Talk:Timeline of punk rock/Archive 1

Redundant links
There's a lot of redundant links in this article (that is, more than one link to the same article). Could someone go over it and remove all of these unneeded links? -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 01:57, 6 November 2004 (UTC)

hi
this page was very helpful on my project. thanks Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.153.130 (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Year Listings
I had to delete the year listings due to Wikipedia errors. The page would no longer load as there were too many listings on the page and no further additions to the timeline could be added. A message would show stating that the page was too long and the page would be a jumble of errors. I am not sure how "full" the page is at present, but suggest we think of some other way to do this page in the future so it doesn't become overloaded again. --- 69.170.186.201 23:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ebba Grön?
Has anyone outside Sweden even heard of this band? Should they really be in this list? Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.57.65 (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Bands listed
If the band is not described as "punk rock", especially if their page doesn't even so much as mention punk rock, a hint: they are not punk rock and don't belong on this list.

Ex: Death Cab For Cutie, Nirvana

What about if they pretened to be punk like sum 41 Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.101.42 (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Inconsequential News
I just removed this:


 * In 5 years after the depatrure of former blink-182 drummer Scott Raynor, there have been some reports saying he was shot dead, following the disagreement with his new band Grumpy. But they were wrong, because it is believed that Raynor is still alive and the right person who got shot was a homeless urchin from San Diego, California as according to Raynor's message board.

Considering that this is a non-story about a person who has little impact on the timeline at this point, it should not be included.--Avwhite 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a little new to this, so I may have made some formatting errors, but I added the release of "Suffer" in 1988 by Bad Religion under the events timeline. It was the first release on the new Epitaph records and had a huge influence on the shape of emerging punk music in the early nineties. Definetly a much more significant event then trivia about green day and blink 182.

Wow not punk at all.
Ok seriously a lot of the bands on here are not punk at all. Like Weezer and All American Rejects to name a few. Perhaps a little editing is needed because in all fairness they are not punk music at all.

Agreed; Weezer should be moved to the Alternative Rock page.

Agreed x2; a lot of the bands from the early 90's onwards are not punk AT ALL. Green Day? WTF? Joe 16:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Roxy closure
I've removed the statement that the Roxy closed in April 1977 because it didn't. Andrew Czezowski lost his lease at that time, but the club continued to operate. My recollection is that it was a far less significant part of the London scene after Czezowski went, and I don't know when it did finally close - it might have been as late as early 1978. BTLizard 12:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A different approach
I think this article should be rewritten from a different approach. Currently, it is just a list of releases and formations/disembandments. It is too "dry", I don't think anyone can learn much from this. Maybe we should rewrite it with some information for each decade or so.

Anyway, I am currently in the process of fixing some links. There were (and are) many many errors, usually incorrect album dates, incorrect album name spelling and disambiguation errors. I have made many fixes, mainly between the years 1990 and 2006. I will keep going soon, but if anyone wants to help, their welcome. -- Ido50 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Requirments
I believe some requirments should be used to decide if an item should be on the list. Things like: Influence, the band should have their own article, any album that hasn't come out should not be on the list, all bands should be labeled punk, pop-punk, ska-punk, proto punk or some other form of the punk genre. Any band labeling themselves as prog rock, indie, or metal should defintetly not be on the list.

I really think these rules or something along the lines should be inforced.


 * I think bands should no longer have their albums listed when they become post-punk or alternative rock, which is what happened to many 80's bands. Examples include Joy Division, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Husker Du, the Minutemen, the Replacements, and so forth.  Anyone interested in viewing a timeline of their later work can view the Timeline of alternative rock.  WesleyDodds 10:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think the question should be "Was the band considered a punk band at the time they were formed." IE Siouxsie and the Banshees were considered a punk band in the 70's however as their sound transformed they were no longer labled as such.
 * If we follow the line of their music changed so lets not call them punk anymore then this will be a very short list. We'd have to move Bad Religion to phychedelic rock (have you ever heard Into the Unknown? Horrible.), move Green Day to pop and move Screeching Weasle to cover bands. Nigelthefish 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the list, however, Siouxsie and the Banshees and Joy Division are only listed during the punk era - The Banshees only have 2 album listings and Joy Division only have 1 (I believe) and none further as their sound "progressed". ExRat 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved Adam and the Ants Dirk album
It was released in 1979 not 1978. I moved it. 68.110.202.180 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Punk and New Wave are 2 different things
There are loads of New Wave bands on here. Punk and New Wave are 2 different genres. Is there a separate "Timeline of New Wave" article? Or should this article be renamed "Timeline of Punk Rock and New Wave"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention "classic" punk and "modern punk" sound completely different
Ever listen to the Clash? How about the Misfits? now how does Blink 182 hold up against this? Chiodos? Panic! at the Disco? Having a penchant for looking like you rolled in a dumpster is not 'punk'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.127.230 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PIL and Joy Division...punk?
I like punk and new wave bands, but i think Public Image ltd. and Joy Division weren't punk bands, they were post-punk, new wave, experimental, indie bands. Yes, JD and PIl had punk roots, but when released their first materials, punk was a past era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.221.113 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Saicos first Punk Band?
Los Saicos, a peruvian Punk band in 64' should be all means be included in this timeline. Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesushi (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Louie Louie"
By the Kingsmen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingsmen#.22Louie_Louie.22 Not mentioned. Why? Article has Question Mark & the Mysterians: needs mention of The Kingsmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.162.100 (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This page needs a narrower definition of punk
Being in an encyclopedia, this page needs a narrowly constructed definition of punk. I'd argue that it should only list information pertaining to the original punk movement. Information about hardcore bands should be moved to a page on the timeline of hardcore; likewise with proto-punk, post-punk, pop-punk, and commercial punk. Furthermore, I think the list should only contain band formations, significant disbandments, and influential or innovative album releases. Important shows---like the Sex Pistols show at Manchester for which half of the cities punk & postpunk originators were in attendance---should be listed. Don't get me wrong, the information I'm suggesting be cut is still interesting info, and should be used to form other timelines for other movements.--92.75.136.222 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking
There is rampant overlinking in this article, which is to say multiple links for the same band or album in the same section and subsequent sections. It is really absurd and ridiculous. I have begun the process of removing multiple links. In future, one link per section is adequate. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

