Talk:Green Day/Archive 3

message: When Green day are going to make a new album? I know that Green Day are always late on albums, so would we wait until 2008
:They are in the process of making a new one now. They were starting new material in March or May or something of 2006 and they are starting on the record now. I think they're going through demos and stuff. I wouldn't expect it until 2007 but I have seen on a website message board (very unreliable yes, but just pointing it out) Christmas 2006, however I see this very unlikely.  Orfen User Talk 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new album? 

message: Isn't about time for another archive? This one's getting hard to scroll through and find updates. Can someone archive this page? I don't know how. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑
:Done  Orfen User Talk 00:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive #2

message: Why isnt Bullet in a Bible under the discography. It was there before, and then removed. I later added it again, and its gooone now ... whats happening ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.163.10 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 September 2006
:Because it's a live album, and as the header says, that section is only for studio albums. - Blah3 13:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an entire article devoted to this, Green Day discography, which is linked from Green Day's article.  The small discography section in this article is just a quick overview of their studio releases. - Blah3 14:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullet in a Bible

message: Okay, if this article failed at being a featured article twice, we should start at a lower standard. I'm nominating this article for a good article.  Scrumshus Talk to me 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: good article nominee

message: Why was the gallery discography removed? It looks cleaner, displays all info., plus many Good or Featured Bands have layouts like this. I'm putting the gallery back.  Scrumshus Talk to me 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to change it because there is currently a bug in the gallery script that prevents the "ref" tags from showing up.  So none of the citations were showing up in the notes section.  Plus use of images like that isn't fair use.  WesleyDodds 23:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed that the refs weren't bringing me to the links. That's 'cause of the gallery? Jeez, I hope they fix that bug soon. Could we use a discography like the one in Led Zeppelin?, becasue the one right now looks really crummy and boring. Or would that be violating fair use too? But why would it be violationg fair use? There are hundreds of band articles with album covers in them. Including this one! Could you please elaborate? I'm still not totally used to this "fair-use", "copyright" stuff.  Scrumshus Talk to me 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the use of album covers violates fair use is that as copyrighted images, they can only be included if the image is being talked about to illustrate a point.  Album articles fulfill this inherently, but putting a bunch of album covers in a band's article without commentary doesn't.  An example of how to go about this is Elliott Smith, a more recent music Featured Article.  It had all its album covers removed from the article (expect for the last one, since it is being commented upon) in order to fulfill Featured Article guidelines.  WesleyDodds 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: This article definitely needs a picture in order for it to become a good article. DJJJ 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there was a great one, but I don't nkow why it was deleted.  Scrumshus Talk to me 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking about greendayk.jpg, it was deleted for being a copyright violation. See this. --Wildnox 23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a commercial image and put it up. The image is being changed way too much anyway. Hello2112 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: :1. Well written? Fail
:2. Factually accurate? Fail
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? OK
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Fail
Additional comments :
* The lead section doesn't comply with the guideline/criteria of GA.
* :Image:Green-Day-(American-Idiot)-logo.png, :Image:Bille joe armstrong, from 1991.jpg, :Image:Kingforaday.jpg, :Image:Metalhamergd.jpg, :Image:Wakemeuppromoshot.jpg don't comply with the fair use criteria of wikipedia and are thus not complying with the GA criterion.
* Section The New Millennium (2000–Present) has a NPOV tone and doesn't have enough citations and also needs a copyediting.
Lincher 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: What happened to the protection of this articel? Already people are vandalising it. I had to fix and edit having th band as "Green Gay". Already.  Scrumshus Talk to me 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection?

message: Removing trivia at 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  I think it will also help reduce vandalism and false information.--Jude 07:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: When?
:Why is this speculation necessary?--Jude 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the user needs to clarify what they mean. At first I thought that the user thought that Green Day was already in the Hall of Fame, however I can also see how it can be speculative.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If that is what you mean, then right now no one knows. Green Day is still going strong with a new album coming out eventually, so I'm not sure if it'll be anytime soon.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, bands get inducted after their careers are well established and consequently have already climaxed.  Isn't that how it works?  I honestly don't think Green Day will be in the HoF anytime soon.  It's kind of a kiss of death (though, there are exceptions).--Jude 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame article here on Wikipedia says: "Currently, groups or individuals are qualified for induction 25 years after the release of their first record." So Green Day still has a while considering 39/Smooth was released in 1990. So the earliest they could be considered for nomanation is in 2015. But it sure does seem like a kiss of death since most bands after 25 years are just about done.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 17:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the reason there's a 25 year limit. If no-one remembers you after 25 years, you don't deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Last time I checked, I owned at least one album by nearly all of the inductees, and entire discographies of some. In 2015, when music trends have changed and we have a new generation of popular music artists dominating the charts, then we'll know if they deserve to be inducted. --Switch 09:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall Of Fame 

