Talk:Blink-182/Archive 1

message: What's with the writing of this article? It starts of by saying that the band formed in 1991, yet Tom and Mark didn't meet until 92. Nice. --Vision4bg (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to clean it up a bit. --Lan3y (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation date 

message: I threw out the back-and-forth about the band's possible breakup that had been dumped on top of the article - let's wait until there's an event worthy of an encyclopedia article before putting in material, please - and took out some first-person point of view. --DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I have put a single sentence at the top now. I think that this should be placed in a prominent position, and together with the text at the bottom is sufficiently clear. --Lan3y (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article, not fan site 

message: Recently, information has surfaced regarding Delonge's solo album. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, he registered the name "Angels and Airwaves" on June 24th 2005 and also claimed that "It is so much more powerful, emotional and melodic than Box Car and Blink put together". Many are skeptical regarding the authenticiy of the statement and the project itself and it is confirmed that the supposed Angels and Airwaves website is not official, that's the reason why it is using a UK domain name. Anyway it is assumed that the band's MySpace page has been registered by Geffen. This statement, along with much of the information disclosed about reasons for the break, presents a greater sense of ambiguity.
The domain is registered to David Rossiter, who stated on the supposed Angels and Airwaves website this: 
"Hey guys, I've seen loads of comments on other forums or postings in news articles questioning whether this site is official. No, is the answer, it is not an official website, but it is officially the first fan site for the band! Please join this board and start building up an awesome community. A website will follow shortly, stay tuned!"
The whois lookup for the domains "angelsandairwaves.com" and "angelsandairwaves.net" leave Geffen Records as the owner of both of them, since May 11, 2005... so this may have been planned since a long time.
I hope this helps to clarify things a little. Someone please add some of this information to the article. --Greedy (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angels and Airwaves 

message: Regarding this phrase from the article:
"...Travis stated that the "182" was the U.S. radio codeword meaning 'homicide' (apparently confusing "182", the radio codeword for conspiracy, for "187")."
Could someone please clarify what is meant by a radio codeword for conspiracy? Is the word 'radio' referring to U.S. commercial broadcasters? Perhaps it refers to U.S. law enforcement, but 'conspiracy' seems an odd (and rather nebulous) crime to require a code number. Thanks to anyone who might be able to clear this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutgraph (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request clarification: Radio codeword 

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

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

message: Uh, are you sure it's blink with a lower case b? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.15.207 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. blink-182. EQuintan (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I care little for the music category, but i noticed that there are allot of satelite floater pages like this one . --..micky (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs lost stubs etc.. 

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

message: The article says the band consists of seven members, and then goes on to list three. Are there three or seven members? --Markkawika (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really only three members in the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.106.160.8 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Scott Raynor the original drummer makes 4 hommie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.124.231 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it started with Markus Allen Hoppus and Thomas Mathhew Delonge. They found a drummer who is Scott Raynor, then they get rid of him and got Travis Landon Barkar. Hes an awsome drummer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.44.43 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, 'hommie'! --BabuBhatt (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well kind of, not really though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.44.46 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Teah the part about Mathhew and Barkar is is a little suspect. --BabuBhatt (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many members? 

message: I belive that blink 182 are basicly what people say it is "pop/punk".Many people say that there early stuff was more punk and there later stuff were more pop but I disagree. If  you listen to flyswatter and buddah... sure songs like alone, point of view, dicklips or fentloozer could be slightly classified as punk (but not proper punk) but basicly cheshire cat, buddah are all about getting girls or leaving relationships. Enema of the state is mostly pop exept for anthem. TOYPAJ (Take Off Your Pants and Jacket) is possibly there most punk album whit songs such as Anthem Part Two, Reackless Abandon, Give Me One Good Reason and Shut Up. The self titeles or untiled whatever you want to call it album is there most differnt music they have made with much more serios songs such as Violence, Stolkholme Syndrome,Go ,Astenia and Easy target, which cannot be clasified as punk or pop. Also adding to this you can notice alot of elements of Angels and Airwaves in Asthenia, Always and Im Lost With Out you. --Jordans (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think there just "punk" --Supmyman7 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre confusion 

