Talk:Blink-182/Archive 2

message: Recently, I tried to change the picture of the band in the info box. several things went wrong.
#When I put the pic in , the finished page only displayed a link to the picture. When I clicked on it, it told me "page does not exist". How can I make it show the picture and not the link?
#Another user reverted my edit and told me to discuss it here.
#What does "Landscape=Yes" in the info box coding mean?
HELP!, thanks. --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all: why do you think it's necessary to change the picture? --GraafGeorge (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only add pictures that have been uploaded to Wikipedia. You could upload a picture and then put it in the infobox however. I would welcome a new picture as the old one has been up way too long IMO. Timmeh! 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture that you tried to change to is copyrighted. As free images can be (and have been) found for Blink-182, there is no reason to use a non-free (copyrighted) image. (See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) New images may be uploaded as long as they are free. However, they will most likely not be used in the infobox unless they are better than the one currently in use (which is, frankly, pretty hard to beat). New images could be uploaded to complement the one in the infobox in the body of the article. And I don't see why not, the article only has one image currently. Maybe one of the band performing? --kollision (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: how about this one...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That image is also copyrighted. For a photo of Blink-182 to be uploaded to Wikipedia, it needs to be under a Free or Public domain license, stated explicitly by the creator. --kollision (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, any suggestions? --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother googling any photos of the members of Blink-192, such images are almost certainly not free. If you are truly interested in obtaining a free image, try and procure one from someone you know who has photographed the band (perhaps at concert) and is willing to release the rights to it. Otherwise, your other option is try and get permission from the copyright holder of non-free images, which is difficult to do. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has any live picture that they took at a blink 182 gig on there PC then by all means upload them, but other than that don't bother.--LemonLemonLemons (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: theres 1 on flickr here, does that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No! Look to the right it has a copyright symbol and it says "All rights reserved". The image description also says it is from RollingStone magazine. This image is copyrighted. Please look at the above two users comments and also read WP:NONFREE in full. kollision (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  blink-182 PICTURES 

message: I just changed some things in the article.
*Added subtitles in 'history' to add structure.
*Changed some things according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, such as discography.
*I replaced some of the information in de heading to the body of the article.
*Deleted the 'recruited Mark Hoppus'-part. The reference isn't clear about how long Tom and Scott were alone - it may even have been a couple of hours or something. Thus, the order of their names is enough as hierarchy.
*Unwritten Law seems to be a bigger influence than Dinosaur Jr.
*Shortened and updates information about Start The Machine.
*Added 'legacy'-heading - with little information for now.
To do:
*More pictures needed to illustrate the history (and break the long block of text). Maybe music video-screenshots or older livepics?
*More information needed in subheadings to create a good, comprehensive article. Let this structure be a start to get there!
*Correct any mistakes I made.
Any comments/criticism/threats? --GraafGeorge (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page restyling 

message: I'm going to change where it says they left MCA for Geffen. Its not true, MCA records was absorbed by Geffen. Both labels were under (and Geffen still is) Universal Music Group. --NArca9 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCA was absorbed by Geffen 

message: Okay, for about four months, "Blink-182 (album)" was called "(untitled) (blink-182 album)". Now, all of a sudden, it's cited as Blink-182, a self-titled album, for no reason. All of the band members have cited the album as untitled, not self-titled. And what really bugs me is that, in the first sentence: "...is a self- or un-titled album", which is false. I have worked on the article many times, reverted the title, and I'm sick of doing it. References on MTV.com have also said the album was untitled. Anyone who calls the album self-titled, that is WP:NPOV. --WereWolf (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is a violation of WP:NPOV (if that's the policy you mean), to refer to an album by a handle that is used on the album discography of the band's official website? Lets take a look at Amazon or the All Music Guide, which by the way is one of the few independent sources to indulge the previously discussed typesetting for the band name. Also, we do not invent new formats when referring to an article's subject and "(untitled)" is pretty much unheard of. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the webmaster obviously doesn't know shit, and amazon and all music guide suck. I have even gone so far to actually meeting blink in real life and asking them. THEY SAID IT WAS UN-FUCKING-TITLED! --WereWolf (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how nice of them. I just had dinner with Ringo Starr, he told me, Paul was indeed dead - I'm sure you catch my drift. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen mark call it self titled, i think ive seen them saying it's untitled too. --Olir (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The album is actually untitled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Five Years (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is a little awkward to use. The band originally looked at the album as 'untitled'. This is easy to see as only the band's name is included on the CD cover. --Brandonluvsapril (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are is an interview with the band prior to the album's relase. They seem to be in agreement that the album is in fact untitled. I believe quotes from the band trump any websites such as amazon or All Music guide. Link:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worthlessboy1420 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blink-182 (album) 

message: is it pronounced one eighty two or one eight two — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.63.252 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blink have stated in an interview that it can be pronounced either way. I prefer to say "one eight two". Rolls off of the tongue ;] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.24.116 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen them in England and they've picked up on the fact that we call it "one eight two". They called themselves "one eighty two" but they don't really seem to care what other people call them. --Trixxy (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In an interview Tom talks about how when they first started Australian fans seemed to really tkae to the band. He called it thier second home and Australians pronounced it one eight two so he said either way works and the pronunciation doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.209.196 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I heard that blink-182 are coming back 2gether in 2008 (now) and want to know if it is true. i tried to add it in the article but it got deleted. thats the reason i am now "skaterboy182" and not "lawrence!atthedisco", cos the thing kept saying that my account would be terminated because of "repetitive malicious editing". so i closed the account myself and went on 2 "skaterboy182". will some1 else please put it back, cos i am sick of setting up new wikipedia accounts. :( --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Find some reliable sources and add it to the article. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...    [forum.letssingit.com/topic/128417-1]  Dont know if this kounts but i tried. :) (...) --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not at all reliable. By the way, Wikipedia is not a forum but an encyclopedia - content should be accurate. And try to speak English. --GraafGeorge (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Graaf, please be civil here. Skater, those links you provided aren't reliable. Take a moment to careful read WP:RS and WP:V. Generally speaking, forums and petitions are unreliable for fact checking. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: okay. thanx --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: another idea is that even though you shoulden't put OMG BLINK IS GETTING TOGETHER!!!!! you can put an articale near the bottem about rumors telling about links to sights to actually try and give some hope this way information would not be innacurate it would actually show how well the band was liked by showing how many rumrs were started i thinking writeing this could be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.209.196 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  b182 COMING BACK??? 

