Talk:21st Century Breakdown/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Release date

Can we have a cite for it coming out on the 18th coz green day nor their label hasn't confirm the exact date (unless proven otherwise) and i heard different dates for it ranging from the 8th to the 19th. so a cite would be good. --Pro66 (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

its released on the 8th of may it said on mtv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.110.108 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Allright... So we don't actually know the release date. Some websites like punknews [1] and absolutepunk [2] have posted their best guesses, but they're still guesses. Like Wikipedia, the content of those sites is user-generated and not always right. Please wait for a credible source (like the band) to give a release date. Thanks. --MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The content of AbsolutePunk.net is not user generated. You and I cannot go on that site and post whatever we want. What you can do is submit something you declare as news, and a moderator will check it out before officially posting it. Moderators also get news directly from record labels and bands frequently. --Fezmar9 (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But punknews uses a similar review process and has a rather different date. If a moderator actually had a source for a release date they would say so (and it would be reported elsewhere). --MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutepunk also typically posts their sources that back up their claims. In this case it was an article from Spin previewing the album. I believe the article on Spin was recently changed because it no longer lists a release date, and I am sure that it used to. It is possible that Spin had the release date wrong, and maybe Reprise requested to have it removed? Who knows. It was a pretty credible source when I posted it, but now it does not look that way. --Fezmar9 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

IP Addresses vandals

I think we may need to protect this article from IP addresses coz i've grown tired of reverting IP adresses edits that removes this section

On February 19, 2009, a full length leaked demo of the title track, "21st Century Breakdown" was released, floating around internet sites such as YouTube and MySpace Video. Green Day did not give permission for this leaked song so YouTube has removed all videos containing this demo due to a Warner Music Copyright Claim. The song is also an early recorded demo of the real song and will sound different on the actual album.[15]

--Pro66 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar with full album leaks, there's a reason why it's being removed: WP:LEAK --—Vanishdoom (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAK: "The date an album was leaked onto the Internet is usually not notable, unless it resulted in some other action that is notable, such as being directly responded to by the musical artist or their management, or the leak itself receiving broad media coverage."

Now all traces of it on youtube are "gone" due to warner music group claim and according to the leak thing you gave me gives it more of a reason to stay. --Pro66 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted material is taken down every day on youtube... how does that make this one instance notable at all? You're missing the point behind something having a "direct response" and/or "broad media coverage." --—Vanishdoom (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus we're only talking about a demo of one song from the record, and not the entire album. --Fezmar9 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If a brief clip of the song being posted on the official site is noteworthy, than a leak of it's demo most certainly is. --Ringer7 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was weird that the info about the leak was removed too but it really isn't that noteworthy. If Warner Brothers or Green Day/management had made a big fuss about it, putting out statements, etc. then it would have been. But WB presumably had it removed quietly like so much other copyrighted material. If you google it there's really nothing that can be referenced here. --ElijahReno (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Formerly Titled"

We don't need all of these "formerly titled" notes in the tracklisting. If you want to make note of it, work it into the text above. It causes clutter in the tracklisting and there are all kinds of songs that change names in the development of an album. --Ringer7 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'March Of The Dogs' has been re-named 'East Jesus Nowhere'. Also, it is believed that 'Last Night On Earth' has been re-titled 'All My Love' and that '¿Viva la Gloria?' has been re-titled 'Little Girl', so maybe some notes of the changed titles should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.86.179 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know all that. I'm just saying it doesn't belong in the tracklisting, you can put it above in a song description or something. Although we know that "East Jesus Nowhere" is the new title, I guess it's fine to keep that alogn with the other uncertain ones until an official tracklisting is released. --Ringer7 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

World tour

How exactly is the tour pertinent this article? Nearly all bands tour around the time of their album release. --TrafficHaze (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Locations album was recorded

Should the places that the album was recorded include additional recording locations? If so the page should be updated to include Jel Studios in Newport Beach, California and Costa Mesa Studio in Costa Mesa, California as that is listed on the album. --Jesant13 (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jason White