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

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

message: I just noticed that the inital listing of the bands name is starting to get capitalized and reverted. Let's not start an edit war here. I went through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) but couldn't find anything to indicate which is correct. So, what do people want or feel is correct? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand it's "blink-182". At the beginning of a sentence, you still capitalize letters that normally are lowercase. Such as Al-Qaeda and others in Category:Article titles with lowercase initial letters. To avoid the problem, perhaps the sentence should be rewritten. --BabuBhatt (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Formed in 1992 blink-182 was a Southern-Californian Pop-Punk band founded by Tom Delonge, Mark Hoppus, and Scott Raynor in the northern San Diego suburb of Poway, California."? --CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just edited without checking here. After having a read around, I think I would go with BabuBhatt, following the same sort of idea we use for numerals, as in if any numeral must be used at the beginning of a sentence, it is always spelt out. For definite clarity the sentence shouldn't begin with 'blink-182'. However, the above suggestion sounds a bit forced. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to add something to my own post, and a quick comment back to BabuBhatt, surely al-Quaeda should be displayed like normal words (i.e. not capitalised except at the beginning of sentences etc.), whereas you would be referring to something like pH? Incidentally, pH is written 'pH' at the beginning of a sentence in its own article. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont really know. It may be blink-182 however proper nouns are generally capitalised and with "blink-182" being the name of a band that makes it a proper noun so maybe it should be capitalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.208.111 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blink-182/Blink-182 

message: Not only that, but in the article the author said that the release of their untitled record brought them back into the hardcore scene, even though they never have and probably never will be a hardcore band. I highly doubt the author of this article even knows what hardcore sounds like, and it needs to be revised. In fact, I'm gonna do that right now. 
By the way, the author of this article sounds like they're in 7th grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.109.153 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: blink-182 hardcore? thats a larf, compare this pop punk to a band like Casey Jones to understand. --Avenged Evanfold (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardcore my ass 

message: All the things say "The Transplants." I've changed it to "Transplants," because I was watching Jimmy Kimmel interview Travis Barker, and Barker said that the band was "Transplants," not "The Transplants." If I am mistaken, change it back and reply inform me here, and if I am wrong about this tell me where you get your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopherbassist (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that Jimmy said "Transplants" too...but their old website was thetransplants.com, and their myspace was myspace.com/thetransplants. --Atticus2020 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transplants 

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

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

message: Somebody wrote the following in the Trivia section: "A Spoof of "Violence" is in Date Movie". First of all, the syntax is incorrect. Second of all, what the hell does this sentence say? I have no idea, and I'm sure other readers will be confused too.
--Ido50 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whoever said that has no clue what they are talking about. there is a similar drum beat, but it is not the same song at all. --Jds10912 (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Spoof of Whaaa? 

message: We should really add Mark's interviews in the article because:
#It's about blink-182 and it's an important part of the article
#According to Mark blink-182 is now a defunct group
#The interview had revealed Mark's feelings towards Tom.
So, I think the interviews are required. --Cory pratt (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if you want to edit down the interview into something that would fit here. i think it is a good idea, but i do not have the time to do so myself. there was a lot in that interview that should be mentioned in the article. --Jds10912 (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark's Interviews 

message: I've removed all the fansites - they're unencyclopedic and it's just a target for people to put their own personal fansite. since we can't list ALL fansites I think it's better to have none, if someone really wants to find a fansite they can use google.
* Boltzies-blink A blink fan site.
*  Easy target 182 
*  blink182foreverandever
* Punk Disasters
* blink-182 by Atomik Fan site.
--GrahameS (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this might be a little POV, but i think we should leave punkdisasters. im pretty sure that it is the #1 visited blink-182 fan site. but then we might have to start letting everyone put their fansites here... oh well --Jds10912 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: I think the "Indefinite Hiatus" section should be renamed "Break-Up" as Mark Hoppus made it pretty clear that Tom quit the band, and that he and Travis have no intention of playing under the blink-182 name. If they ever get back together it will be considered as a reunion. --MrPink (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but the official statement made by Mark was " ... going on indefinite hiatus", not "we're breaking up". I say we just leaving it saying indefinate hiatus. --WereWolf (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Mark said they have no intention of playing under the blink-182 name but that doesn't mean its gone forever. Mark doesnt say anywhere in his interviews that the band has broken up --68.5.246.25 (talk)  23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. You never know if one day they settle their differences and getback together. There not broken up, their just at a point where they dont know what will happen to Blink 182. --Toasty! | Available at your local store 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all just semantics. Indefinite hiatus is essentially just another way of saying "broken up". And on that point, since when is breaking up an immutable binding contract? Countless bands break up and reform all the time. What does it matter what you call it? --Wisdom89 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite Hiatus 