message: Sources, please.  I've googled, and there's no mention of this.  I'm reverting the edit.--Jude 12:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as funny as that is, it doesn't count as a source.--Jude 12:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: please see WP:NOR for the rules.--Jude 12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't even believe that this is true. It possibly could but it is not on the official website and I don't think Green Day is going back to a nimrod. sound. I don't have anything to support my claims but I just do believe this is a rumor. Since there has been no information to even suggest that Green Day is even recording the album right now I would say it's just a rumor and no where even true. I know that Green Day will be recording soon (if not now) but January seems too early for a new album. As far as I know they aren't even done going through demos and stuff for the new album.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah i agree entirely. I didn't believe it because that would mean they would need to be near completed with the album, and on it's way to mastering and production if it was to be out by January. Last we heard the band was working on demo's, then they picked up with the U2 collaboration, so who knows how much of their time was spent on that.--Scatteredbomb 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I know it hasn't been confirmed, I am just guessing but if Rob Cavallo is producing again then he probably wouldn't have had time to be get out a new album for Green Day by January because he was working on The Black Parade by My Chemical Romance. But yeah, since they got this U2 collaboration it won't probably be until close to the release of that they'll start getting into the studio for a new album.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you guys see it that way, because I concur whole-heartedly.  The song titles weren't even very "green day."  I nominated the "Tommy Gun (Green Day Album)" articles for deletion as well.  The minute this "information" gets confirmed, it can go back up, but I'm willing to bet it will never be confirmed because Green Day are still in the demo process, they haven't even started creating the album.--Jude 04:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I've had to revert several articles relating to green day, and the actual Tommy Gun (firearm) article.  Is there anything we can do about this?  Also, I'm a newbie, so I don't know how to nominate articles for deletion ( other than speedy ) so could someone please help us out by nominating Tommy Gun (Green Day album) for deletion?--Jude 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed deletion on the article. I left an explaination on the talk page.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  I had it on my watch list, but it didn't show up, probably because it was a re-creation.  Is there a process to have it removed completely so there is a ban it being re-created?--Jude 03:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an admin can recreate the page after deletion with a special boilerplate and then protect it. --Wildnox 03:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a complete newbie, so I'm not sure, but wouldn't that protect the article FROM deletion?  Is there a wiki article on this, I tried searching, but I'm not very good at that either :-S.  Sorry guys, I'm not much help.--Jude 03:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a way to block an article from creation, however, I don't feel that the article should be blocked because what if it turns out to be true? I mean, I'm sure they have a way to unblock an article but it has only been created twice so I wouldn't say it's much of a problem, but I think something needs to be done about it. I don't know, the blocking from creation almost seems too drastic. Yeah, it's most likely a hoax but I don't know. A page block almost seems too drastic, maybe you should bring it up with an admin?  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 03:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been moved to an AfD located here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Gun (Green Day album). Please express all your thoughts about the article there.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 04:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tommy Gun 

message: I've recently seen the two first albums in a few shops, does this mean they've already been re-issued? If so the article should be updated, but I'm not that good at finding stuff out.Kokiri kid 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Through a quick search I wasn't able to find anything stating the albums were reissued recently. I found some stuff about a reissue happening in 2003 or 2004, however, the rights were rescinded in 2005. The suggestion I can give is to check on the albums to see who the label is and if it is not Lookout! Records, then I would say that it has been reissued, if not then maybe the store is just misinformed and they just have some copies.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 04:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proof of the reissues, but I'll have to work to find it.  It's in my personal journal ( the link is ) and it's a list of albums to be released and on what dates.  I remember this news because it made the value of my originals skyrocket.  I'll find it and post the information here.--Jude 11:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find the link I had before, but I did find this .  And now that there's a date, I can do more research.  If you guys find anymore evidence, please leave it here!--Jude 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that's enough evidence but I think it would be best to find something else. You would think the albums would eventually be reissued, so I'll check some more to see if I can find something else.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for finding that information, I have added it to the article.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just recently read they'd be pushed back to the 9th of January  So I'm changing the date.--Jude 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reissues