message: Ok, well if this page is B class, then i'll be damned, it's horribly sourced. Probably because of an abundence of deletions by IP addresses, since the class was given. Anyway.. i thought i'd compile a list of references to use, since this article is lacking.
*Breakup: , , , , , 
*Imaturity/maturity: , , , , 
*Influence: Tribute album , , 
*Other: 
*Various article archives: , , 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiac (talk • contribs) 08:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page references and quality 

message: I have a song called dancing with myself by blink 182 and i cant find anywhere what album this is on. i am sure it is blink 182 because the voice is tom and you can hear some mark in the backround. can someone please tell me what album its on thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaylee182 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its from one of those crappy "Punk goes" albums. I think it's called "Punk goes 80s". --Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a really cool cover on punk goes 80s --Olir (talk 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's from a compilation called Five Years On The Streets  --Alistic (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure of other rumors about this song, but it is included on the soundtrack for a movie called Loose Change. This link proves this.  --Brandonluvsapril (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: dancing with myself is a cover of a billy idol song about masturbation. --Raycore (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: im confused- blink-182 were founded in 1992... not 1982!!! so it cant be on punk goes 80's. i agree with Alistic. --SkaterBoy182 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...you don't have to be formed in the 80's to be on that compilation. That's the point of it. 80's covers. Either way, it's not on that. I do believe it's on Loose Change soundtrack (below) --Fantasy Dragon (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a Billy Idol cover song and yes it was on the compilation cover record "Punk Goes 80s" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.192.35 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dancing with myself 

message: This adverses readibility. I am against using subsections. Does Led Zeppelin have sections? No. Does Rolling Stones have? Select a reason to put on this albeit smaller and unremarkable article on as such smaller and unremarkable band as blink-182. Ok, there maybe fans, but we don't need subsections guys. We need proper sections, not subones. Regards: --The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should move away from these types of subsections because, as you said, they affect the readability of the article. However, before this can be done, we need to restructure the history section so that the paragraphs are no longer formatted entirely around an individual album. Or, perhaps we can do away with the existing sections (i.e. the ones indicated by the years) and turn the subsections into sections. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsections 

message: There producer is gone and Blink-182 is talking again after four years. --Meowdon (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of producer 

message: I added the demo tapes back to the discography section as they are notable and fairly widespread. Also, the fact that there are only two widespread ones, allows them to be added without "cluttering" the page.  —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. Studio albums only, if there is a separate discography page. There is a discussion on the discography page's talk page (that is kind of dormant), if you wish to have an opinion on the issue. You can scream all you want about how important these demos were, but they aren't getting added until we have some reliable sources. Hope this points you in the right direction. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 01:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I see you were one of the main contributors there, my bad haha. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: It says it was formed by Mark hoppus, tom and scott when i'm pretty sure tom has said he started the band and recruited mark and scott? This is true no? I think ill go and find a source --Olir (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i cant remember wher i heard this, but a third party source (not Tom or Mark) said that Mark went down to visit his sister or something after the break up of his former band. There, his sister (or something) mentioned Tom's name, and he went and found him in a skatepark. The two then decided to form a band, and quickly recruited Scott Raynor on drums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.182.31 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Mark's sister was friends with Tom. They met and hit it off and played music in their garage. Then they added Scott and the rest is history. --Trixxy (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In tales from beneath your mom by anne hoppus it says that tom was always whining about wanting to be in a band and mark, who lived in a military town playing with his band of all things, was frequently visiting poway to attend work and college,ark eventually quit his old band to focus on work and college and he went to live in poway. mark also whined about the break up of his band breaking up. anne said she got sick of it and introduced them and they started playing music. they then played and rote songs together, after a while tom met scott at a party and after a few rehearsels in scotts room they were ready to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.165.134 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the introduction 

message: blink's official website  has recently been restyled. Now it only shows the Interscope and the UMG logos... no Geffen logo AT ALL! I haven't edited anything yet, sice I've never edited anything before and I wanted to ask you first. So, do you think we should edit the article? --Cioko (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Label change 

message: Why are Mark, Tom and Travis all listed as former members? While it has been said by Mark that Tom had quit the band, it has never been officially stated and thus leaves this to be a disputed topic. Tom and Travis are still part of Blink-182. Even though the band is not currently active, it does not mean that all the members have left. The term "indefinite hiatus" was used for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.243.159.47 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to make it simple we are assuming blink 182 disbanded when delonge left as travis and mark said "they could have got a new guitarist and carried on" but they didnt, implying blink 182 came to an end when tom stopped, and is now on hiatus --Olir (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the guideline for the template in use, Template:Infobox Musical artist, recommends using the Past_members field for all members of an inactive band, regardless of whether they've quit. --Zytsef (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you check out the talk page, it is not that simple, and leaves it open for editors to use the past and current members fields to distinguish between final line up, and members that left prior to the split. This is more informative, as it provides a quick and easy way of distinguishing between members that previously left the band, rather than having them all heaped in one list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouse4aname (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark says that BLink-182 never broke up. He says all that happened was one member decided to stop so they recruited two new members(see +44(band) article for more information). In reality Tom did quit and Tom says becuase he started the band and he quit its over but Mark says it is still going under a differant name. Those are the facts but when you listne to the sounds +44 stayed more on track with Blink-182 but +44 has a much more electronic sound. I think becuase of this they may have taken Blink-182 back but they also have changed genres so you might want to put that in if you wite about where people are now. Also Tom in his new band has drastically changed style and his own voice and turned many fans down and in everything's magic he uses the intro from Anthem Part II just in case anyone wants to use that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.209.196 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look everyone, it was me who changed it and because they are all former members. maybe u guys should be worrying over more important things????? also who keeps putting soctt raynor in front of mark as if travis was the first one to leave??? its really pissing me off!!!! --Adozenlies97 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "Former" Members 

