozart was too complex to be punk. There is nothing punk about Mozart. For the record, I am a huge fan of the Descendents so I'm not trying to bad mouth them or anything. Pop punk is a sound- it doesn't necessarily state anything about there popularity. Even if they aren't fully pop punk (which I will give to you), they are pop punk enough to have it included. --69.181.253.64 (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They're a pop punk band. Sure, Milo Goes To College was a hardcore album, and they still have other hardcore songs, but why not add pop-punk as well? And yeah, pop punk existed ever since The Buzzcocks, and even The Ramones. Besides, Descendents are still going, and how can you not admit that "Clean Sheets", "I'm The One" and "Nothing With You", and many more are pop punk songs? Pop punk is not an insult, it's punk rock but with more upbeat and catchy songs and lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.234.231 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The term "Pop Punk" is a confusing one because it has very little to do with the "Punk" subculture and the term "Pop" is not related to the word "popularity". Instead, it is meant to mean that it is a genre that shares qualities of the "Pop" musical genre as well as some qualities of the "Punk" musical genre. To be even more confusing, it developed a sound/ethos/subculture that is distinct from either musical genre. Still, NO, Descendents cannot be labeled Pop Punk. Though the Descendents have some musical qualities that can be deemed to be "Proto-Pop Punk" because they share many of the hallmarks of the beginning of the sound of Pop Punk music, they are much closer related to Punk then Pop Punk.  Dreap 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read all about pop-punk at the Wikipedia article on (you guessed it :) pop punk. benzband (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop punk 

message: This article is extremely badly written and requires a major overhaul in my opinion. It is written more like an (favorable) opinion column than an objective encyclopedic article, there are no sources and citations, and there are a lot of claims that (even though I agree with some), just make this article seem ridicules. I think there's a great need to start collecting information about the band from different sources, not just on the web, and attempt to find as much content that goes back to the band's origins. With a large enough arsenal of sources the article can then be overhauled.
# Ido50 (talk to me), at 07:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's Just Bad 

message: You have a real issue with non-free content in this article, which needs to be resolved- the article is certainly unable to pass at GAC until the issue is dealt with. Basically, you have a large number of non-free music samples, which is problematic in and of itself (ideally, we need the minimum number of samples that can still convey the message). However, the samples themselves are far too high a quality (64kbps should be sufficient) and have useless, copy-paste rationales that clearly do not apply to this article. Instead, non-free content should have specific, individual rationales taylored to the use in question, explaining what the sample is adding and why it is needed, tying it in with the article. J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your concern. Most of them are valid, but I see no issue with the quality of the audio being an issue due to there size not being incredibly large. But the rest I will work on. Cowik (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have finished cleaning up the file descriptions. Thank you Cowik (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Descendents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207044805/http://www.descendentsonline.com:80/archive/shows/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/shows/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Descendents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709014738/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/gnusletters/pages/1996fall-b-norb.htm to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/gnusletters/pages/1996fall-b-norb.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205014747/http://www.descendentsonline.com/discography/full_lengths/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/discography/full_lengths/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/shows/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108051619/http://www.epitaph.com/videos/player/596 to http://www.epitaph.com/videos/player/596
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221112207/http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/64/Im_The_One to http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/64/Im_The_One
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418035045/http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/65/When_I_Get_Old to http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/65/When_I_Get_Old
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The summary states the band was formed by Navetta, Lombardo and Stevenson, but the history starts by saying the band was founded by Navette and Nolte. -Joltman (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has conflicting info about founding members