Talk:Green Day/Archive 4

message: Do the dates next to the songs on American Idiot mean anything?--69.113.131.124 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they are the dates that each song happens in the story for American Idiot, although I am not completely sure and have no evidence to back it up. I do think the American Idiot article did have an explaination at one point.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: they are also missing "Smashing Pickins' On Green Day", an album released in august 2005, it is songs from all their albums done in bluegrass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damn hippie kid (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering  

message: Their album 'Shananigans' is missing from the discography —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.100.33 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shenanigans is a compilation album and is therefore not mentioned in the discography section. You can, however, find it in the discography article. - Duribald 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: this is one of the best articles about green day ever the info. is amazingly correct. it shows pictures and criteria i am in awe of how well managed this is! good job!
-bryer d.- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.17 (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is a very good article wouldn't you agree... 

message: Its a really, really minor point but I'd recommend adding a line about Kerplunk being recorded to the section on the bands history.  At the moment it reads rather strangely because it jumps from the release of 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours and the consequent tour to discussing sales figures for Kerplunk with no mention of the album being recorded.
I'd edit it myself but I don't really know anything about this period of Green Days history so I'd worry about getting my facts wrong. Danikat 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Danikat!  I added a quick fix for now, because there's not much information about Kerplunk's recording.  I'll have to do some digging, because I vaguely remember some information that I cannot confirm.  I just changed it to "Their second full length album" to the sentence so the confusion is lessened.  Thank you for pointing that out!--JUDE talk 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Correction

message: I don't know why, but nearly all of my sound samples have been removed. Can someone tell me why and how to get them back on so they won't be removed again?  scrumshus Talk to me 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the person who removed them but I'm guessing either that there were too many, or (more likely) copyright reasons. Cynical 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my song samples 

message: this page is horribly vandalized, someone please fix it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.94.20 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  horribly vandalized 

message: There was citation needed for the following statement:
"Green Day's immediate follow-up albums didn't achieve the massive success of Dookie, but they were still successful."
I added two references.  Insomniac was their 3rd most successful album, though in the shadow of Dookie, Green Day felt it was a failure.  nimrod. as I recall was an instant success, especially after the release of Good Riddance (Time of Your Life).  This source validates the chart positions as successful by recording industry standards.  This source states that compared to Dookie, which was a huge success, Insomniac was slightly dwarfed.  I think it justifies the statement in the article.  I wouldn't typically make a whole talk page topic about citation, but I feel like I might have pointed out why the sources are relevant since the statement seems to be "commentary-ish", which is true.  If anyone is unsatisfied please let me know as the topic is slightly vague and opinion oriented.  Thank you.--JUDE talk 07:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no citation is needed for that statement.  It's the lead section, which gives an overview of the entire article, thus the statement is expanded upon material already in the body of the article.  WesleyDodds 07:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh okay, sorry!  I didn't realise that.  I was just going by the edit someone made asking for citation.  Thanks for clearing it up, I'll delete it.--JUDE talk 08:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, no references are needed in lead sections? Sancho (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally there should be no need for references, since whatever appears in the lead section should also appear in the body of the article (where it will be cited).  However, some things (particularly facts like sale numbers and direct quotes) need to be cited no matter what. WesleyDodds 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for successful albums after [[Dookie]] 

message: Why are the photos going to get deleted?--69.113.131.124 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some stupid copyright issue. Randomfrenchie 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  dont you just hate the copyright issues with photos on wikipedia??? <FONT FACE="Rockwell Extra Bold" COLOR="#FF0002">  ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓  ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) </FONT> 09:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: It said not to change without talk page discussion, so this is it. 
I've watched a Green Day concert and they said they were from Oakland, California. I think that would be more clear than saying "East Bay". Randomfrenchie 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They call their home Oakland California, however the boys were born and raised in various areas of the East Bay, therefore generally it's a lot easier to say East Bay because people feel as though they weren't raised in Oakland, therefore, they cannot claim it as their own.  I agree, that if they say that it's Oakland, it should be Oakland, but I'm trying to represent the other opinions to you as well so that you may better understand the decision.--JUDE talk 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's true, they might not.  To me the East Bay is east of San Francisco Bay, however to people on the east coast in the Mid-Atlantic area think of the Chesapeake when they hear "Bay Area".  Perhaps if someone protests the use of Oakland as their origin, they may accept "East San Francisco Bay Area" as a substitute. --JUDE talk 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: why isn't Green Day Post-Grunge??? last time I added it to their genre on the template it was always reverted. Green Day is post-grunge according to Allmusic Guide which is a reliable source isn't it? (Tigerghost 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Post-grunge" is quite specific and most people are not familiar with it. Randomfrenchie 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that Green Day is "post-grunge" however I also agree that "post grunge" is such a non-specific term that it really shouldn't be used anymore.  It isn't even a genre, it describes a time period.  I also agree that All Music Guide is an unreliable source and shouldn't be used.--JUDE talk 18:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Er, Green Day really isn't anything anymore...it's just mainstream pop-rock (which is a VERY watered down, semi-punk/semi-emo in today's music world)...however, it is appropriate to call their earlier works Post-Grunge (before they signed onto a major label and became sellouts).  -Matthias.
Signing to a major label doesn't make you a sell-out, I think you're incorrect in saying they have. Rob Castillo 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-grunge