message: Most of this section is pretty boring and irrelevant - I don't think we need to list every single TV show or movie that featured a blink song, that's a little too much IMO. Here's the stuff I took out. Also a bunch of stuff that only related to the band members individually and not the band.
* DeLonge had one line as a fast-food worker in the film Idle Hands. 
*Barker appears in print and TV advertisements for Boost Mobile. 
*"All the Small Things" and "First Date" appeared in the film "Clockstoppers". 
*In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Something Blue", Willow gets drunk and dances to "All The Small Things". 
*In "Stick It" when Haley is doing her floor routine she is dancing to "Anthem Part 2." 
*Hoppus appeared on episode #7 of Haunted as the dead father of a living girl. 
*"All The Small Things" is covered by an unnamed band on the Gamecube game Donkey Konga 
*"Rock Show" appears in the PS2 game Amplitude. 
*"Blink 182 appears in a concert playing "what's my age again?" on the show Laguna Beach" 
*Blink 182's song First Date appeared on the show Still Standing, when the daughter went to one of there concerts. 
*"Dammit" appears constantly in the movies Bubble Boy, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, and Can't Hardly Wait. It also appeared on the Daria episode, "Arts 'n Crass" and an episode of the WB teen drama, Dawson's Creek. 
*Barker and wife Shanna Moakler co-star in Meet the Barkers, an MTV reality show. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahameS (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture section 

message: Hi, somebody put that Blink's years active ending 2006. However, just five days ago, it siad 2005. Which year is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmith319 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the band announced their hiatus in early 2005. Some sources say that Tom DeLonge said he hadn't spoken to Mark Hoppus and Travis Barker ever since. So, that would be a "yes" that they broke up. Read part of this section for more proof. --Alex (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years active 

message: What is that about? Making one last album or something? --Supmyman7 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not true :-( --Jds10912 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, unless I get real proof I can't rust taht info. Please prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmith319 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Come Back? 

message: On the Behind the Music arcticle it says an episode on blink-182 is in production just wanted to know if this was true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmypop1994 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it is i watched it a few weeks back its like their DVDS The Cronicles --RetroSpect741 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behind the Music 

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

message: They're pop punk. They're practically the definition of pop punk. --Rhobite (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: when they won the award for best new act or whatever i quote 'thanks guys and just keep on supporting punk rock, thankyou. SO YOU ARE WRONG THEY CALL THEMSELVES PUNK ROCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1link82 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusicguide:  see "Styles". Google search  62,000 hits. Please stop removing the fact that they're "pop punk". --Rhobite (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So google is right and the band members are wrong, i am not allowed to call you an idiot but if i was allowed to i would. --B1link82 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, what a clever way to get around "No personal attacks". I'm sorry, but they are pop-punk. User:Rhobite is correct. --Lan3y (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The band members aren't necessarily right about their genre just beacause they are the band members. In fact, I think they are less likely to recognise their genre, as bands don't usually listen to themselves an awful lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.199.126 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: blink-182 is pop punk as hell. Someone earlier also stated that if he or she calls himself king of the world, it doesn't mean he is king of the world. Even though the blink-182 members might have thought they were punk rock, I see no reason as to why to believe that. Some of their songs definitely has punk rock influence, but this is not enough to label them punk rock. They're pop punk, end of story. --Scotteh (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blink 182 are not a Pop Punk Band. Look at it Busted and Son of Dork are pop punk they have the clean guitar, pop drum beats, lyrics about childish attractions for the opposite sex, whilst Blink swear, have fast punk drumming and overdriven guitar, deading and palm muting. Think about it they are Punk Rock like Greenday (who are also not Pop Punk) and Offspring. --Paladin91 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop punk 