message: Can anyone find a good picture of green day? DeeJayJayJay 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here is one. 82.45.22.96 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I removed some graffiti left by the user User:Darktrax577, and left him/her a warning on his/her user page. Davi 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Graffiti

message: What happened? Somehow, all of the other bands have great photos and we have but one. Try using the band's website or something. I just don't understand that other band articles can use photos from thier wwebsites but Green Day can't. With some photos, this articel just might make it   scrumshus Talk to me 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BB--Jude 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what happened is that they were copyright violations or not fair use. Something to that effect, that's why there is no picture currently.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it might still be since the original photo was taken by someone else. Until another one can be found I'd say use it because we haven't been able to find one for a while now.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Why can't you change the size of the image? It's a bit hard to see all three members in my opinon. In the infobox, when you change the number of pixels under "Img size" it does nothing. Any help?   scrumshus Talk to me 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I began to start re-imagizing the article. It looks much better now with an album cover or two and some live images.   scrumshus Talk to me 19:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanx, but i think more resources are still needed   scrumshus Talk to me 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BADLY NEEDED PHOTOS

message: I'd like to have the fact of 30 milions of copies sold well documented, I know RIAA is a little bit sloppy, but the ammount of units sold by Green Day isn't justifed anywhere in the article, so I reverte d it to 22 millions of copies, according to RIAA, which is maybe not the most accurate, but at least VERIFIABLE source. Broken soul 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources were provided, you deleted them in this edit: .  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you scroll down in the second citation it says 3.5 million digital albums sold. Then if you add the numbers in Green Day discography up it adds up to 66 million with various citations on there. Most RIAA and another citation for American Idiot. These two numbers of digital downloads and regular sales adds (since the digital downloads are not included) up to 69.5 million. Also it says 50 million sales in the first source.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about sales must be verifiable 

message: Same as title. It was verifiable, useful and interesting info that could help the article.   scrumshus Talk to me 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the Other Projects section moved? 

message: Come on, that's really not that clever.  I had to go back to the older edit and paste it back here.  So please don't blank it again.  DavyJonesGSB  13:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was the idiot who decided to blank the page? 

message: I was trying to change the size of the main image, as it was hard to spot all three members of the band, and it has become ridiculously large.  And now no matter how many times I try to change the size to a reasonable one, it does not change.  Please, someone with a better knowledge of editing images revert the edit.  Sorry.  DavyJonesGSB 13:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image Size 

message: Album information	Album information	Album information
                 	1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours
*Released: April 1990 (North America)
*U.S. sales: 585,000 Sales combined with 1000 Hours and Slappy under 1039 Smoothed Out Slapph Hours  
*Label: Lookout Records	Singles Released
*No singles released
                 	Kerplunk!
*Released: January 7 1992 (North America)
*U.S. sales:  700,000  (Also included Sweet Children EP)
*Label: Lookout Records	Singles Released
*No singles released
                 	Dookie
*Released: February 1 1994 (North America)
*U.S. sales:  10 million
*Label: Reprise Records	Singles Released
*"Longview"
*"Basket Case"
*"Welcome to Paradise"
*"When I Come Around"
                 	Insomniac
*Released: October 10 1995 (North America)
*U.S. sales:  7 million
*Label: 'Reprise Records	Singles Released
*"Geek Stink Breath"
*"Stuck With Me"
*"Brain Stew/Jaded"
*"Walking Contradiction"
                 	nimrod.
*Released: October 14 1997 (North America)
*U.S. sales:  2 million
*Label: Reprise Records	Singles Released
*"Hitchin' a Ride"
*"Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)"
*"Redundant"
*"Nice Guys Finish Last"
                 	Warning:
*Released: October 3 2001 (North America)
*U.S. sales: 500,000
*Label: Reprise Records	Singles Released
*"Minority"
*"Warning"
*"Waiting"
*"macy's Day Parade"
                 	American Idiot
*Released: September 21 2004 (North America)
*U.S. sales: 5 million
*Label: Reprise Records	Singles Released
*"American Idiot"
*"Boulevard of Broken Dreams"
*"Holiday"
*"Wake Me Up When September Ends"
*"Jesus of Suburbia"
Made this discography table. Looks better than the current one, but is awfully similar to the one on their own discography page. Whattya think?   scrumshus Talk to me 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  prettier discography 