message: How accurate is Noboday Like You?--Kingforaday1620 21:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not very, to be honest.  I'm not a professional, and this is just my opinion, not the opinion of anyone else, but there was a lot in that book that was not accurate at all.  The author had full range to speak with Billie Joe's family, however what would your family say about you?  I don't think they intended to tell any lies or stretch the truth, however think about your uncle so-and-so trying to tell an author about what you're like and what you went through 20-30 years ago.  They have a very good point of view, but not the best.  Also, the author didn't like the kind of music green day puts out, nor did he know anything about the punk rock scene.  The book is basically an account of "he said" "she said" narration.  It's a nice book to read for one perspective, but like all stories, there's more than one side.--JUDE talk 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS:  You said that Nobody Likes You stated that Billie Joe was the water boy for the football team.  Billie Joe says he played "wide receiver and halfback" his freshman year.  Just for an example, so you understand what I'm saying.--JUDE talk 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Nobody Likes You'' 

message: Is that song really about Blink 182?--69.113.131.124 22:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackass 

message: Do we really need to make an article for every single song in the American Idiot album?  I'm a Green Day fan myself, but every song is really insignifiant.  Additionally, I would say that all the songs, except the singles, would fall under WP:NOT and WP:DELETE.  As paraphrased from WP:NOT, we don't need an article for every chapter in a book, unless that chapter is highly signifigant... so why do we need an article for every single song???  If there are no objections, I'm going to nominate all the non-singles for WP:AfD. — Ian Lee  (Talk) 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for responding so slow... I've had limited access to a computer for quite a while.  Getting to the point, I personally do think that it degrades Wikipedia by making it less of a Encylopedia, and more of a fan forum as said in WP:NOT, but I won't nominate them (although I truly think that I should), because I guess it kinds of ups the community here at WP as hinted by your response.  Addionally, I'm probably biased because I'm writing the essay User:Ian Lee/Critque of Wikipedia. — Ian Lee  (Talk) 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for every single song??? 

message: I'm just wondering why my photo of Green Day at the National Bowl was deleted? I thought it was a decent picture and it was a major show: 500,000 people in attendance. It deserved a photo.
--DearCatastropheWaitress 18:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your image was removed in this diff with the edit summary of "already enough images in this section".  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 18:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day at the Bowl 

message: Shouldn't there be an article? And is Samuel Bayer directing the video for the song?--Kingforaday1620 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article at Working Class Hero with information about the Green Day cover on it. It is only a quick mention but it is still on there. If you are suggesting creating something like at the The Saints Are Coming article then it could probably be added at the bottem just like The Saints Are Coming article.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As it is a single I would say yes as it is a single by a notable band.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working Class Hero (Green Day) 

message: Green Day       	Green Day       	
Members:   
Other/Former Members:	
Members:   
Other/Former Members:	
Members:   
Other/Former Members:
Discography     	Discography     	
Studio albums   	                	
Live albums     	                	
Compilations    	                	
EPs             	                	
DVDs            	                	
Singles         	                	
Related articles	Related articles	
                	                	
                	                	
Is anyone for this more organized template? I like it better that the current one. §ℂℜ⋃♏ʂɧ♆☭ ♲ recycle kids! omg i'm ur biggest fan...➤ 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template design 

message: Is there any link from an official Green Day site saying that the link given to their MySpace profile is their official profile? --Jordan Elder  talk 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally always thought that they never had a Myspace. I also believe there is a quote saying that their official website is the only place that they officially run or something to that nature but I am not sure where this quote is.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They do have an official myspace, but the blogs are updated once every 6 months or so, and no one is ever added as a friend to it anymore.  The best bet is to just catch the RSS feed on Greendayauthority.com.--JUDE talk 03:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace link 

