Talk:Blink-182 discography

Blink-182 discography is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 13, 2017	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blink-182 discography article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

RIAA CERTIFICATIONS[edit]

ok, go to www.riaa.com

click searchable database

then type blink-182

enema of the state=5xplatnum

duderanch=platinum

take off your pants and jacket=2xplatnum

untitled=platinum

the enema strikes back=gold

i don't know where the other certifications are coming fromJimmypop1994 14:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked www.riaa.com as suggested above. I am updating the page accordingly, and will site www.riaa.com. If you make changes to the RIAA certification column, site your reference. I don't know where the Worldwide sales come from, so I'm not changing them. Btp1021 (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the worldwide sales figures don't have a source, they can be deleted until such time that a legitimate source can be provided to actually back them up. It's very common for a lot of editors to vandalize these types of articles by putting in inaccurate sales figures and RIAA certifications, sometimes just because they're fans.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

LukeTheSpook, could you give a sufficient explanation about redirecting (and thus effectively deleting) the Flyswatter article? You cite 'no notable references' and 'insufficient coverage', but what precisely do you expect this article to be, so that we can leave it the way it is? More references? Reasons why it's notable?
Do you actually know Blink? Or are you just deleting without knowing what you're deleting? Look, 'Flyswatter' is, and always has been considered as Blink's first 'album', and certainly as their most important demo. Everone who knows Blink knows Flyswatter (while a lot of those people also think that Buddha has been a regular CD since 1993 and not a lot of them have ever heard of the 2nd demo or Short Bus (see Blink-182 discography). It's an interesting story (recording it in Scott's bedroom and stuff), it's a famous record (well, 'tape'...),... It should have an article! --GraafGeorge (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's an interesting article; but wikipedia's inclusion for articles on demos is very high standards. It has to appear in multiple reliable sources and have more coverage than a full album. Instead of deleting it, i think i'll create a new page called Blink-182 demo tapes and have all there demos there, or merge them into the album that the demo became. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 22:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all: if you want to make these major changes: discuss them first! And by discussing I mean make a proposition, wait for reactions, and make the change if everyone agrees. Don't just change whatever you like.

About this issue. I agree that articles about demos aren't always necessary, so this is my proposition (see how I do that? ;)):

Flyswatter: separate article: it deserves one because of the reasons above.
2nd demo: maybe merge it with Flyswatter (name of the article would still be Flyswatter) of merge into Buddha article. Maybe anyone has a better idea?
Buddha: separate article! This IS an actual album (well, it was released as one in 1998).
Buddha Promo: merge into Buddha article.
Enema of the state demo: merge into Enema of the state article.

I don't think that the way you did it is better than how it was, or how I propose it to be (especially according to Wikipedia guidelines). Oh, and I moved this discussion here because now it's about all demo tapes.--GraafGeorge (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown no sources as to why Flyswatter deserves a seperate article. there needs to Be prominent coverage in reliable sources. Buddha is listed as a demo in the blink-182 discography article, so i included it in the demo page

First, I would like you to find anyone who would back you up in this. I can't believe that albums as notable as Buddha and Flyswatter don't deserve an article of their own. Second, let me give you some examples of other Wikipedia articles.

Let's check out the Death Cab for Cutie discography. That's a featured article, so it must be exceptionally good. One of the albums in there is a demo (You Can Play These Songs with Chords). It's exactly like Buddha: a demo which has been re-released as a CD, and look: it's got its own article. So, will you let me restore the Buddha article or will you delete the article about You Can Play These Songs with Chords?
Let's give some examples of articles about demos that are clearly a lot less notable than (or at least as notable as) Flyswatter: The Long Forgotten Demo, First Demo Tape, P.O.D. (demo tape), Tool (demo), The Raging Wrath of the Easter Bunny, No Commercial Breaks,... If you, consistent as you are, haven't deleted all those articles within the next 24 hours, I will restore the Flyswatter article. Oh, and Chatterbox (album) is an example of how to discuss notability: tags!