message: Very good, this is what I'd recommend for a pass:
#Create an introduction to the 'Other Projects' main article.
#Fair use rationales for the 'God...', 'American Idiot' and 'Happy Family' album covers. 
Wiki-newbie 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the introduction. I think it follows what is done in that example pretty well. I am not quite sure how to add Fair Use rationales. But I finished the introduction which I think is done pretty well.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: well, DavyJonesgsb, the template states that the article must be on hold for a minimum of 2 days to ensure the correct edits are made, and some more additions to the article woulnd't hurt either. I think four days would make sure the article really showcases GA features and requirements   scrumshus Talk to me 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So, would everyone agree the correct changes have been made to satisfy the hold? The article looks nice and and intro gives it some class, and all images have their rationales. I would re-post my discography, but we can't because there are free alternatives such as having no album artowrk there. :( the atricle still loox fantastic, tho.   scrumshus Talk to me 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: If Good Riddance was a hit, how come it never got a Grammy nod?--Kingforaday1620 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tons of classic bands (Led Zeppelin) have never won a Grammy. It's all a scam to make money.   scrumshus Talk to me 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Riddance 

message: Last night I bought the new Green Day biography Nobody Likes You and I'm going to be using it to work on the page for the next few days.  If there's anything in particular you want me to work on or if you have questions about my edits, please post them here.  Additionally, in order to get the article up to guidelines, I'd really suggest the intro say "Green Day is an American rock band". I think we're past genre debates now, and all the genres Green Day is listed under are subgenres of rock music anyway.  WesleyDodds 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I would agree with the rock part. That can statisfy everyone. It's really hard to say that Green Day is not a rock band.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it seems that genre disputes are common on most of the pages, if rock doesn't work, I would try to find a number of cited sources and look for a genre.  Then just revert the angry fanboys like crazy.Darthgriz98 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, thats the one un-disputed genre that Green Day is classifyed. ROCK. And in the biography, try to find the origin of the band's name, because appparently, we all know it, but there's no source. Nice buy   scrumshus Talk to me 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only explanation offered is that it comes from the song of the same name.  It is mentioned a number of times how they hate their name.  WesleyDodds 05:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weren't sources for the name provided before? And also, as Darthgriz98 said, we could do a sourced method. Perhaps something like they used for the My Chemical Romance article. Add the main genre and then add a link to the section with every subgenre sourced, so if something needs to be added it has to have a reliable source. They did this for every song article and album article as well.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 05:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to go that route with the genres.  It's pretty settled at this point, aside for the occasional person who comes along claiming Green Day aren't punk for whatever reason.  I've already cited their connection to the revival of punk rock in the lead section a long time ago.  Funny thing is all the sources from that period who criticize Green Day never say they believe Green Day aren't punk, rather that they think they sold out.  WesleyDodds 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page reworking 

message: Well done. Keep up the good work. Wiki-newbie 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes!!!!! Finally! Now I can say i signifigantly contributed to a GA!! Thanx! Good work people!   scrumshus Talk to me 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: Is 86 about them not being able to go back to Gilman Street or a one night stand that Billie had?--69.113.131.124 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title refers to Gilman. 86'd is a common term for banishment.Theplanetsaturn 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose the confusion comes from the similar title to "80", which was about his future wife.  WesleyDodds 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  86 

message: Is the new awards sectioin nessecsry? we already have the seperate album / song awards worked into their own sections, and it makes the article a bit redundant.   scrumshus Talk to me 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I removed it. It does seem rather redundant, the important awards are listed and the appropriate articles have the awards on them.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you   scrumshus Talk to me 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards section 

message: Will the network come out with another cd?--Kingforaday1620 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more of a discussion for The Network page.   scrumshus Talk to me 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but this still doesn't relate to the green day article, and had more prominince in The Network article,   scrumshus Talk to me 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The network 

message: Why does he say "don't want to be an american idiot" he just say don't want to be bush it means the same.--69.113.131.124 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  american idiot 