Why isn't Jason White listed under additional musicians? Isn't he playing guitar on the album? --Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He is not mentioned anywhere in the album's liner notes, so...no. I believe he is a touring guitarist only. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

He is just a touring guitarist, Billie Joe always do both guitars at studio. --Giusex27sc (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Professional review suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review of Green Day's 21st Century Breakdown. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the professional reviews section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! (mixed) [3] --Mike harkin (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It has no history or repuatation. --neon white talk 10:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Incumbent"

I appear to be butting heads with User:Giusex27sc over a bit of a nitpicky issue with regard to the succession boxes, so I'd like to put the issue up here for consideration. Giusex27sc continually reverts so that the succession boxes come after the references, and so that the "succeeded by" box displays "incumbent", like this:

This does not make sense to me for the following reasons:

• An incumbent is the current holder of an office. So in this case 21st Century Breakdown is the incumbent. Displaying "incumbent" is in effect saying "21st Century Breakdown will be succeeded by 21st Century Breakdown", which makes no sense. It cannot logically be succeeded by anything unless/until a different album comes along and unseats it from the #1 position. The "succeeded by" field should be left blank until such a time (WP:CRYSTAL also seems slightly pertinent to this).
• I see nothing in Template:Succession box nor WP:ALBUMS to indicate that "incumbent" is to be used in situations like this, nor have I seen it as common practice in other articles.
• I have also not seen that it is common practice for the references to come before the succession box. If anyone can cite some precedent or manual of style area suggesting that this is the preferred placement, then I will happily defer, but traditionally the references always come nearly last, followed only by navboxes and categories.
• Also, since the succession boxes' purpose is to explain the album's history within particular music charts, it makes sense to keep them within the "Chart history" section. Putting them at the bottom seems to rob them of some of their context, and it just doesn't look right to me having these chart succession tables way down at the bottom sort of tacked on after the refs.

I have asked Giusex27sc to discuss the issue here, and I hope that other editors will weigh in to help resolve this issue. I know it seems minor, and should resolve itself eventually when some other album overtakes 21st Century Breakdown, but nonethless it bothers me and has been the source of a minor revert war. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the succession boxes are placed just above the band's template as seen on All Hope Is Gone and Minutes to Midnight (album). I agree that it does look a little odd to be preceded by the references (as on Minutes to Midnight) and looks better as preceded by external links (as on All Hope Is Gone). Perhaps some external links could be added to this page? As for the incumbent issue, it is suggested at Template:S-start and WP:SBSCHEAT that "incumbent" is to be placed in the "Succeeded by" box. I agree with you that the definition of incumbent does not quite fit this usage. Perhaps it is to be implied that (in this case) 21st Century Breakdown is the "current holder" and therefore there is no successor? --Fezmar9 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. If there is no successor, the logical thing is to leave "succeeded by" blank. Actually the most logical thing would be to remove the field altogether and simply not display it (as you would with "next album" in the infobox chronology section), but I tried that and it displayed a default field instead. It seems the template is not equipped to display less than all 3 fields, which obviously causes issues with regard to the current holder (and the first holder, if that is known). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in looking over the examples in the two manuals I provided in my previous comment, I notice that the "succeeded by" box ONLY says "incumbent" and not "Succeeded by: Incumbent" as posted above. That seems to make a little more sense. Other examples found at Template:S-start#S-inc include Current holder and Most recent which might be more applicable to this situation. The boxes at Barack Obama list both "Most recent" and "incumbent" in the same cluster – not sure what to make of that. --Fezmar9 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not being sold at Wal-Mart

I found an interesting article about the album, but was not sure where to add the information. Apparently Green Day refused to release a censored edition of 21st Century Breakdown in order to meet Wal-Mart's criteria. article --Fezmar9 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it would be appropriate to the "Background and release" section, by the details of the different release versions. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Added. --Fezmar9 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The album is not sold in Wal-Marts in the United States only, since it can be found in Wal-Marts in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.0.10 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Recording locations

