Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:08, 19 May 2024

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Green Day (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Day, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green DayWikipedia:WikiProject Green DayTemplate:WikiProject Green DayGreen Day Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Alternative music Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Warning (Green Day album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 25, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://ink19.com/2000/07/magazine/interviews/39z54m-green-day

Review

I (Kingturtle 05:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) don't think they review fits in with the article. Misplaced Pages is not an album review and wouldn't a review qualify as NPOV becuase a review is someone's opinon? --Saint-Paddy 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Suffocate

I added Suffocate to the B-Sides, because it was released on the Warning # 2 Single, although it was recorded earlier, for nimrod.Hammer55 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

"Many speculated that Green Day had painted themselves into a corner and would be unable to return to punk music. Nonetheless, many fans hold this album in high regard as being creative, experimental, and overall musically successful."

The words "many speculated" are used to justify a personal opinion in the following two sentences. It would be better to quote a specific source that criticises the band and then a source that highly rates the album.

--IslaySolomon 10:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Production

I was under the impression that this was the only album NOT produced by Rob Cavallo since 1994, and I am not in the minority with this assumption, but when I went to prove it I found these sources: source one source two Does anyone have any online sources that say that Green Day were the sole producers?--Jude 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

lowest selling album?

jesus christ this was imo one of their best well all their albums are masterpieces and this didnt stray from that at all wtf? im so shocked

Me too. Really though, everyone must listen to this... Itsmehbro (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Colon

According to their official website and the iTunes Store, the album titles are "Warning" and "Nimrod", but Misplaced Pages has them as "Warning:" and "nimrod.". Shouldn't this be changed? --Muéro 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The official names are "Warning:" and "nimrod." though for organisational purposes iTunes uses its own format.--Jude 08:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

its Nimrod, not nimrod--Greenday21 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

WARNING IS ALTERNATIVE ROCK!

this album is just Alternative Rock! there are no punksongs on this album! i think you never listened to this record!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.250.157 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 March 2007

Hello! I'm sorry but changing the genre actually takes a debate and a general consensus. Your edits have been reverted many times now and it's because they are unhelpful to the article. Thank you for taking the issue up here on the talk page, however. Please try to Keep Your Cool, though. Please do not change the genre on the article until you have more support in this area. Your vote counts as one against the current consensus. Please be patient!--JUDE 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

man!! american idiot this is a pop punk record and dookie is poppunk but warning is not a punk record!!!! there is no punk! its just pop rock or pop!!! so say why is it a punkrock/alternative rock record why?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.239.105 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 March 2007

The main reason that the genres are listed as such is because of their performance on the Alt. Rock charts. I can list a few songs that have punk rock influence on Warning:. The only compromise I'm willing to make is that it be changed from "Punk Rock" to "Pop Punk" however *never* Pop Rock or "Power Pop" which I've never even come across, to be honest.--JUDE 03:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The song warning is not a pop punk song! this song is playing with a acoustic guitar! there is no e-guitar!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.220.117 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 March 2007

please see my response here--JUDE 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill out dude. Just cause a band does one ska song doesn't make them ska. The majority of Green Day's work and the majority of warning falls under the pop-punk genre listing. pop-punk as in powerchords, youthful vocals, and less dire lyricism than most punk. Although I do think the article needs to make some mention of the obvious crossing over in to folk punk on many of the songs. In fact, I'd say the album fits in at about 60% pop-punk and 40% folk punk. Will edit to reflect.

Its just a pop rock/pop record! its not pop punk or folk punk! there are no punk influences

pop punk, punk rock and alternative rock (maybe folk punk as well). definitely not power pop. cute is what we aim for is described as power pop on wikipedia and green day is nothing like cute is what we aim for. listen to the rest of green day's albums. ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 01:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF are all of you talking about? Green Day is PUNK ROCK.--Greenday21 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

I've been listening to this album a lot, and this album is Alternative Rock.--Greenday21 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

As an added bonus: Yelling! Does! Not! Make! Your! Point! More! Valid!!!!!! Notice how stupid that looks? Yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.247.110 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected

Edit warring is very disruptive -- see WP:3RR among others -- and can result in blocks being issued. In this situation, however, one party is using a number of IP addresses to revert back and forth; we could block those addresses, but doing so is a bit clumsy and will probably affect multiple people. As an alternative, I've semi-protected this page for a week. Please discuss the article and develop consensus as to which page version is best; it's really easier, and saves time for everybody involved. I'm acting as an administrator, in this case, and should avoid taking any particular stand as to the content of the article, but may take steps to encourage the dispute resolution process. Thanks, and best wishes. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Genre Dispute

There currently is a dispute as to what genre Warning: is to be considered.

Please leave your opinion here. Currently as it stands, Warning: is listed as Punk Rock, Alternative Rock, and Folk punk.