message: Reference 25 is linking to AbsolutePunk.net homepage, which makes no sense. It should link to this page: . I would change that myself but i don't know how to... --Cioko (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect ref link 

message: There are some slow edit wars going on here. I've protected the page 1 week, please hash this stuff out on this talk page, or else the protections will likely grow in duration, and then no one will be able to unfortunately edit. rootology (C)(T) 17:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: Tom's recent interview proves they're about touring in Canada this summer. Should I mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.201.169.202 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you read this interview? You should only mention it if you have found a source. Also, if you do have an account, it would help if you would sign into it and sign your comments with four tildes - ~~~~. Timmeh! 20:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to ask why one minute it will say Blink-182 is back kids, then the next minute it won't say that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.32.118 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because anyone can edit Wikipedia and people think they're cool doing that. --Fantasy Dragon (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PUT IT IN BRO, EVEN IF U CANT FIND A SOURCE. GIVE US WIKIPEDIANS HOPE FOR BLINK 182!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blink-182 is over stop vandalizing and who would want Tom back after he made his voice so deep and tries to make songs like reckless abandon acoustic if it isn't valid it doesn't make it. that's like putting that the halocoust never happened in an encyclopedia. Blink-182 was a band that influenced tons of people and will change music forever. I don't think we should put invalid information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.209.196 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, If you guys bothered to look at any blink related website, you can check blink-182media, The latest news indicates to the kerrang website where it says they have a hint blink-182 will be touring in january, and with tom announcing him and travis are friends with tom again, and the website label changes, i think it's looking positive, oh btw the comment above is invalid, tom still has a high voice, he sang it hurts as a blink style upon request and it sounds blinkish, he just puts his voice lower in shows, if you were a true blink fan stop putting others down... thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.114.38 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it is funny doing that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.219.122 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark and Tom at the grammys just announced that Blink is back together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.11.94 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformation 

message: It says on the 'band members' section all the members from blink 182 when they were together, and underneath, has band members from '2009-present'. I've heard rumours that they are reforming, but I wasn't aware that it is actually true. Also, if it is true, then a citation needs to be added. --Adstr123 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please edit what david kennedy said, first off it's a crappy screenshot of a chat room that could easily be faked, second even if it was him he makes NO mention of blink releasing an album in 2009. It's just wrong and makes wikipedia look stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfire039 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, this article needs to remain constant in tenses. It switches present tense as if they are reunited, but then back to past, as if they are still broken up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.210.78 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes!! Blink is back, they announced at the Grammys 10min ago. I guess David Kennedy was not lying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.22.64 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Blink is back all right they said it at the grammy's and posted a blog on myspace! WOOHOO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.106.232 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Acorrding to Buzznet.com Blink 182 is making a new album together, but Angels and Airwaves and Plus 44 would still be together. On the 51 Grammy's when Tom, Travis, and Mark gave an award out, Travis said himself that they are back together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anapanics (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reunion? 

message: In section "2005-2009: Post-breakup", in the first quote of the section, there is a quote within the quote that says "does this mean...". That quote should have a comma before it and "blink-182" of that quote should be captalized (into "Blink-182). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug kwan (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Skier Dude (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A section needs editing 

message: On February 08, 2009, blink-182 officially announced that they were back and playing music together. The announcement was made on the Grammy stage. This same day, a new Blink182.com was launched where the band posted the following message:
Hi, we're blink-182. This past week there've been a lot of questions about the current status of the band, and we wanted you to hear it straight from us. To put it simply, we're back. We mean, really back. Picking up where we left off and then some. In the studio writing and recording a new album. Preparing to tour the world yet again. Friendships reformed. 17 years deep in our legacy.
Summer 2009.
Thanks and get ready...
A new T-shirt, the chrome six arrowed smiley face (similar to that on the cover of their self-titled album) has also been released.[www.blink182.com]> 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by T1saK (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "...that predominately played" should be "predominately plays", seeing as they are a band again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.76.187 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reunion Confirmation 

message: So the date for band isn't getting changed to 2009-present until we get word from one of the band members or a more involved representative? I don't really class the AVA guitarist being that much of a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.219.19 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is correct and yes you are correct. It probably shouldn't even be in the article, he could have been joking, we just don't know. What confirms it is actually him? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it says in the beginning section that the grammy's was their first time on stage together in five years. but that's wrong because their hiatus started mid-2005. so four years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.209.201 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Clear-up 

message: Should the name be capitalized (Blink-182) or not (blink-182)? Just for the sake of consistency, shouldn't it be one way throughout? --Vladsinge (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yeah, whenever i changed the capitalisation/explanation of the capitalisation, some nerdy tw*t would always come and change it back and maybe wave the policy in my face. Why is it now a lower case b with no complaints or disscussion? --Olir (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I just went to the official website and they call themselves "blink-182" therefore it is now correct with the no capitalization. Another issue i would like to discuss are the names of the other articles within wikipedia related to blink-182 such as "Blink-182's Discography". Lets change the names from "Blink-182" to "blink-182". Those of you who see this take the time when coming across a blink-182 article, copy and paste this when editing the article:  or else simply rename (move) the article with "blink-182" in it, and also rename every Blink-182 to blink-182 (unless it cannot be done such as pictures or important wikipedia links and therefore Blink-182 cannot be decapitalized). --Xangel (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manual of Style for trademarks basically says your completely wrong to do that, and that it should be a higher case B. But i think it's silly. --Olir (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. lol now i noe where the rule is applied. For others who are seeing this check that wikipedia link given by Olir. Ill give the rules here as well: "Lowercased trademarks with NO INTERNAL CAPITALS (such as eBay and iPod with capitalized B and P) should always be capitalized" and blink-182 does not have any internal capitals. Thou i still beieve the name still should be blink-182 if maybe we can have a exception. Otherwise all articles relating to blink-182 should be Blink-182. I'll go fix up a few articles i messed with. lol. whoops. --Xangel (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, naturally every editor who feels strongly about a certain subject would want an exception from this guideline or that policy and then there would be little point in having them at all. Anyway, it's nice to see the Manual of Style finally becoming the accepted standard for this and its related articles. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you find out if its blink-182 or Blink-182, can't you just redirect from a site to another? (someone was speaking of editing all links...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.250.14 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the main page why can it not say 'Blink-182 (often stylized as blink-182)...' as with the band +44? --Superalex000 (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization? 