Does anyone know the source for the recording locations listed in the infobox? Timmeh!_{(review me)} 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The album's liner notes are the source. Use {{Cite album-notes}}. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That may have to wait until I get the physical CD. Do you have it and if so would you mind citing it in the article? Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll just give it to you here, that way you can put it anywhere you want (it covers all of the "Personnel" info as well as the recording locations):

• <ref name="liner notes">{{cite album-notes|title = 21st Century Breakdown|bandname = [[Green Day]]|year = 2009|format = CD|publisher = [[Reprise Records]]|publisherid = 518576-2|mbid = 9d6d1e4c-bc3b-4a8e-82bc-5ea5ef36bc02}}</ref>

results in

• 21st Century Breakdown (Media notes). Reprise Records. 2009. {{cite AV media notes}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |bandname= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |mbid= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |publisherid= ignored (help)

--IllaZilla (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviews references

Any reason for them being citated and not just the usual [link]? Mind if I change it to the the common MOS? --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See here for the reason the reviews are cited. --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Aah... new. Happy I asked first. Thanks. --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Before GA

I think the article's about ready to be nominated for GA, but I'd like some input from others. Can anyone see any problems with the article that need to be fixed before it can become a good article? --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the way of "problems", but I did pick up the most recent Rolling Stone and the cover story is on the making of the album. I'll probably try to add some info from it to the article over the weekend. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I did notice that there wasn't really a lot of information on the writing and recording process on the internet. Just let me know when you're finished adding that, and I'll look over the article again to make sure it's good for GAN. --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still some issues with the Charts, they should really be listed in alphabetic order, not by peak position. Sales shouldn't be used to 'assume' an album has been certified, eg. Finland. The singles, are their charts really notable in this article, or more relevant in just their own articles? And what is the reason for having NZ and Sweden included, but leaving out numerous other charts which are more notable, such as others listed in the discography? (UK, Aus, etc) It seems incomplete. Mentioning the European Top 100 Albums chart in the lead, but not others? Fourteen countries, in the lead, simply cannot be accurate. Maybe i'm just nitpicking, but there's still things that can be improved before we go into a GA nom. --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to go ahead and fix the charts tables. I'm not very good with tables or charts in general, so you can do whatever you need to with those to fix any problems. About the European Top 100 Albums chart, doesn't that cover all or most of Europe, including countries like the UK, France, Germany, etc? The fourteen countries sentence cites a source in the reception and sales section. --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 04:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I will give it a working over when I get some time. I'm hesistant about using the Euro Top 100, perhaps if it were used in a different context - "The album peaked at number one on the Billboard 200, European Top 100 Albums, etc. charts". To state that it went number one in "fourteen countries" is pidgeon holing the facts, we need to put "at least fourteen countries", or something. It obviously doesn't, and can't accurately (due to sources), cover every country (which is what the reader is lead to believe by the current sentence). --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it looks all good for GA. I just need to switch a few references for the albums charts (which should hopefully be done before you read this). I have a couple of things for you to clarify/look over.

• In the Promotions section, the album being played in full live is repeated (prior to refs #28 and #38).
• Are Know Your Enemy's B-Sides really relevant here?
• In my experiences, YouTube is generally an acceptable source if the submitter/uploader can be verified as a reliable source (eg. Using Universal MG as a ref for music video directors). In this case however, it appears to be the guy who runs Green Day Authority, which I can only assume is a fan club. Is this a reliable source? --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the repeated sentence about the album being played in full live. About "Know Your Enemy"'s b-sides, these are otherwise unreleased songs from the recording sessions, and there will probably be more b-sides when the single for "21 Guns" is released. We could either remove that table until then or keep it. It doesn't matter to me. As for the YouTube video, I think it's fairly obvious from watching it that that is Green Day recording, so it may be acceptable. Also, according to the Rolling Stone article, the video was uploaded by Green Day. --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 16:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really too bothered about the b-sides either. If Rolling Stone has referred to the video, then I suppose you have a claim for its reliability. --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it looks just about ready for a GA nom. I just want to wait to see what IllaZilla is able to add to the writing and recording section over the weekend before nominating it. --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 04:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made my additions from the Rolling Stone article. Feel free to make any revisions you feel need to be made, then I think it's good to go. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