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

message: #It seems to be clear to me from their music that they are more punk rock than pop punk. --Lan3y (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pop punk]] 

message: #punk rock because they band say they are, obviously Lan3y knows more about the band than mark and tom, an  example of Stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1link82 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Punk rock]] 

message: #Definitely Punk Rock as attitude, but pop punk as music, even that their last disc sounds as Punk Rock, let's ask Greg Graffin... --Greedyredbag (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral 

message: can be pronounced "one eight two" aswell you know. here they say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in that case, i propose deleting the pronounciation altogether. --24.129.92.210 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Can we not list both, more than one? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 24.129.92.210—if there's more than one "correct" way to pronounce the name, its inclusion becomes entirely moot. Also, may I remind editors to please use the edit summary (directly below the text box within the edit page) to help other editors recognize that something finally includes a source when it had been added repeatedly without one? Your edit will be less likely to be reverted as a matter of course. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be said like that, but the proper way is "eighty". Just like Kerrang! spelling it Blink 182 - just because it does, it doesn't make it right. --Jamdav86 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I put the word correct in quotation marks; while "one eighty two" (or, even more properly, "one hundred eighty two") is technically the correct way to enunciate the numerical entity, we're talking about the name of a band. If its members use more than one pronunciation, there is no one "correct" way. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still failing to see why having more than one way to pronounce something means that including those pronunciations is moot. There are stil a great many of "incorrect" pronunciations, and this shows which ones are "correct". --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It becomes inconsequential. If there's one, and only one, way to pronounce something, according to its originator(s), then it's significant; once more than one is established, particularly if it's numerical (where there're often several alternatives), then it's fancruft at best. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that "one eighty two" is the only "correct" way of saying it. "one eight two" and "one hundred and eighty two" are wrong, and that is a well-known fact. --Jamdav86 (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very little within an encyclopedia can be considered "well-known fact". "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis as written), meaning you must cite a reliable source for the data to remain. This is incontrovertible Wikipedia policy. Meantime, I would consider the video linked above to be proof that the band members liked both "one eighty two" and "one eight two", again rendering this whole thing unencyclopedic. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

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

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

message: Lemmings (A split), Flyswatter, Buddha, The Mark, Tom, and Travis show (Live album), and Greatest Hits. I'm not sure what years these were released but they should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KuntifiedRIOT (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the hidden note on the discography section. Alex (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums from discography not included 

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

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

message: How about we just say pop punk/punk rock as their genre? --Johhny-turbo (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it that important? "Pop punk" means what it's come to mean, and blink-182 falls into that definition. It's difficult to see striking similarities between sum41 and blink-182, and say The Sex Pistols, Bad Religion or NOFX. --Artiste-extraordinaire (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, blink are not punk rock --Dan027 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise? 

message: To the guy who sent me that new message. I never said blink-182 was an emo band, I just think they hit emo with their last album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.168.148 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blinks untitled/self titled album is not an emo album. its got some punk rock, some more alt rock kind of stuff on it. I wouldnt call it pop punk at all, and i certainly wouldnt call it emo --Olir (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blink 182 is an example of a band that fits the current pejorative and typical description of Emo: Hitler hairdos, piercings (especially lips and eyebrows), self-pity, complaining about teenage years (especially high school), etc. --Jordinho (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right 

message: Check out blink 182 at last.fm's similar artists.
Looking at the page blink 182 has similar sound to 6 pop punk bands, 1 pop punk\punk rock band and a blink182's side project.
If we search for more we get to Simple Plan, The All-American Rejects, My Chemical Romance etc. Should I continue? --Psychomelodic (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last.fm 

message: MAN YOU CAN HEAR IT!!! THEY ARE JUST POP PUNK AND NOT PUNKROCK!!! POP PUNK BANDS ARE LIKE Good Charlotte / Sum 41 or Simple Plan and they sounds like them! real punkrock are more like Rancid / [Bad Religion]] or Anti-Flag!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minutes to Rise (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, it is resolved. Don't dreg it up again, and if you can't be bothered to read the above to find out why it is like it is then i have no sympathy for you. --Jamdav86 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POP PUNK ; POP PUNK; POP PUNK 