message: So the main image has been removed because it lacked copyright permission. What shall it be replaced with? --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the photo that was there previously. --kollision (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Does anyone know if they released the name for it? --Shan (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They did not. Timmeh! 17:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth Studio Album 

message: There is a typo in the word "According" in the paragraph about the upcoming tour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.159.44 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: Blink-182 preformed at the T-Mobile Sidekick party not Verizon Wireless.  --Bp37na (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 First Show 

message: Some session drummers filled in on tour dates between the time that Raynor left and Barker joined. For example, I saw them live in Albany, NY on 7/25/98 and they had a drummer with really long hair and a beard. No idea who it was -- don't think the band even mentioned him during the show. Can anyone add to the article the names of some of these drummers? Some might be curious. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeDufort (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: response to text above me but in 98' scott had to go back home for a family emergency so they were looking all around for a drummer to fill in. one was definelty barker cause thats how they met but the guy with long hair and a beard coulda been just one of the drummers fillin in before they chose barker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistfullofdavid (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Between Raynor and Barker 

message: DeLonge just said that they'll come out with a new single before their tour.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.160.147 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoppus' twitter  said that the single will be called "Up All Night." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRobbEllisonShow (talk • contribs) 05:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  new single 

message: most people are saying that the logo for the new album has six arrows on it because its the sixth studio album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistfullofdavid (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? did you realise that by yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.6.131 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  6th album logo 

message: okay ppl these guys are more just a power pop band nowhere near a punk band pop punk is not really a genre because punk is a hard edged music its not ment to talk about girlfriends its men to talk aboyt politcls or anything thats actully has meaning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.150.59 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Genres aren't defined so much by lyrics; mostly by music. And since Blink-182 is poppier than most punk music, pop punk (a widely accepted genre, also used for My Chemical Romance and The Offspring) is appropriate. --Tezero (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the first punk band, the ramones, constantly sang about the ramones, blink182 is softcore punk just because they arent hardcore doesnt make them not punk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.200.162 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has citations; that's all that matters. --98.217.61.141 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  blink 182 

message: I realize that it may be a bit premature, but I am wondering how many here believe that we should create a new article based upon the "Up All Night" single? My apprehension about creating such an article is that we have very little information about the single itself aside from the:
#Name
#Estimated Release Date
What do you guys believe? Yay or Nay? --Gyrferret (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't even know if Mark is pulling our legs or not. =/ --MySummerJob (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait for reliable sources, it will be merge/deleted straight away. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I came here to ask first rather than rush off and make a poorly constructed page. I'm guessing we're just waiting for an "official" announcement. Or possibly the actual release. --Gyrferret (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You did the right thing. An official announcement will do :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work Gyrferret, you make us all proud — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICheets (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page for Forthcomming Single? 

message: In the scene where Anton(Devon Sawa) goes into the burger jungle to talk to randy about hands being the devils plaything there's a guy working the window whom Anton tells it's brake time that guy was a younger blonde Tom the first time i watched the movies i looked for the credits i was so excited i couldn't believe it :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daidee182 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This should belong in Tom Delonge's talk page..... not here. Gyrferret™ 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's not the entire band but in Tom is in idle hands 

message: Should anything be said about Tom's voice change and weather or not it's affecting blink fans for or against the band? --Deedeek (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen any mention of it anywhere. Could you provide some reliable sources that are talking about it? Timmeh 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any sources about this, only discussion pages on sites. --Deedeek (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, what I meant to say was that I can only find fan discussions on this, and no articles from "trusted sources." --Deedeek (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a fan, I will say that Tom's voice is making me cringe from time to time (because it seems like he is butchering his own songs). As a guy who edits wikipedia however, I cannot say anything as we (I) have no verifiable evidence of this and/or the reactions from fans.Gyrferret™ 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom's voice? 

message: blink-182 appeared on The Simpsons episode "Barting Over" (Ep. 302, Season 14). Since I'm a new user and can't put it in, would anyone like to do this? Here's proof: and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ETL92OE2gU --Vendettagainst (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Other Media 

message: Just thought that the location of the show on August 14, 2009 which was mentioned as their biggest show of the new tour was in Pittsburgh, PA I'm a new member so if someone who can could add this it would be appreciated --Deanie117 (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really notable for inclusion. More relevant for a fan site than an encyclopedia. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest show 

message: I noticed the intro to the article touched upon this. Bands such as All Time Low, Panic! At the Disco, Four Year Strong, A Day to Remember and many more have all publicly stated that blink-182 is their main influence or even why they started playing music. I think this would be a fantastic addition to the article. --NArca9 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to help, but we need sources that clearly establish this 'cult following' is a reality. We can't just use their influence (all big bands influence the next generation, yeah?) and curve it into some big tire pumping section, can we? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we expand on the "cult following" and their influence? 

message: It says that the current members are random guys, and that Scott Raynor is the current drummer && the previous drummer. It 'could' be that thats their real names. But they've got their own pages. So sort it out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxygenFactory (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah they're not even their real names wtf is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.223.200 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism was reverted a few hours ago. Try purging your page cache (ctrl+shift+r in Firefox). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmeh (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: somebody cahnged the names of thebassist and guitaist from mark hoppus and tom delonge to twopeople ive never heard of change them back please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.156.141 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes someone fix this please along with current drummer as Travis Barker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewpoh (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The page hasn't been edited since yesterday, when I reverted the vandalism. You're probably seeing a saved cache of the page. Try refreshing the page or purging your page cache by pressing ctrl + shift + r. Timmeh  21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: its not changing anything for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.156.141 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It says that Current Members are some random dudes 