To conclude: I'm tired of this. Give me a good reason to keep the articles about Blink's demos the way you made them, or leave them alone.--GraafGeorge (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given good enough reason. According to WP:MUSIC, for an album to have it's own article; it must be covered in reliable sources. since each album is not notable enough by itself; then they get clumped into a new article. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not deleting articles; i'm simply redirecting them. The difference is, with redirects, somone can view the edit history and see what used to be there; whereas the history is deleted when a page is deleted. If you want i can revert each of these articles back to there original state and nominate them for afd and then they will be deleted. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made a seperate article for Buddha - the way it was. The example I gave before shows that this is the way to cover demo tapes that have been re-released as proper CDs. I also included the Buddha Promo article. That leaves us with an article about three demo's, of which the Enema of the State Demo clearly could go in the article about Enema of the State. So, i've put it there. The remaining articles about Flyswatter and 2nd demo are now one article, named 'Blink-182 demo tapes'. This is obviously not really correct, as it does not cover all their demo tapes. So, what does everyone think: should we rename that article 'Blink-182 early demo tapes' of make an article about Flyswatter and include 2nd demo?--GraafGeorge (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good the way it is now. if anyone has any info on any more blink-182 demos that aren't included in that article, they should add them. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100[edit]

In the singles table, the Billboard Hot 100 states songs that have charted over 100, unsourced chartings. Are these really appropriate considering it is a Hot 100!? Opinions? kiac (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard chart goes to 200, with 1-100 titled "Hot 100" and 101-200 titled "Bubbling Under." I would suggest checking out the information before removing it. If it proves true, either change the title of the column to "Billboard 200" or keep it at Hot 100, and make a note about anything over 100 actually charted on the Bubbling Under section as seen in the notes of The Offspring discography#Singles. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! I'm not from the US, so not really in touch with the charts all that much. Thanks fo the info. Now we just need to find some sources for the +100s. kiac (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Bubbling Under Hot 100 is only 101-125. --65.12.168.227 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, we knew this. Isn't anymore though! Billboard have stopped publishing it. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos & directors, cover songs[edit]

Does anyone know of any sites which would be reliable in sourcing the directors of each of the videos? Also, the cover/live songs need to be referenced, anyone think youtube would be acceptable? kiac (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demos[edit]

Can someone explain why they are in here? Looks messy, out of place and is not notable in a discography. "A table-based list of official releases", is a demo really an official release? "What should not be included: Tracklistings", there shouldn't be infoboxes either, it's the shambles. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone thought all of the Blink182 demos didn't deserve their own individual pages, so they were conglomerated into one page. Then someone thought the conglomerated page shouldn't exist, so the information was merged here. And I agree, it does look very messy. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to merge into this article. It would be even worse it if was merged into Blink-182. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 04:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the merger (i.e. the person who actually merged the two articles) should have removed the additional infoboxes. As it stands, there are a total of three infoboxes in this article. This superfluous material should be removed, but the demo table and relevant text should stay. —Łittle Älien ¹⁸² 04:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, i've looked through it a couple of times and none of the info is notable to be included into the discography, whoever reached this consensus obviously hasn't looked over the discography guidelines. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the (way too short) discussion. We should have the info about these demo's (tracklist, infobox,..) somewhere on Wikipedia, because they are quite important in Blink-182's history. They had their own article, but then someone had to intervene, en we merged them into one article. It was good enough then, but things have changed and now it's not good enough anymore. So someone changed it to this mess. I say: let's, at least, restore the article about both demo's. Or are we going to delete information that may not be extremely notable, but sure is more notable than a lot of other information on Wikipedia?--GraafGeorge (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they were in seperate articles, and they were going to be taken to AFD's, so i merged them into one article. then somone nominated that article for deletion, and the result was merge to here, so i merged it to here so it won't be deleted. Please read WP:CIVIL (don't point fingers, i'm just doing what i can to save theese articles, as i think they should be on wikipedia, but some people don't). - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GraafGeorge, I agree with you in regards to the notability and importance of the Blink-182 demos. Unlike demos from other bands, the Blink-182 demos were extremely widespread. I think they should be mentioned in the discography section but also have individual pages (i.e. the way that all of the other Blink-182 albums have their own pages). I would also be willing to combine the demos into one article (albeit, an article separate from the discography one). I wish the merge discussion would have lasted a bit longer. LukeTheSpook, I think we could have handled the AFD issue by explaining why these demos --unlike demos from other bands-- are worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Would you be willing to give the separate articles another try? —Łittle Älien ¹⁸² 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone goes restoring them, we're going to need the reliable sources. Otherwise they'll just go straight back to AfD, because there is a lot of editors out there that are just hell bent on deletions, just because it's within the guidelines. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best i can come up with, an article from Slamm Magazine posted on a blink fan site [1], where down the bottom of the page one of them says "it sucks" when asked about Flyswatter. Probably not a rs this one. Brief mention of it here. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of weird. because i'm a deletionist, but i do agree that theese should have there own articles, if not one big one merged together. yeah, if we don't have reliable sources, they'll get deleted again. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you combine this with the allmusic link and the book, you'll have references for everything in the (former) article, I think.--GraafGeorge (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now we need someone who owns the book, anyone? Or does the preview include the information we need? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can't just delete the information about the demo's, and certainly not about Flyswatter. This article is good as it is now, without demo tracklistings (maybe some order changes or something), but to compensate we should restore the Flyswatter article. Just that one. I presume that the combination of this, this and this would be enough evidence of it's mere existence, it's notability and it's (unofficial) status as first album by Blink-182. If we restore the Flyswatter article (and just mention the existence of 2nd demo in this discography, like it is now), we might actually come close to a good coverage of Blink's discography.--GraafGeorge (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week and no one showed my opinion wrong yet. I'll wait a few days more, if no one has anything to say I will restore the Flyswatter-article en fix every other wikilink to match this structure.--GraafGeorge (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self Titled Sales: 2x Platinum in US[edit]