message: On the Blink 182 article, in the infobox it says "punk rock" as their genre?... how, what, why, who? This factual inaccuracy needs fixing, at present the article contradicts others on Wikipedia. --The Daddy (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesnt contradict any other articles. It merely highlights the mainstream opinion (as characterised by the sources) that they play punk rock music. Its true they do - pop punk is merely a sub-section of punk rock anyway, so by calling them that you call them punk rock. Anyway, towards the start and end of their careers pop punk was not an acurate description. Would you call the song stockholm syndrome pop punk? maybe if you were deaf. Inside the introduction pop punk is used to describe them, as i think it should, but in the box punk rock needs to be there. --Olir (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, calling it pop punk does not make it punk rock, but to almost punk rock. --Psychomelodic (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no its a subgenre, not an independant genre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are neither, they may have been influenced by both, certainly by pop-punk bands like the ramones, buzzcocks etc but they certainly have nothing in the slighest in common with punk rock like the MC5 and the Stooges. They are pop-rock/power-pop. Pop music is clearly a far biggest influence than rock music on their style. --79.64.75.86 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LMAO, how on earth? 

message: # Dan027 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Punk 

message: # Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.27.22 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk Rock 

message: #  Grue  (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Rock 

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

message: 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!
* - State blink 182 and alt rock, punk rock and pop punk!!! not just pop punk!!
* - 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
* - Although it refers to blink as pop punk, it also refers to them as punk rock and says this about the untitled album (supporting the claim that its not pop punk or punk rock: "Armed with this new sense of creative freedom, blink-182's new album is quite the departure from their previous efforts of primarily guitar/bass/drums pop punk rock"
This whole thing is completely stupid. How can you people continue with this vandalism? The changes are to be made and stuck with. --Olir (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: get off your high horse and talk civily to everyone and maybe they will listen to what you have to say, present your case of why they are punk rock, not why they are not pop punk. --Dan027 (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already stated that case quite heavily, now i am stating the weakness of the pop punk case. The article seems to have stuck over the genre issue, which is good. I think it should satsify everyone. --Olir (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those sources were invalid! Please read over what can and can't qualify as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever said the above ^^ were shamefully wrong, weren't they. --Olir (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid sources given for universal "pop punk" genre label 

message: These sources have been published and reprisent the view of the publisher.
Wikipedia in itself is not a primary source, as in everything must be cited, this is cited by an outside published source. I think the record label and whoever published UC2 are being referenced by these videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this source refers to a punk rock monk actually. --Dan027 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: this one refers to an album which you have even conceded is pop punk. --Dan027 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for coming to discuss the sources dan. reference 8 is an example of them talking about their punk rock roots, they are making a joke about (as they usually do) it but its a clear stand out reference. They arent trained by a pop punk monk! 9 is also beign used as a reference for pop punk, since it also says they are punk rock i thought why not have this source for punk rock aswell? 10 refers to mark hoppus, a member of blink 182 and finally 11 is tom delonge refering to his roots again, when he was in school he was punk rock, he also wrote cheshire cat, flyswatter, dude ranch and buddah around that time then departed from the roots a little bit, here he acknowledges how they still affect him. it's a perfect source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for punk rock 

message: I was shocked when I read this. So shocked i couldn't believe it. Then i realised, i shouldnt believe it, because its not true, and i was right. The famous you tube video was taken out of context, he was telling a story about how he was trying to start blink 182 and people told him this, its not at all what he said. Think about it, did he actually say thats what he feels about blink 182? no. Would he ever say that about blink 182? of course not. Find a source to prove me wrong. Currently the source provided is just some stupid gossip site, and the video link is down --Olir (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you like to fragment the conversation dont you? --Dan027 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bullshit pop music" 

message: While it's rather fascinating, how this discussion is going in on and on in circles and for months, I'd like to offer a suggestion:
# Let's list all genres that are supported by reliable sources (be it primary or secondary) in the infobox, in a neutral (read: alphabetic) order and without that immense clutter of citations. As of now, the infobox code is not a pretty thing to look at, let alone to edit.
# Then add a new section after the band history, that discusses the apparent disparities when it comes to classifying the group, genre-wise. This is where all the citations go and the section has to be carefully worded, with WP:NPOV in mind, so no insinuations that the press/music industry got it all wrong or that the band was trying to be considered something it wasn't.
Problem solved. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is punk pop is a sub-genre of punk rock, its fair to call them punk pop but it would be silly not to also label them as punk rock, theres no real debate. The band call themselves punk rock, a large number of critics further defined them as pop punk, although having said this they did experiement with their last album, it included some seriously flat out punk rock, a couple of pop rock songs and some alt... but i dont know. I dont think theres enough to make a valid disscussion --Olir (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where exactly did these several hundred lines of text above come from? --Cyrus XIII (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People mistakenly didnt think they were punk rock. Most of those lines come from hoponpop69 deleting every source for punk rock that he could --Olir (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this discussion would do a lot better without bad faith insinuations like this, especially given your hardly concealed personal fandom for the subject matter. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not a case of fandom, they are a punk rock band. This place is all about the bare facts, some users didn't understand this, thats why there was such a long and pointless discussion. --Olir (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