←It looks good. I just had to fix a couple small spelling/grammatical errors. I'll go ahead and nominate it for GA then. --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 03:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The album has not sold over 40,000 copies in Finland

I noticed that in the bottom of the page, where the chart positions are situated that 21st CB had sold 40,000 copies in Finland. This is not correct. The source states only that American Idiot has been sold over 40,000 copies. Just wanted to clear this thing up. There is however other good sources which say that it has sold over 13500 copies in the first 12 hours. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.166.97 (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Suomessakin levy on ylittänyt reippaasti platinalevyrajan ja myynyt yli 40.000 kappaletta." Straight from the source. It means it has sold over 40 000 copies even in Finland. --88.112.96.224 (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cigarettes and Valentines

How come there's no mention of that this album is thought to be Cigarettes and Valentines but with a few changes? --Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources claiming this? --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its too reliable but here's a link. [5] --Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not reliable in the slightest. And the only mention it makes of Cigarettes and Valentines is that one song is supposedly a reworked version of a C&V song. If you read the "writing & recording" section of this article you can learn all about the writing of this album, which obviously is not just "Cigarettes and Valentines but with a few changes". Frankly, that's ludicrous. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude that's the dumbest claim I've heard. Just because a few songs sound like they could have been on a follw up to Warning doesn't mean that this album is "Cigarettes and Valentines but with a few changes." One more thing. Quick question is this album about the mess Bush left behind and how the 21st century suck so far or the mess in Albany right now,lol? --JohnnyDrama233 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonus tracks

Would anyone mind looking for sources for these? The lack of sources in this section will likely come up during the GA review. --Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's taking a while to get the GA going. Always find it hard to find sources for BTs since we aren't supposed to use companies sales websites as sources... I've got a couple of possible inclusions. Have a look:

Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/21st-Century-Breakdown-Green-Day/dp/B001TZIKS4 Amazon 2], Japanese, this article has a spread of very generalised info. --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

As per Wikipedia policy apropos of professional reviews, I have edited the reviews such that there are only ten--the maximum allowed by Wikipedia. I tried to have the final result reflect the critical consensus as closely as possible. Also, make sure that you read Wikipedia policy on review addition before making any changes to the professional reviews section--use established, reputable music criticism publications and not just any website you can find with a 'review.' Use this section to discuss the matter further and please, please do not add anything without consultation with other users on this page. Thanks. --Tenchi2 (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects arent policy. Please make sure you do not misrepresent this as policy as this can be misinterpreted as gaming. --neon white talk 12:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

They are certainly not commandments etched in digital stone, but what they are are guidelines along which to shape the contours of similar articles, much like a real encyclopedia. If we do not have some measure of uniformity here, then how can we possibly be said to provide encyclopedic content? The very crux of an encyclopedia is the relaying of information codified in a simple, digestible, streamlined format. As the article in question intimates, there really is no need for more than ten reviews here--ten reviews more than express the critical consensus. Now, if you wish to dispute the ten reviews that are currently included and want to include others in their stead, then, to be sure, you're welcome to post your grievances and suggestions on this page. But to edit an article unilaterally on the grounds that WikiProjects guidelines aren't authoritative enough when they ought to be the guiding principles of the composition of any article, if only for the sake of uniformity, is misguided and abusive. And your suggestively accusatory tone is also in violation of another crucial principle of this community, found on this very page even: always assume good faith. In that spirit, if you disagree with the reviews currently on display, post your disagreements here and we will sort it out--as a community. --68.229.53.207 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The integrity if the encyclopedia is not compromised by 11 reviews. If it takes 15 to be representative then thats what it takes. Wikiprojects are not guidelines ot policies, they do not represent a wide consensus, individual articles can establish a different consensus. I have made no comments that do not assume good faith whilst your above comments are extremely rude and i suggest a brushing up on your etiquette. --neon white talk 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The current reviews from Allmusic, Kerrang!, NME, Rolling Stone, Spin, Sputnikmusic are the best there and should be kept have broad scope and specialise in music

The Guardian, The Observer, USA Today reliable but only particular to individual countries.