2 Tone/Ska
Should we include something about the emerge of 2 Tone in 1979?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A Difference of Opinion
After seeing bands like My Chemical Romance on this list, but not other bands, I decided to add information about Nirvana, L7, and Jane's Addiction. Everything I put up was taken down about a half hour later. I just want to see what other people think about these bands being on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubby Lopez (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable entries, original research, underlinking, etc.
Kudos on this large project. As much as I like that this exists, there are some serious problems with the article.

While band formations, disbandments, and album/single releases are straightforward enough to simply include all notable examples (ideally all have a citation, but presumably we can check the article of the respective band/album/single), "events" without citations are original research, since obviously "event" is not something one can list all of, what is included needs to be based on secondary sources and not an editor's determination of what's important.

Similarly, inclusion of any non-notable entry is also WP:OR (and problematic per WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NOT via WP:CSC). Existence of a band page isn't sufficient to include an arbitrary single or album if it is not also notable on its own (arbitrary for our purposes, given we cannot use original research).

Finally, a response to the 6-year-old comment above, linking multiple times in a list is not necessarily problematic. One link per section is, as far as I know, entirely arbitrary. The point is that it is presumed that a reader will not read all content in a list/table from top to bottom as one would prose, and is instead more likely to scan to a particular point. In other words, as WP:OVERLINK says, if it's helpful for the reader, it's no problem. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A few months later, ✅.
 * Per above, non-notable bands removed.
 * Per above, non-notable albums removed.
 * Per above, all events unsupported by reliable sources justifying inclusion (i.e. WP:OR) removed (this turned out to be all of the events sections)
 * Consistent wikilinks. Up for debate whether to just link the first instance or all instances of e.g. a band's name. For lists, tables, etc. I find the latter preferable (for a number of reasons I won't get into at this point), but it was an inconsistent mix of the two. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at this in a while. The events need to be added back in. --evrik (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Usefulness Of This List
I can't imagine how this listing could ever be considered comprehensive. A timeline of the generally agreed upon major events of the 70s and 80s punk music scene is certainly possible, but when we get into listing "Albums" for every year up until the present we're presented with a pretty monumental task that hits two major problems:

1) It's hard to determine objectively what bands are currently considered to be "punk bands." I see The Killers and Franz Ferdinand listed (for example) and I doubt these acts even consider themselves as such.

2) There are literally hundreds of punk record labels and thousands of releases a year under the "punk" umbrella. Even attempting to list them all seems impossible.

What should be decided is if the "Albums" listing means "All Albums Released" or "Important Albums Released." As of right now we're listing records for the 2005 section of the timeline that have yet to even be released and thus have no "historical importance" one way or another.

--Avwhite 04:43, 24 December 2004 (UTC)


 * Well if this page is going to exist, which I still question, I'm going to at least clean it up a bit. I just removed this "event":


 * The Ataris becomes more popular when they released a cover of Don Henley's hit "The Boys of Summer" as a single.


 * Mainly because I don't see how a mid-level pop-punk band having a sole hit cover song one summer is relavent to the "timeline of punk rock." --Avwhite 05:44, 7 January 2005 (UTC)

...Can someone add the Germs? And pretty much... FIX THE PAGE?

This list is idiotic because it is too broad. Most of these bands are not punk and anyone with even a passing interest will know it. Stop being so utterly ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.152.110 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Just stick to actual punk - a few bands playing around late 75 that existed before the punk label and up to the end of 77. After that forget it - that's pretty much when it ended and all the chancers started flooding in. Calling yourself punk in the 80s, let alone the 2000s is just stupid

Im an old punk and will be trying to add/edit links to important albums and bands from late 70s and (mainly) early 80s as i have time. Cheers! Mgracen (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)