message: Under the section style, there is a typo. The sentence reads "These being fused into multiple hit singles usch as" There is a typo on the word such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.83.128 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Thanks. --GraafGeorge (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: They Came To Conquer... Uranus, Short Bus, the Lemmings single (not the Dude Ranch version), M+M's, Wasting Time, Apple Shampoo, and Dick Lips do not have pages anymore. They Came To Conquer... Uranus is practicley and album itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When there is a sufficient amount of releases, we create a separate article for these = Blink-182 discography. They do not establish enough notability per WP:NSONG, and basically won't ever get beyond being a stub anyway. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are there pages for the Blink-182 tribute albums and not the singles, demoes and EP's then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welovejezza (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Demos are not official releases, and are only notable if there's significant coverage in reliable sources. Discussion on it here. The EPs I'm not sure, they were pretty small releases, in fact they might have been self-released. Again, we need some kind of significant coverage. The tribute albums were at least released officially by Pacific Ridge Records. In fact, they might even be deletable. However, just because they exist, does not mean the demos and EPs should also. As for singles, they should only have articles if they've charted. At the moment the singles articles are pretty much right; look at Blink-182 discography#Singles. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why arent the EP's and a couple of singles not here? 

message: Why isnt there a page for the song Anthem Part 2? even though it isnt a single it is one of the bands most recognizable songs and it should get its own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think Break Your Little Heart by All Time Low is a great song, but it's not a single. Although I do recall Anthem Part II was a live single and had it's own "music video". I'm not sure if a page for it existed in a past life or not... Gyrferret™ 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheres Anthem Part 2 

message: I'm almost positive that the 'b' in blink is never capitzalized. I know wikipedia is all about proper capitalization, but the only time it's been capitalized was on the cover of Dude Ranch, and only because all the other letters with it were capitalized. blink is immature and as such their spelling should be too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.148.214 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, on iTunes it doesn't appear capitalized. --Shan (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's "blink-182" to the rest of the world, but here on wikipedia the B is capitalized because of standards. This same discussion occurred over on the iPod Touch talk page. In the end, even though to Apple the device is called "iPod touch", on wikipedia, the page is called the "iPod Touch". So..... meh? --Gyrferret (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be with the lower case as all other topics like you just said have the lower case. I know referring to names, it's how the person spells it. I don't know if that should apply to names of items and like with humans.-- Xmzx (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:MOSTM to see why we capitalise the name of a band. --Nouse4aname (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of a band (or any proper noun) does not have to follow capitalization rules if the name begins in lowercase. Didn't we all learn this in fifth grade? --Animine (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is a name of a band, not really a trademark. And which according to Wikipedia:MOSCL is fine to have lowercase. Also, iPod isn't capitalized, and there is no debate over there to capitalize it. --Xmzx (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually read the links that are posted - it helps, seriously! This clearly explains the iPod naming, it is only this way because the second letter is capitalised (NoUse posted the same link before: WP:MOSTM). Perhaps reading through the previous discussions on the issue would help shed some light on the matter, example:  and . Then we can move forward if you still think you have a case. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the "(often stylized as blink-182)" on the first paragraph, hope it solves the name-capitalization dilema. --Felipe-11 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what should it be? If we look at the albums only one starts with capital B, all others are all lowercase letters or two all uppercase letters. Twitter is lowercase "b", same with their webpage. So what is the consensus. Anyone able to email a band member and ask their thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRobbEllisonShow (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Something tells me that that's what they call 'original research'... --GraafGeorge (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  blink-182 or Blink-182? 

message: Two shows were canceled and two rescheduled due to DJ AM's death. This fact should be included in the paragraph about their 2009 tour. --Rjay1972 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add fact about 2 shows canceled - St. Louis and Cleveland b/c of DJ AM's death. 

message: There is no mention of Hoppus and Delonge band Boxcar Racer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilangelwasdevil (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxcar Racer 

message: should there be back in the studio as a article instead of new studio album considering they are in the studio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Album 

message: The last show of their 2009 tour was on October 4 at madison square garden. I know because I was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessthanjames92 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.46.2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually October 7, in Atlanta, Georgia, due to the DJ AM reschedules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.58.109 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Show of the 2009 Tour 

message: In the last sentence of the introduction "casually" is spelled wrong. I do not think the whole portion about their live performances should be in this section. In addition, the source that is used for the introductory live performance portion is from some amateur blog, rather than a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebig1975 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Someone just remove it please. --Jhonkaman (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why aren't the other names blink chose on here? this page is almost a disgrace lol. it has a bunch of false crap.... but yeah Duck Tape was ther first name and they had another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.68.9 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction - Part about live performances 

message: The associated acts should be limited to +44, Angels & Airwaves, and Box Car Racer. The infobox says that it should not include bands that only share one member in common, which is why Transplants (only Barker) and 10HrsattheMachine (only Hoppus) should not be included. I feel Angels & Airwaves is an exception because it is just as notable in relation to Blink's hiatus as +44 was, even though DeLonge was the only member involved. —Akrabbimtalk 20:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. These "Associated Acts" lists can get freakishly long otherwise... --Gyrferret™ 16:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associated acts 

message: There are rumours that there is an indie film being made about the bands early days should there be a page on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most certainly not. A page can absolutely NOT be made if the only source about the film's existence is rumors. If you find real sources that such a film exists, we may be able to add it. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 00:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was, actually. I think you're talking about the blinkumentary. Yep, it was deleted. Only because there was only one page to referance it from. But no, it isn't a rumour. Tom said so himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.242.54 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  blink 182 movie? 