AbsolutePunk.net never been considered incredibly reliable consider replacing it with a more reliable view. --neon white talk 14:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I ask that SputnikMusic be removed... I voted there and the rank went from 2.5 to 2.7 (with 1 vote), and the source is a specific review that does not represent the website's view. Since it is also not being updated (currently say 2 of 5, on page) because of its changeability, only sites like RollingStone and other solid reviews should be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.115.28 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:ALBUM#Review sites. SputnikMusic staff reviews really aren't any different from other professional reviews. --Timmeh 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A Sputnik staff review is perfectly valid. However, I do not see it as notable as Rolling Stone, or something similar, perhaps a bigger source could be found (AP, Slant or Popmatters). Your concern is from the USER rating - viewed on the right, the STAFF rating, viewed on the top left, is what is used here. --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

3rd single

The third single is going to be 21st Century Breakdown so someone should add that, even if it doesn't say it's confirmed.[6] --74.232.63.129 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V; if it can't be verified through a reliable source, then it shouldn't be included. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is reliable; it was told in a recorded audio interview with Tre Cool. --74.232.63.129 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Then surely it will be reported by some secondary sources fairly soon and we can then cite those reports. greendaycommunity.org and its forum are not reliable sources, as it is a fansite and messageboards are not reliable sources anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that someone was able to upload a false interview between Tre Cool and some other radio guy? lol I'm just saying, and yeah, you're right about secondary sources, but it sounds like it's going to be the third single if Tre says that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzguitar14 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying it's false, just that it is not a reliable source and should not be included. There's a difference. I've also recerted someone who added "East Jesus Nowhere" as the next single recently, so we don't really know who to believe until it's announced officially. --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the interview itself isn't reliable, I'm saying that citing a fan forum is inappropriate to an encyclopedia Even if the content we're referencing is the interview itself, it makes a difference what site is providing that content. If the interview is transcribed or hosted on the site of the radio station itself, then fine, reference it to there. But any kind of fan forum or blog isn't going to pass the smell test for sourcing on Wikipedia. The same interview will undoubtedly be transcribed, linked, or hosted from a much more reputable source (ie. Rolling Stone, Billboard, etc.). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzguitar14 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol, yeah right. You said small test. There's so many things I've added their and it's been like "nope, can't use that for bla bla bla reason". Oh, man, that's why no one fills in the "citation needed" blanks: because no one can. Lol. Small test. That's funny. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Smell test. As in "something doesn't smell right about it". --IllaZilla (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay. Lol. My bad. Ive never heard that saying really, though. Hm....? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

On to FA (eventually)

So, we've made it through the GA process. Good work, guys. I'd start improving this and get a peer review done immediately in order to head to FAC, but the GA reviewer, Rafablu88, suggests waiting until the end of the year, after the current tour is finished and things have settled down a bit with the album. In the meantime, though, we can start making improvements, which Rafablu88 provides some insight on here. If anyone has the time, I'd appreciate it if you'd tackle one or several of the improvements he brought up, as I'm currently busy with another potential GA, my AFDs, and my GA reviews, not to mention real life. --Timmeh 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think holding off on FAC would be wise, as the album is still quite recent and information is likely to change and evolve over the remainder of the year. Not that that's necessarily an obstacle, but FA reviews like the article to be relatively stable. But Rafablu's suggested improvements are definitely something to work on. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, maybe we could consider adding some "really great, new idea" that no one's thought of before that would benefit the quality of this article. Maybe just something an album article usually never has but most album articles lack? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vinyl?