message: what's a malakite?--Kingforaday1620 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's some kind of moodstone.  Please only post questions relating to the article itself on this talk page.  WesleyDodds 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 light years away 

message: I noticed that the "punk rock" genres have been changing recently to "pop punk", and while I'm not arguing with it, I am arguing that in the article it should say that they popularised "punk rock" for the following reason:
Through their "pop punk" music, more people were interested in the punk culture and dug deeper to find punk rock bands, and that is how they popularised the INTEREST in punk rock.
The sentence states:
"As a result, Green Day was widely credited, along with fellow California punk bands The Offspring and Rancid, with reviving mainstream interest in and popularizing punk rock in the United States."
No one said they were punk rock in that sentence.  I'll change it back every time someone else changes it unless there's a good argument for it.  So bring it here if you've got one.--Jude 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources both mention Green Day as punk rock.  The sentence is phrased that way so people don't start complaining.  WesleyDodds 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said the sentence was phrased correctly, which is the whole point of the post: to make people stop taking out the "punk rock" portion of the sentence, not to complain.--Jude 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  popularising punk rock 

message: does the part in the criticism section referring to noel gallaghers problems belong?
This claim can be seen as ironic as Gallagher himself faced problems when it became apparent that the Oasis single, "Shakermaker", had used the melody from "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing". Gallagher's unlicensed use led to Oasis being successfully sued. A similar case happened to him in 1994, when members of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, successfully sued him on the basis that a substantial part of the melody of Oasis's, "Whatever", was taken from their song "How Sweet to be an Idiot".
This has nothing to do with Green Day, or anything relating to it   scrumshus Talk to me 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, remove it WesleyDodds 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no citation for the Gallagher section whatsoever, and truthfully, I think that it should be cited as it is a sharp blow to Gallagher's reputation if it is not true... Please find the citation or I will delete the statements... 71.72.254.135 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Do they sing that ^^?--69.113.131.124 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not that I know of, maybe as a cover.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semisonic plays that song, it is just often mistook for green day. ;)   scrumshus Talk to me 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  closing time 

message: Should we add a "singles released" section to the discography? James P Twomey 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that it is used in some featured articles such as Rush and Sex Pistols. So I would say that yes, we should add one.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but those bands have a far smaller singles catalog than Green Day, and plus, it works just fine with the seperate discography section, like other featured bands like Nirvana, Weird Al (which even has its own singles page), and Duran Duran, all of which have song catalogs more comparable to the size of Green day's.   scrumshus Talk to me 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The full discography section for Rush however is quite larger than Green Day's. If you check the length if we added the Green Day singles it still probably would not compare.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an added comment, I think that the Nirvana page needs to have at least a slight summary of their discography instead of just a link, so that is why their section is not as big, they just have the length.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Singles Released

message: Green Day are pop punk with some punk rock songs.Please let pop punk first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.63.235.157 (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All genres are listed and all of their genres are covered. As long as that is the fact then there is no need to change.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Punk rock is listed first because pop punk is a subgenre of punk, thus the hirearchy goes from broadest to more specific.  WesleyDodds 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk rock first genre ? 

message: Souldn't it mention Dookie as 69th best selling album?Thesnoo 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dookie sales 

message: Somebody has mercilessly vandalized this page and im too lazy too fix itThesnoo 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals 

message: couldn't this be considered trivia? I think these facts should be worked into thier body paragraphs so we can avoid using trivia, which prohibits this article from being a FA.   scrumshus Talk to me 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even quite sure if this section quite contributes to the article anyways so not even sure if they should be added into the main paragraphs. I am not saying it shouldn't be added, just that I'm not even know if it should. We can add it but I'm just saying I don't think it contributes to much. Orfen]] </span>User Talk | Contribs 21:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  songs in popular media 

message: i noticed there's a lot of vandalism on this page. can someone protect it? oh, and i noticed that these two IP addresses seem to be the ones vandalizing lately: 212.32.89.47 and 82.11.205.182 Greendayrox 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is too much vandalism to this article right now so will a administrator please protect this yuckfoo 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: didn'd dookie sell 20 mil. worldwide? the sales figures in thef irst paragrph are for thier US riaa certifications. im gonna change is to "sold X many of copies in the US alone to reflect the data change.   scrumshus Talk to me 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead citations