message: I think now is the time that Up All Night have its own page considering that the song comes out in 2 weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: says who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.13.157 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish. 68.193.242.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up All Night 

message: So in 1999, they appeared in the CBS mini-series called "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" as Jan and Dean singing their cover of Jan and Dean's "Dead Mans Curve". I've seen nothing of this on this page or any page. And heres the video  and the heres the song  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.100.95 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Mans Curve 

message: Source 39 is incorrect, correct link is  Please edit. --66.215.243.244 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: Currently, the album "Cheshire Cat" is credited as Blink-182's debut album. The full-length album "Buddha" was released prior to "Cheshire Cat," and featured a number of songs from the latter album in an unmastered form. It was also re-released in 1998. --Enojy (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Album Information 

message: I am new to Wikipedia (editing) and upon trying to fix a reference I ran into a problem...I really just don't know how to do it!
Reference #50 just points to Mark's blog (http://www.bompa.com/blog/markhoppus/) when it should point to the permalink (http://www.bompa.com/blog/markhoppus/blink-182-studio-update-2/). If somebody could fix this, that would be fantastic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.208.213 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. DanielDPeterson (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Fix 

message: Is there any proof that their latest album is eponymous? I was under the impression that it is untitled. Unless there's proof that it was self-titled, I think the word 'eponymous' should be left out. Lifeindecember (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Check through the discussions at Talk:Blink-182 (album): Numerous sources, including the band's own website, list it as Blink-182, so it is eponymous (or "self-titled", if you prefer the more common slang, although this actually means "we gave it a title ourselves"). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is somewhat debatable, as seen here. If fact, this  states that the album is "untitled". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDPeterson (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, have a look through the discussions at Talk:Blink-182 (album), particularly Talk:Blink-182 (album)#Request to Merge. There are a preponderance of reliable and authoritative sources that give the album title as Blink-182, including MTV, Interscope, the band's Facebook profile, Amazon.com, Metacritic, Rolling Stone, Billboard (  ), the RIAA, Allmusic, Absolutepunk, The A.V. Club, Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Sputnikmusic, USA Today, and the band's own bloody website. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last album is not eponymous? 

message: I think there should be a section of all of the shows the have been on, or that were made for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.18.182 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would just be trivia. Significant television appearances or specials can be mentioned in the prose of the history section. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV/ Media Apperances 

message: In February 2011, Travis Barker reportedly claimed that the new album should be out "by the end of this year or early next year" at a signing before appearing on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, pushing the release date of the album back another few months, as Mark Hoppus had previously stated that he wanted the album to originally be out in either April or May. 
The video on it is from last year... --thornofhate (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, the youtube video does say "following his guest appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live! in Los Angeles on February 10th, 2011." Alternative Press is definitely a reliable source. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it is, I always trust Alt press. But I swear I saw that video on youtube last year (obviousely under differnt title), but I just can't find it... I think Alt press made a fault. --thornofhate (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But the video's description clearly says "following his guest appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live! in Los Angeles on February 10th, 2011", and here's him at the same event, doing the same thing, wearing the same outfit, on the same date. And here's the performance itself: same date, same outfit. Alternative Press is clearly not mistaken, and since they're a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy their report takes precedence over your vague recollection. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But are you happy that Blink-182's album is not coming out any time soon? If so why? plus can you search about that video from last year with differnt title (in my opinion it's from last year)[i'm not going against you, i just think we can improve/help Blink-182 as friends/partners want to be friends?] --thornofhate (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course as a fan I'd prefer that the album come out sooner rather than later. But wishing won't make it so, and sources are sources. I'm not going to scour the internets for a video you can only half-recall. We're not here to help Blink-182, we're here to write an encyclopedia. If reliable sources report that the album isn't coming out this year, then we should present that information and cite those sources. If the information changes, we can change the article and cite new sources. That's how this works. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I ment. what I ment was work together as a team and look for reliable source. (Yes Alt press might be wrong or right, but hey everyone makes mistakes.) But look at what Travis said later on: . Like Mark said out on time wtih UK tour (which is this summer). So Alt press might be wrong or Travis just keeping update, who knows? --thornofhate (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, AP is not wrong: They reported that Barker said something, which he did in fact say. That doesn't make them wrong, any more that it makes us wrong to say "Travis Barker said ____". Obviously information about this thing is going to change as recording progresses and the release gets closer. At this point the information changes almost weekly. We may as well just leave all speculation as to a release timeframe out until an actual concrete release date is given by the band or label. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know they're not wrong, but they could be, and yes they do changes the album release date often... But let's just stay with travis latest new for now . Let's just leave it at there ok? We both could be mature and work together (please give me a answer yes/no). --thornofhate (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with what it says now (presenting both sources and citing them). I have no plans to change it unless new sources become available in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you buddy. I hope We can work together again in the furtue. --thornofhate (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Alternative Press update? 

message: Currently, the gnere is just "pop-punk", which I think could be expanded.
I think we should add "punk rock" and "alternative rock" to the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. There are a bazillion sources categorizing this band as pop-punk, which is of course a subgenre of punk rock, so adding punk rock would be redundant (like saying that a mallard is both a duck and a bird...it's redundant because all ducks are birds). And you'd need reliable sources to support alternative rock which, if they exist, most likely only refer to the last album. Pop-punk is the genre most associated with this band, and the one used by the vast majority of sources. This has been discussed many times in the past...check the talk page archives. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is kind of pointless to add punk rock, but we've done it for the majority of their albums, so why not the band itself? And their self-titled album is considered alternative rock, in many places including Wikipedia. Visit my talk page to further discuss this. Rocker10000 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? --John (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather keep the conversation here to avoid it being fragmented across multiple pages. Punk rock is redundant. If the album articles say both punk rock and pop punk, one of those ought to be removed. Either be specific or be general; it's pointless to be both simultaneously. The band's clear, overarching genre tag, as described in multitudes of sources, is pop punk. Many sources hold them up as one of the definitive examples of that style. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pop-punk is the main genre, but I think we should add punk rock, because some of their songs/albums are pop-punk, some are punk rock. I understand why punk rock was added to pop-punk in their albums because there are songs that lean more towards punk rock. Cheshire Cat is definitely more punk rock than pop-punk. I agree that the band is mostly pop-punk, but they have some punk rock songs, so that's why I think it should be added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment on your talk page regarding sources for genres. Again, we want to avoid redundancy. Pop punk is a subgenre of punk rock. Therefore if a band is playing pop punk then they are playing a form of punk rock by default, so stating both is redundant. For what it's worth, Cheshire Cat is most certainly a pop punk album (again, remembering that pop punk is a form of punk rock). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia states Cheshire Cat as "skate punk" and "punk rock", but no "pop-punk". If they have a full album that is not generally considered "pop-punk", then pop-punk shouldn't be the only genre. We did so with the Green Day article. We have both "punk rock" and "pop-punk" listed for them because people would generally consider Warning pop-punk (minus "Minority" which is punk rock) for example, but not Insomniac. Same with Blink-182. Generally, they are a "pop-punk" band, and that should be listed as the main genre, but not all their songs (and in the case of Cheshire Cat, albums) are considered pop-punk. Rocker10000 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm..."Minority" is one of the least punk rock/most pop-punk songs Green Day has ever done..."people generally consider" is a weak argument. Who is "people"? We're an encyclopedia; we care what reliable sources consider. All genres need to be sourced somewhere in the article body. The infobox is a summary of key details from the article itself, so whatever genres are sourced in the article body should be reflected in the infobox. And again, there's no reason to be redundant. The Cheshire Cat (album) article does not discuss the album's genre anywhere in the body nor provide any sources for it. If you can bring forth sources stating that Cheshire Cat was a punk rock album rather than a pop punk one, then a case can be made, but if all we're relying on is our own opinions then I assure you, having lived in San Diego my whole life and having purchased Cheshire Cat when it was new and when Blink would pass out show fliers in my high school parking lot because the only all-ages venue in town was right down the street...Cheshire Cat is as pop-punk as hell. It's certainly just as pop-punk as Dude Ranch or any other pop-punk album you care to name. The songs are simple progressions with pop structures, vocal harmonies, and lyrics about crushes, breakups, watching TV, masturbation, and adult diapers. It's certainly not Pennywise, Rancid, Bad Religion, or hell...even Green Day. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, you've got me convinced. Adding punk rock is pretty dumb. I think we can add this to the archives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