My vote is that Warning: be considered Folk punk, Pop Punk, Alternative Rock, and/or Punk Rock. Please be sure to use the wikipedia related link for your genre vote as to eliminate confusion and made up genres. Thank you very much for your time.--JUDE 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!! i just laugh you out!! OH MY GOOOOOOOOD!!!! FOLK PUNK/PUNKROCK!! NEVER WARNING!!!! ASK SOMEONE ELSE!! THIS IS NEVER A PUNK RECORD!!LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.144.65 (talk • contribs) at 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's not Punk Rock, could you suggest a genre? I know that you find this amusing, but we need to get this over and done with.--JUDE 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Pop punk,Alternative rock and folk punk, because it has acoustic influences..but I don't think that there is any "punk rock" song in the album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.126.108 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

please listen first to this album before you change the music style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.144.66 (talk • contribs) at 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir, however I have listened to this album for the full seven years that it's been out. I'm not arguing with you anymore. You do not listen to my argument, and you do not state yours in a manner in which I can understand. I'm just going to keep reverting your edits, and if I get banned, no big deal.--JUDE 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Folk punk" is way too specific and no one uses that term. I think we should just stick with "Alternative and Punk" for all Green Day stuff, though I think Warning is less punkish than the others. Randomfrenchie 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand that Warning was alternative punk rock but those three terms should be lumped together. --St.daniel 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the "pop punk" tag to "pop rock" in the infobox. All of the reviews for the album note the album's style/genre as predominantly pop/pop rock, with several critics noting that its a departure from the punk rock of the band's previous albums. One critic proclaimed that "it has exactly 0% to do with even Gilman Street pop-punk, except for one solitary track, "Deadbeat," that's their old '90-'92 type of tune"1 Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

People use pop and pop rock as an umbrella term. The album is pop punk..Also, I deleted punk rock. There's no punk rock in there at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revilal90 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Title

There are very few instances I can find where the colon is included in the title of the album. Green Day's official site does not include the colon in the title just as they do not typecase the previous album as nimrod. (which has recently been changed here on wiki back to Nimrod.) On the website www.greendayauthority.com, by far the largest Green Day fan site and one that is more comprehensive than the band's own site, Nimrod is spelled as nimrod. yet Warning is still simply the title alone, with no colon at the end. I realize that on the cover of the album and of every single released from the album, it says Warning:, but the same goes for Nimrod as nimrod., so i think some standard must be set. For as long as Nimrod remains as such, I feel that Warning should certainly not have the colon included. In general, however, I think Misplaced Pages articles need to stop assuming that because an album title is typeset a particular way on the album cover that it necessarily means that is how the title must always be spelled, because it is complete nonsense. For example, the band Weezer's name is spelled in all lowercase on every album they have ever released, and yet the band name is never taken as necessarily always lowercase. Also, the single for "Warning" also uses the colon on the cover, yet the song is never spelled with the colon elsewhere, even in the tracklisting. Ringer7 04:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, a rule on Misplaced Pages says that the title of an article should be the name under which the entity is most notable. This is, as you stated, Warning, not Warning:. I do think however, that it should be mentioned in the article, so I have added a sentence to the intro. - Face 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for either the "." in Nimrod or the ":" in Warning. These are simply for stylistic and artistic reasons, and have no bearing on the actual name of the album. (Think, do you say "Warning" any different to "Warning:").Nouse4aname (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why does iTunes show the ! in Kerplunk! (actually, there are two in itunes, Kerplunk and Kerplunk!)--Greenday21 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Question

How come Macy's Day Parade is not a single anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.65.174 (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean how come it doesn't have it's own Misplaced Pages article anymore? It was nominated for deletion, and consensus was that it should go. You can read the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Macy's Day Parade (song). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey

That allmusic.com site has this album as Punk rock, Pop punk, Alternative Rock, and Post-grunge. So, I've discussed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWilliams75 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Poprocks and Coke

What's the source on Poprocks and Coke being released as a non-LP B-side? I understand Maria was, but I've never heard of another version of Poprocks and Coke.

• It's not, I assure you, however, do you know where you found that? Disco dude rock (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

review

I have moved the following review from the article to TALK. please fix it here before putting it back in the article:

I was never a Green Day fan before I heard this album. To tell you the truth, I had never actually really listened to Green Day before this album. And though Warning: was not received particularly well by the public because of its new approach (described above), this album was the one that got me into Green Day and has turned them into my favorite band of all time.

The title track is a terrific way to begin the album. A terrific melody and great beat you can tap your foot to drives the song forward. "Warning" is all about...well, as the lyrics state, living without warning. Do everything spontaneously, and don't think of the consequences. A great song with a great message.