message: I can't edit it because I am new.  Green Day was formed in Berkley, CA in 1988.  Someone please fix this.  Source: iTunes.
When the article suggested that Green Day was formed in East Bay, CA, they meant anywhere within the San Francisco Bay Area east of the actual bay.  I may not be correct on this, but Berkelley may not be recognized as an official unincorporated city, so in order to be technically correct, it was suggested that East Bay is where the band was formed.   --Iluvmesodou 08:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1988 

message: The last statement on "Future Plans" is incorrect because Green Day has stated that they have material for three different albums. That doesn't mean they are planning on releasing all three.
* ok so read this then http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/green_day_with_three_new_albums.html
--Ry90 08:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Album 

message: This is a pretty good article, but this article and some of the ones regarding the band's less successful albums, nimrod. and Warning: seem to be written in a way that tries to read into things. We don't know if the release of a B-sides album and a greatest hits record is evidence that a band is in an unsuccessful part of their career or not. I suggest that the article be written straighter, in a just-the-facts sort of manner.
Wikipedia isn't a resource for endless speculation; there's a whole rest of the Internet for that. Let's keep the bias out of the article, OK? - Stick Fig 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On speculation 

message: Can anybody tell me why the sound samples were deleted? As the uploader, I was supposed to get warning of this, and I didn't. 5 sound samples were deleted off this page and deleted in general. Can anybody confirm who deleted them? It took a lot of work getting those samples, and they are cructial to the article -Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑ 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound sample deletions 

message: Just an fyi  the producer change was just a rumour, and has been confirmed untrue by Green Day's management.--JUDE talk 19:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supposed producer change

message: That piccture is useless, you can't even see Green Day in it. James P Twomey 16:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it definitely needs to be replaced. -- Beland 20:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad picture

message: I really don't get the concept behind not captializing Nimrod.  Every source I have seen calls it "Nimrod", not "nimrod.".  This includes Google, Amazon, All Music Guide, Rolling Stone, iTunes, and I could keep listing.  It really doesn't matter what is on the album cover, that's just a visual stylistic choice.  WikiProject:Albums says titles should be according to standard English conventions.  Also, going by what's listed on the album cover, it should be dookie, american idiot and WARNING:, which are never written that way.  The period on the end of the name is also never used beyond the cover art.  Even greenday.com, the official band site, lists it as Nimrod.  Are there any reasons I'm missing for keeping it as is?  - Jon Stockton 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason not to capitalize. I'm also curious why it isn't.Theplanetsaturn 17:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I've ever seen is the fact that it's that way on the album cover.  But that's not a valid reason based on the countless album covers with names in no caps or all caps.  I'm going to go ahead and change it soon unless someone objects. - Jon Stockton 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been several weeks now, and no one has presented a good reason, so just go right ahead! -Duribald 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm working on it now. I did most of the major things; next I'll try to get the rest.  There's a similar situation with Warning:.  I guess my next effort will be removing that colon. - Jon Stockton 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital on ''Nimrod'' 

message: are they really pop punk? they are more punk rock/ alternative because some of there music is very similiar to stuff like the sex pistols (punk rock)
* See Talk:Green Day/Genre disputes. -- Beland 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Punk? 

message: I removed the picture of the Green Day concert as it is useless, because it is not a proper picture to represent the band, as you can't even see them on the picture. Would it be possible for someone to get a free licensed image of the whole Green Day group?
Wikiburger 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of another useless picture 

message: Hi, what do you think about adding messageboxes on notices that are at top? this way we may emphasize all its content. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Day&oldid=143033662) --Andersmusician VOTE 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I reverted your edits was because most talk pages follow that format that I reverted to. If you take a look at Talk:Avenged Sevenfold, or Talk:My Chemical Romance, the same format is followed. Also take a look at Talk:The Black Parade or Talk:Sum 41. This format is generally followed and the examples provided are also musical/ band talk pages.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But my additions were similar to an standard for controvertial articles (see Talk:Che Guevara almost the same)--Andersmusician VOTE 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that there are more headers for that article though, while this one only has a few at the top.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be proper then to just add the /header --Andersmusician VOTE 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talkheaders on this talkpage 

message: I'm not disputing the figures for record sales in the lead section. If I had a good reason to doubt them I would have removed them for the time being. However "60 million records" requires a definitive source. The first source indicates that it is in fact "50 million albums" (which is very questionable seeing as Dookie sold 10 million, and I'd suggest that the source is unreliable), whilst the second source is a broken link. BeL1EveR 10:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record sales 

message: I hope you guys like the extremely revised (actually, I believe nothing from the original article is left there) Dookie article.  Do you guys think it's ready for any kind of review?  Xihix 01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I sent in a GA review, and they told me to fix three little things, of which two I have fully done.  One of them, fix short sentences, I can't find anymore, but if you do, please fix!  The article will be GA'd after they review it again in less than two days.  But uhh... If you see any more short sentences in Dookie, fix them NOW, or leave a message on my talk page on where the short sentence is, and I'll fix it.  Lets hope for the best!  Xihix 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well uhh... It passed the GA... I really did re write the entire thing!  Good for me.  Xihix 06:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dookie

message: How come the link to nimrod. goes to Nimrod (Bible)?--Kingforaday1620 22:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because plain Nimrod redirects to the bible page. The proper link is to Nimrod (album). I fixed this particular instance. - Jon Stockton 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nimrod. 