text: No. Their primary genre is pop-punk, as supported by numerous sources. The only album you could even make a plausible case for being alternative is Blink-182, and it's still primarily pop-punk. Also we don't use disclaimers like (early) or (later). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Is it not necessary to create a page for Blink's upcoming sixth album? Currently all updates about it are being thrown into the "Reformation 2009 - present" section, and its a little messy.  Stuff is being put in there, (eg. the Kerrang interview with two possible song titles) and then getting removed several days later. There is no order as to what can and can't be put in there, and in my opinion we need a separate page for all updates relevant to the new album, and put everything else into the "Reformation" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectPowerless (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles about the album have already been created and then deleted (see for example here). There is not yet enough verifiable information about it to start a separate article: No title, track listing, release date, or album artwork have yet been announced. See also WP:HAMMER. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest both Patrick Stump's Soul Punk and Coldplay's fifth album are both album pages written with little knowlegde of the No title, track listing, release date, or album artwork yet they are working progresses. The album title can always be changed when it's sourced, there's blog posts from all three band members of the progress of the album in early development and some interviews about the album. Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point, that's all there really are: blog posts and a few interviews talking about the "early development" of the thing. There's precious little to say about the album itself, as it isn't yet finished and very few concrete details about it have been announced. Attempts to start the article prematurely have instead resulted in articles that are mostly about the reunion, peppered with mentions of a handful of "possible tracks". As the album is finalized and solid details about it are announced, then it will be time to split the information off into a separate article. Let's not put the cart before the horse (see WP:SS). Utimately it comes down to the depth and breadth of coverage, and the depth of coverage on this one has been shallow as very few details have been released. We don't even know where it's being recorded or what producers/engineers they're working with, any of the kind of detail you'd need to start writing about the background and recording process. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page for upcoming Blink-182 album? 

message: Apparently this "controversy" has been mentioned in the 'Packaging and title' section of Wikipedia's main Blink-182 band page, stating that the name of their fifth studio album is debated due to contradicting sources. Each member of blink-182 has stated, during various occasions and interviews, that their fifth album was in fact untitled. Travis stated in an interview once that they "decided to leave the album untitled (rather than self-titled) to represent a new blink-182". I don't have the source for that, but I remember reading it before and have seen the quote appear all over the place with a simple Google search.
The biggest evidence, though, is a page scan of a more recent Alternative Press article where Mark Hoppus is quoted to say, "Cut to recent years. We were working on the untitled Blink-182 album and had a song..."
Here's the link to article scan. Quote in question starts at the beginning of the third paragraph on the page: http://i40.tinypic.com/119mfki.jpg
Let it be laid to rest, now. Blink-182, being the creative force behind their art, has the final say in their song and album titles. It doesn't matter what their label catalogs the album as, and it doesn't matter what critics refer to the album title as; Blink-182 left their fifth studio album untitled, and that's final. Will be updated wiki articles with relevant info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoptheradio (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned on your talk page, at Talk:Blink-182 (album)#Request to Merge, and at Talk:Blink-182/Archive 2#Last album is not eponymous?, numerous reliable sources—including Billboard, Rolling Stone, Metacritic, the Recording Industry Association of America, Interscope Records, and the band's own website and Facebook profile—give the title as Blink-182. This is not "laid to rest", it does in fact matter what the preponderance of reliable sources call the album, especially when those sources include the band's own websites and the Recording Industry Association of America, and if you unilaterally change it again to suit your own preference without discussion it will be treated as act of bad faith. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blink-182's fifth studio album: untitled vs self-titled 

message: On the Blink-182 discography page it says that "I Won't be Home for Christmas" was a single before "Stay Together for the Kids". When it should be the other way around, and it also says that the year of release of "I Won't be Home..." is 2001 when it should be 2002. Someone please fix this. -- 124.184.110.93 (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on the Blink-182 discography page 

message: change the date of when Up All Night premiered from july, 15 2011 to thursday july 14 2011
75.73.29.207 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited gives the date as July 15. If you can provide alternate sources for the earlier date, then it can be changed. This is to preserve verifiability of the information. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 75.73.29.207, 16 July 2011 

message: the current version (where it lists all the singles with the studio album) or the less complex one? Please have your say. -- 124.184.110.93 (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Please make replies at Template talk:Blink-182#Which one is more suitable? after viewing the differences between the old version and the revised version. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which template is more suitable? 