"Blood, Sex, and Booze" is definitely different from tracks the band has worked with in before. It starts with a woman slapping Billie, yelling "You understand me?" And Billie responding with an, "Aww, shit." It's about kinky stuff...this may be about a time Billie and Adie were in a fight. They're in a fight, and Billie's saying, "Don't make me beg for blood, sex, and booze." In other words, the good things that his wife gives him.

"Church on Sunday" is another cool track with a good beat and cool melody about how Billie Joe Armstrong saved his marriage. "It's a song about when you're in a long term relationship with somebody, you have to keep reinventing it, and it takes a lot of compromise," Billie said in an interview.

"Fashion Victim" is about how everyone in America's brainwashed and will do just about anything - including pay any amount of money - just to fit in.

As mentioned above, Warning drifts away from Green Day's punk roots. "Castaway" is about how many of Billie's punk friends will probably hate him for writing such an album.

• • • • • • author you can post this on the article..thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevron24 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pop rock?

This album is not Pop rock, pop rock should be changed to pop punk, i disagree with pop rock. --Chickenguy12 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think that Warning should be labeled pop punk. - PM800 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, opinions dont supercede reviews, which happen to support the "pop rock" label. I made a comment about this in the Genre dispute section of this talk page while making the previous edits to this article. I am not saying that "pop punk" shouldnt be in the infobox, but seeing as how the reviews take up the majority of the article's sources (and the only verification for genre), I will say that "pop rock" should be the primary one. I may also say that perhaps "punk rock" shouldnt be one of the album's genres, since several music writers noted its style as a departure from the "punk rock" of the band's previous work. We are discussing the album and not the band after all. Dan56 (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i do still think it should be pop punk, yeah this album really isn't 'punk rock', the only song that's close to 'punk' is Minority, and that's not pure punk, i do think alternative rock and folk punk shouldn't be changed, or maybe change folk punk to folk rock, i don't know, but at least make pop punk one of the genres. --Chickenguy12 (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pop rock? No way. Warning is pop punk without a doubt.--213.233.92.65 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What r u an expert? This is getting kind of annoying to go over. At Misplaced Pages, information is verified with reliable sources. The reviews support the primary genre being "pop rock". Listening to an album does not qualify for a source. And if nearly every single review notes "pop rock", I think the editors that feel different should take it into consideration. Dan56 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Pop rock oughtn't be a blanket term. The Killers were pop rock, Katy Perry plays pop rock. Pop-hooks and drums don't necessarily make it pop rock; I'll change that. 75.73.139.144 (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about pop rock, but since the reviewers have noted that this album moved away from the punk rock sound, I think it would appropriate to replace that with pop punk. Also, these sources say the album is pop punk:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/green-day-american-idiot/492

http://www.punktastic.com/reviews/7/Green-Day/Warning/

97.83.75.129 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, who put the genre as pop rock? To be honest, all Allmusic links have said that all of Green Day's albums are pop/rock. So why don't you just go and change their genres to pop rock too, even though we all know that their albums are NOT pop rock. They are pop punk and alternative. I looked at Amazon's genre for warning, it did not say pop rock. So please take off pop rock or I will. I'll list my source here too, since I can't list a source for a deleted item. I also looked at all the album reviews (except Allmusic which calls ALL of Green Day's albums pop/rock) cited and CNTRL+F'ed all the pages to see if they said pop rock. None of them did. They all said POP PUNK, however. So please snap out of it and just take off pop rock. This album sounds like their other albums which AREN'T pop rock, and it does not sound like Katy Perry's and The Script's and Maroon 5's pop rock, now does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.253.11 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, another opinionated genre rant... :yawn: --IllaZilla (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put an opinion. I put true facts. Maybe if you read what I put you'd would've realized that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.253.11 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do people who do nothing but rant about genres always assert that their opinions are "true facts"? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well anyway, whether you believe me or not, I've received a message from Wiki saying it appreciates changes I've made to the site. I believe what I say is true (not opinion) because Allmusic says all GD albums are "Pop\Rock", but albums like American Idiot do not say pop rock as the genre here on wiki. Yet this one does. How bout you tell me what YOU think the genre should be, based on your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.253.11 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What you got is the standard boilerplate welcome message that all new contributors receive. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your contributions, but don't take a standard welcome as an endorsement of any specific edits. As far as the genre, "pop/rock" is about as general as it gets on Allmusic...you'll find that on the sidebar for almost any rock band that's popular. They list Metallica, the Beastie Boys, and Celine Dion all as "pop/rock", for pete's sake. It's a totally generic and almost completely meaningless descriptor. The little bullet-point styles on the Allmusic sidebar hardly ever hold any water in genre discussions; What carries weight is what the critic actually says in their review. In this case Stephen Thomas Erlewine says of Warning that they "They responded by embracing their fondness for pop and making the best damn album they'd ever made. There's a sense of fearlessness on Warning, as if the band didn't care if the album wasn't punk enough, or whether it produced a cross-platform hit."