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

message: Please speak out here . Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. 
--Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you agree a source listing Blink-182 as [[post-grunge]] is a bad source... 

message: i remember seeing a video on youtube where AvA were performing and tom (id assume talking about mark, travis, and blink) said something like "i do not want to be the member of a fucking bullshit pop band with some bullshit pop songs wher eyou sing alone like a 14 year old girl".
has anyone else seen it and should it be mentioned?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.141 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah he wasn't talking about Blink, the recorder just cut the video so people infered that he was. It was just an abstract story about his youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olir (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit Pop Band 

message: A while ago, this page's semi-protection stopped. Since then, it's been vandalised al the time. I'd say we put the semi-protection back. It's not like all registered users are gonna miss any big news... --GraafGeorge (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been vandalized a lot recently. I'm going to put in a request at WP:RPP. Timmeh! 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please someone put the smi-protection back and can we please leave the band members part there please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman108 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

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

message: I have found a source where Hoppus states that Tom officially left the band. Please stop accusing me of vandalizing this article, it is uncalled for. 
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NArca9 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When Tom left the band, it ceased to exist, broke up, went on indefinite haitus, whatever you want to call it. However, the band is no longer active. I know your edits were in good faith and absolutely should not have been considered vandalism, but you probably should've discussed it when your first edit got reverted. An edit note needs to be placed there though to notify editors. Timmeh! 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop putting Tom Delonge back in current members 

message: the b on blink-182 is supposed to be lower case along with a hyphen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.204.150 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to WP:MOS, we can't have the b lowercase. It must be capitalized. I think this has been discussed already. It might be in one of the archives. Timmeh! 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The B 

message: In the article where it says "...as 17-year-old Greg Barnes hanged himself...", I noticed people were changing it from hung to hanged, back and forth. The proper word, I believe, is hanged.
Hidden comment I added:
"The proper word here IS hanged, not hung. Please refer to "
Thought that would clear up some confusion and edits... --Fantasy Dragon (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hung vs. Hanged 

message: Could someone please explain why Barker and Hoppus are listed as current members and Delonge as a former member? Did DeLonge officially state he had left the band before it went on "indefinate hiatus"? I didn't think he did. --SeaFlat (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. I don't think he ever said he'd leave blink-182 when I first heard the hiatus. --Alex (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Tom Delonge left the band, officially giving Mark Hpoous and Travis Barker full control of Blink-182.  If Mark and Travis watned to, they could hire a new guitarist and still be Blink-182.  Mark has previously stated that he would not do that, but they legally could carry on as blink-182. --69.15.134.74 (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so I know I saw an interview where Mark stated that he and Travis still consider themselves Blink 182, I'll have to dig that up. However, I do have proof from Hoppus that Tom quit the band when they went on hiatus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NArca9 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I HAVE FOUND A SOURCE AND PROVEN THAT TOM QUIT THE BAND. STOP PUTTING TOM BACK IN CURRENT MEMBERS, HE QUIT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NArca9 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, heres whats up... techinically blink are still together, but its just mark and travis. tom sed he doesnt want to be in b182 anymore but mark and travis have both sed they could still tour as blink 182 if they wanted 2, but they just dont want to. :( --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Members / Curent Members 

message: Okay, in the genres list on the b182 taable 2 right, it says poppunk, alt rock and punk, but in the beginin of the article it only sez pop-punk. pleez edit or something!!! --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The info box is useful for mentioning tangential genres. It's redundant to name them all in the lead. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: got it, thanks! :) --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre Flummox!!!!! 

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