message: Hello, I replied to another post but got no response and noticed the article has yet to be fixed. The date that Blink-182 premiered their newest single wasn't July 15th, 2011, but July 14th, 2011: 
On July 14th, 2011, Mark Hoppus made a post on his Twitter page that their single Up All Night would premiere one day earlier than expected - at 5pm pacific on July 14th, 2011. The band 'officially' world-premiered the song on the KROQ 106.7FM radio station at 5pm on July 14th, 2011 as promised, and the article  followed very shortly on KROQ's website. The very same day, the band's official website was updated with an embedded YouTube video (from the InterscopeGeffenAM user channelcontaining the audio of the single in it's entirety (the upload date is July 14th, 2011). The band's official page on Facebook also has the relevant info, as well as 182Online and other various, numerous sources and publications.Stoptheradio (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Up All Night" single premiere date still requires attention. 

message: It currently says for Scott Raynor (1992-98) should it be kept like this or should it be changed to 1992-1998? --121.218.80.253 (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. When describing a date range, if the beginning and end of the range are in the same century then you only need to use the century at the start. This is explained somewhere in WP:DATE. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: Should the Blink-182 album category be broken down into two different sections? one section for studio album, and other for non-studio album. for a example see the Linkin Park albums. Please have your say. I mean blink-182 have enough albums to separate them. six studio albums. and five plus other albums. --121.216.222.11 (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually not very many. It's better to have them all in 1 category. Remember that categories have a different purpose than discographies. The Blink-182 discography article conveniently breaks them down by type, as does . Categories are meant to have more than just a few articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album category 

message: Hello, I've always been wondering why it says "Blink-182" on Wikipedia. The correct name of the band is "blink-182" as Mark Hoppus states on his tumblr account.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.248.76 (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia uses proper English, in which proper nouns are capitalized. Many, many bands print their names in either all-caps or all-lowercase on their albums/merchandise/etc, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool, and uses standard English capitalization regardless of how these acts brand themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Really ? then why there is iPod ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.160.3 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter. Note the second paragraph of the lead of MOS:TM: "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner" (emphasis added). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: me too, you have a point with the "iPod" & it is "blink-182" not "Blink-182" Drives me insane everytime. Whoa182 (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Get over it. MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name: "blink-182" 

message: The album Neighborhoods is released on the 26th not the 27th of September.
Richardblink-182 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources cited in this article as well as in Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album) give the release date as the 27th. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Richardblink-182, 7 September 2011 

message: where did all the singles go on  info box thing?--121.212.16.220 (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a navigation template. Someone split off a separate template for the singles. I've reverted it, as there's no need for 2 templates as the entire topic area of Blink-182 doesn't encompass a great many articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the? 

message: It says that Scott was recruited by Tom and Mark, but I think he started the band with Tom and Mark came along later. I am wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjoyce77 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Different sources give different versions of the band's early history. What I recall from Tales from Beneath Your Mom is that Mark & Tom got together first, then got Scott involved soon after. The important thing is to make sure that the information is sourced, and that the article accurately reflects the sources. When there are conflicting sources, or discrepancies, we can address them here. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scott Raynor was recruited? 

message: Should this be created? I know it only has been released on radio so far, but I'm sure there are many pages that exist about singles, that wasn't released on cd. --121.212.16.220 (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point it wouldn't pass WP:NSONGS, as it hasn't been released except to radio, hasn't charted (as far as I know), and there probably aren't many third-party sources yet around which to build a decent stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Midnight 

message: A slow edit war is still an edit war, so please start actually discussing this section instead of just reverting back and forth.  Personally, I don't think the section should be outright removed, and IllaZilla's claim that it is "entirely unsourced" is kind of an unreasonable argument, considering a good chunk of the information (namely the blue links) is pretty uncontroversial, and sourced in their respective articles.  That being said, we definitely need some verification of the less notable, earlier tours. —Akrabbimtalk 14:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little value to a list of tours, especially if nearly all of them are unsourced. Unsourced information may be removed at any time. If they can all be sourced, then a separate list article would be the most appropriate place (say, List of Blink-182 concert tours) with a link provided in the navbox. As it stands, the bluelinked tours are already linked via the navbox so there is little point to sticking a list of them in the article body as well. To use a Featured Article for comparison, Metallica does not have a section for tours, yet there is List of Metallica concert tours which is a Featured List and is linked via the navbox. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tours section 

message: Does anybody else feel that it would be a good idea to either put reformation along with the hiatus or make that a completely independent section, and make Neighborhoods a section of its own, to give a better feel for how long it's been between albums?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDPeterson (talk • contribs) 08:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At present there is a lot of overlap between the "Reformation" section and the Neighborhoods article that could be tightened up. In my opinion the details on the hiatus and reformation in the Neighborhoods article could be pared down, whereas in this article the details on the recording of Neighborhoods could be pared down. That way the two articles will complement/supplement each other rather than repeating a bunch of the same information. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes much more sense to put that on the band's page, since it's much more directly related to the band then that album in particular. A brief mention that it was their first album in 8 years after reforming is enough. DanielDPeterson (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make ''Neighborhoods'' its own section. 

message: I have no problem with the current genre listed, but am curious as to why it is not sourced when everybody says that you need to add a source to change the genre. Shouldn't the genre listed be sourced to have any chance of being valid? DanielDPeterson + talk 03:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced in teh "Musical style and influences" section. Infobox content does not need to carry citations, as it's merely a summary. The citations belong in the article body. The infobox then reflects the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I guess I've just seen plenty of articles that have citations in the infobox that I assumed there should be one there DanielDPeterson + talk 05:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Genre

message: Blink has, nowadays, an obvious pop punk/alt rock sound, but that does not make it it's real essence. Blink-182 was one of the californian punk rock symbols of the 90's and that is a fact. I think punk rock should be included as a genre along with pop punk. Tom, Mark and Travis have been interviewed several times and always refer to blink's style as punk rock and there is no doubt Cheshire Cat and Dude Ranch are 100% punk rock CD's. 
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwjTq-OEaCE&feature=related -- 62.57.98.136 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not going to rehash this for the umpteen thousandth time. The primary genre they're associated with and most-known as is pop punk. Pop punk being, of course, a subgenre of punk rock, listing both would be redundant. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Punk Rock Genre?