message: I just noticed this little snippet from the main article and I found it to be very biased against traditional punk. I am not sure if it is just me that feels this way however.
"It should be noted, however, that while Green Day began as a punk rock band in the mould of bands such as the Ramones and Rancid, its experimentation since Dookie was released have far surpassed the punk idiom. Nimrod and Warning are the best examples of this deviation from traditional punk norms, and a willingness to create new music rather than play the same three chords over and over every album.
It is this experimentation and deviation that allowed Green Day to transcend into the idiom of rock & roll, and with the 9-minute "punk-operas" in American Idiot, it seems that the transcendence is almost complete." 
Seems to me to include some speculation as well.Kokiri kid 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: It doesn't have the star yet (should after the bot gets to it), but Dookie is now listed as an Featured Article.  I'd like to thank the copy editors and myself.  Yay!!!!  Xihix 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dookie Passed FA 

message: I'm confused. This is a GA Class article but no photo?? Someone should put one up..
Anyway, a great article. Good job guys.
I think it should be a FA class.. Deandra56 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo?? but great 

message: Many people don't know about the great single, "Favorite Son," that Green Day made for Rock Against Bush Volume 2.  Could someone please add it?  Thanks in advance!
Not a single.Hoponpop69 01:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Missing Song 

message: Did they ever do a cover of that song?--Kingforaday1620 22:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brown Eyed Girl]] 

message: You seem to be missing the album "Shenanigans" released in 2001, it didn't do very well, but still it's an album by Green day. You also seem to be missing the live album "Bullet in a bible" which was released somehere in I think in 2005 or 2006. User:picklefishman Aug. 2007
Only the live albums are in the discography. James P Twomey 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing album 

message: On the table stating the general information on Green Day in the beginning of the article lacks a photo of Green Day, which I find very inattractive.  --Iluvmesodou 07:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front Photo? 

message: How is the factual accuracy of this article disputed? James P Twomey 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 150omega added the tag, along with a  tag, which is unnecessary except for the Nimrod and Warning section. So I added a  tag there, removed the tags at the top, and invited 150omega to explain why he thinks the Factual accuracy of the article is disputed. -- Reaper  X 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy

message: Are Mike Dirnt and Tre Cool straight? I know Billie Joe Armstrong is bisexual, but I found nothing on Wikipedia regarding the sexuality of the other two band members. --Jesant13 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality of Mike Dirnt and Tre Cool

message: Well, Green Day is a succesful band and we know they've won many awards. So how come there's no awards list?? I know there are many awards but at least mention some awards other than the awards on the introduction (Grammy and 7 VMA) Deandra56 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards List 

message: I don't think that should be the picture because the only band member you can see is Billie Joe Armstrong. Can someone please try to find a picture with all three band members in it? --Jesant13 12:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Picture with Billie Joe with the watergun

message: Green day is more of a pop punk band then punk rock- this is hw they should be rated- 1)PopPunk 2)Punk Rock 3)Alternative Rock  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarhead13 (talk • contribs) 15:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
Not unless you find a source. Zazaban 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shifting goalposts.Theplanetsaturn 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I.E. a link to a source. Zazaban 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even a source wouldn't be sufficient in this instance. The band has been around the greater part of two decades. What qualified as punk, pop-punk and alternative has changed during this time, in part by the bands own influence. From an encyclopedic view, we're not just looking at what they are, but what they were, as defined by the particular era in question. Hence - shifting goal posts.Theplanetsaturn 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, sorry, thought 'Shifting Goalposts' was a source being given. XD Zazaban 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't apologize. I was unnecessarily vague. Trying to do alot at once, went for the quick post. My fault.Theplanetsaturn 06:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre-not punk rock first, pop punk!! 

message: Can someone add to the area that states all of Green Days labels, Adeline Records, the record company owned by Billie Joe Armstrong and his wife, is the label responsible for recording all of Green Day's vinyl recordings. --Iluvmesodou 07:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprise and Lookout! Not the Only Labels