In this recent article, in the final paragraph it says that the self-titled (or untitled, whatever you call it) sold 2.2 million in the United States according to Nielson Soundscan. So i guess we should change it to being double platinum in the US. Those RIAA links seem useless or are not updated. Or maybe the article was wrong or something

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/blink-182-announces-summer-tour-plans-1003973487.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.47.179 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between selling 2 million albums and being certified double platinum. The RIAA Database is updated pretty frequently, I don't see any reason to change it. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count anything as 'more' reliable as a source than the RIAA in this matter. Stick to what the database says. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles table[edit]

Someone needs to fix this table. 123.100.61.101 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EP's/singles[edit]

Do the Wasting Time Tour EP and Lemmings 7" count as singles OR EP's? should they be listed in the singles section or the EP section? I'm pretty sure Lemmings counts as a split. Weluvjezza (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really need something better to work off of, a biography about them or something. I wasn't able to decipher a lot of these releases' actual details because well for one, I don't own all of them, and two, there's a severe lack of information on a lot of them - which is why they don't have pages. I think it is fine the way it is, but if you think you have reason to change it, be bold and switch it around. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

Family Reunion was released as a promo and needs to be added to the singles table.

Formats.[edit]

According to this page you can get Neighborhoods on Compact Cassette. Along with the rest of their albums. Does anybody have a source? This should probably be fixed... DanielDPeterson (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dumpweed (Live) Single/Promo[edit]

I have just tracked down a digital copy of the Dumpweed (Live) single. The CD copy has 3 Tracks the song, an interview and the answers again. The digital copy has 54 tracks (the interview is split up) tracks 2 to 23 are the questions and answers, 24 to 54 are are a repeated but edit version of just the answers. I think just 3 small dotpoints are needed as a note next to Dumpweed (Live) on the discography page. I can provide some more information if you all believe it is needed Simdude1990 (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blink-182 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ifpi.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/ar-20002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M+M's[edit]

It's currently listed as a promo single, but its page has it listed as a single... dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Blink-182 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blink-182 discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120710180930/http://intro-productions.com/2011/07/15/discover-music/new-song-blink182-up-all-night/ to http://intro-productions.com/2011/07/15/discover-music/new-song-blink182-up-all-night/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bored to death Gold in Australia[edit]

"Bored to Death" is Gold in Australia as per the ARIA website if anyone wants to update ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Is a Studio Album[edit]

Mark has announced that blink's newest album will be titled "NINE". This is because he and Travis consider Buddha to be a studio album. So if Mark and Travis consider Buddha to be a studio album, I think that Wikipedia should consider Buddha to be a studio album.
Source: [2]
RugratsFan2003 (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Blink-182 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Blink 182 Blizzcon 2013.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edging charts[edit]

I notice there's a lot of reverts trying to add the Alt chart for Edging. Apparently someone cooked up guidelines on what gets included. It seems there must be a interest in including the Alt chart position. Is it really more important to list that the song peaked at #63 in Ireland or #25 in Canada than that it topped the Alt rock chart? Seems like an alt song topping the alt chart is more useful and important information. I don't really have a horse in the race, but seems like common sense to me. Darkage7 _[Talk] 17:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on discographies (though I did once try to make this an FL), but given the guidelines, I'd think it best to stick with them, considering:

A) it would not be consistent throughout the list, and

B) this was a much greater chart success than anything they'd released in almost two decades.

So the pop (main) chart placements are more important than a number one on a specialized chart. I don't like that we can't include the number one, but I think it's for the best we stay consistent. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is a two edged sword, since the 2020s are the only decade we're not listing the Alt chart, because the worldwide chart is apparently more important. Perhaps the max 10-column guideline is the problem? People tend to have pretty wide monitors these days, I don't see why we're cheaping out on horizontal real estate. 10 columns, 15, either way it's easy to read and parse. Darkage7 _[Talk] 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised the number of editors who will object to that opinion. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]