In any case the fundamental problem here is that the article body lacks any sections about the album's background or composition. It jumps from the lead right into critical reception. It really needs sourced sections on the creation, composition, and musical style of the album. Then the infobox can be adjusted to reflect the information in the body paragraphs. That's what the infobox is supposed to be: a summary of key details from the article. There really shouldn't be anything in the infobox that isn't discussed (and sourced) somewhere in the article body. Alas, most editors never devote any effort to the actual bodies of articles, but will quibble endlessly over a couple of words in the colorful box in the upper corner. If you really want to do this article a service, gather a few sources together and write some sections on the writing, recording, and composition of the album. Then you can update the infobox to accurately reflect the article's content and its sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles I've edited are 39/Smooth, Hybrid Theory EP, If Guns Are Outlawed, and maybe only a couple others I don't remember. I provide links too. I could simply quote the places under the critic reviews that talk about the album being pop punk, and write it under a writing/recording section, then change the genre to take off pop rock and state my reason here. And yes I know Allmusic labels everything pop/rock, that's why I said using Allmusic as a source for calling this particular album pop/rock wouldn't be a good one. Well, if you keep looking at this page, I just need to find links to keep my writings here (because if I just rant on someone will delete even if it is true) and I could really achieve that goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.253.11 (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Poprocks and Coke recorded for Warning?

I don't think Poprocks and Coke was ever recorded for Warning, and there was no source for it, so i removed it. --Chickenguy12 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Misery not by Billie Joe?

I'm pretty damn sure Misery was written by Billie Joe Armstrong. The credits on the album don't say any different. I think whoever changed it was thinking of where it says on Mike's credits: Farfasia (On Misery) and took it as Farfasia Misery. --24.255.37.229 (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah it was written by all of them. Inside the album booklet it says "Words by Billie Joe Armstrong except 'Misery' by Green Day". Check the bottom of the inside back page (under the Minority and Macy's Day Parade lyrics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.179.136 (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. You learn something new everyday, and thank god! I was running out of time to learn something today! 24.255.37.229 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My edits to the Personnel section

I am okay with the way it is now, but I was just wondering what was so bad about it before that needed "cleaned-up"? Just a question. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to have multiple citations, so I removed those and replaced with "Credits for Warning adapted from liner notes.". As for the subheaders, when appropriate like with enough names/credits, it's pretty much conventional for personnel sections to be split this way in WP:Albums articles. Dan56 (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to say "adapted from liner notes" if you're citing the notes; The citation itself says that. I removed a bunch of extraneous people from the section: techs, management, A&R guys, etc. have little or nothing to do with making the album. It's common for liner notes to include the names of the band's management, publicist, road crew, etc., but these people have almost nothing to do with recording or producing the album. Our purpose isn't to repeat every individual mentioned in the liner notes, just those directly involved in the recording & production; It's the same principle by which we don't list the entire cast & crew in film articles...who strung the guitars, booked the tour, or brewed coffee has no relevance to the album itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warning (Green Day album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 11:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The article's ready for a Pass, except that there's a few publishers missing in the sources... allmusic's, final Billboard reference, The Village Voice, etc. After that's finished, I'll be more than happy to give this a Pass. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 11:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Pass :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warning (Green Day album). 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://web.archive.org/web/20150924151606/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1 to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Green%20Day&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2009&sort=Artist&perPage=25

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Green Day release Macy's Day Parade as the fourth single?

Why didn't somebody make an article about Macy's Day Parade because I know it was released as the 4th and the final single off the album. Because everytime I make new articles on Misplaced Pages, they (Misplaced Pages) or someone else ("nominates") (to) remove the article WITHOUT any reason at all..... Itsmehbro (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Genre arrangement

There's a little disagreement between me and another editor regarding the genres of the album. While we both agree what to list, the disagreement comes from what order to list them in. I really don't like punk rock being listed first, because while a few sources cite it as such, there's others that say the album is not punk rock.

I was saying that pop-punk should be listed first, but there's also this source that says its not pop-punk. So because of that, maybe power pop should actually be listed first (which has four sources supporting it vs. five supporting pop-punk and one opposing it)? I currently have punk rock listed second-to-last, but with the four sources opposing it (kind of cancelling out the four sources supporting it), it should probably be listed last, or arguably, not even included in the infobox at all. But I can settle for it being the last genre listed. MoonJet (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can people PLEASE stop vandalizing this page to say it's "underrated"? That is a matter of subjective taste and should not be on Misplaced Pages. 173.77.248.53 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• GA-Class Album articles
• WikiProject Albums articles
• GA-Class Alternative music articles
• Mid-importance Alternative music articles
• WikiProject Alternative music articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Music good articles