The article states that the vinyl version has three records, however this only applies to the special edition version. The regular vinyl is just two discs. I don't want to throw anything off, so if someone knows the proper way to handle this, please do. --24.140.73.43 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well both sources there states there's 3 - [7] and [8]. We can't add the regular vinyl without a source.. so if you can find one.. fell free to let us know. --k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, both sources specifically state that they are referring to the special edition version of the album. Is amazon an acceptable source? If so, it clearly states that the regular version contains two discs. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0026J8LDQ/ref=s9_sims_bw_s1_p15_t1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0PMSK1DHHEA9PGPFM6RE&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=478047871&pf_rd_i=5174] --24.140.73.43 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Writer attributes

In the tracklisting section currently all songs are listed as written by Billie Joe Armstrong. Ascap (The American Soicety of Composers, Authors and Publishers) holds a database with all writing credits. A search of this database shows that all members of Green Day wrote the songs and each song should be credited with the writers as ARMSTRONG BILLIE JOE, PRITCHARD MIKE & WRIGHT FRANK E III [9] --Njhux (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I second this, here's a link proving it. [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoletres (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you get this done, then? I think the consensus on this is pretty overwhelming (no disputes thus far), and I'm in favor of it as well. So go ahead and make the edit. [--[Special:Contributions/68.229.53.207|68.229.53.207]] (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Although it's unlikely they've all contributed equally to each song, we should still put what the sources say. --Laurent (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made some adjustments to the track listing. I'm holding the deluxe edtion of the album in my hand, as well as looking at the iTunes digital booklet on-screen, and both give "all words by Billie Joe, all music by Green Day". In this situation, where all or most of the tracks are written by the same person, you can use the all_lyrics = and all_music = parameters of {{Tracklist}} to simply display this information above the list, rather than having repetitious credits next to each track. For the bonus tracks you can use writing_credits = yes together with writer1 = to display the writers of those tracks. For the Green Day-written bonus tracks I used the lyrics & music parameters to show those (by looking at my copies of Dookie & American Idiot...it amazes me how people will argue over track credits when the problem is easily solved by just looking at the album itself; I imagine most of the edit-warrers do not actually own the physical albums). Also, you can display the 2 poirtions of "American Eulogy" rather simply by using the note parameter, rather than tacking it on at the bottom. And I removed the total lengths from the individual suites, since it didn't seem appropriate (it's not like they're 3 individual discs; it's all 1 cohesive album). Anyway, all of this can be done rather simply if you learn to use the various parameters of {{Tracklist}}. I notice that some of the other Green Day album articles could use some tweaking in this same manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There might need to be a change made to the writers of "21 Guns." Green Day's song title search on ASCAP doesn't come up with the song. [11] While a search on BMI of the song shows that there are other writers to the song. [12] But the published song book of the "21st Century Breakdown" album has only the band as the writers. So should we change it? --Zoletres (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah. The album notes clearly say "all words by Billie Joe, all music by Green Day". Any other source giving different credits is probably wrong: Clearly David Bowie was not involved in the writing of Green Day's album; such a thing would have been really big news. Yet BMI lists him as a songwriter/composer. My thought is that this is because many people have made comparisons between "21 Guns" and "All the Young Dudes", but that doesn't mean he had anything to do with the Green Day song. I seriously doubt that Green Day or their label, Reprise (or its parent, Warner Music Group), would make such a gross and possibly actionable oversight as not giving proper credit to the songwriters (especially someone as high-profile as Bowie). Based on Googling, what appears to me is that random internet people have slapped the credits of whatever songs they think "21 Guns" resembles onto lyric sites and the like, then other sites have picked up on that. I'm confident that if there were really 4 other writers involved in the writing of such a high-profile song, the album notes would mention it. Otherwise I imagine Bowie's publishing company would be suing Green Day up the wazoo for not giving proper credit. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Single dates

I suggest changing the 21 guns release date from May 25 to July 14 due to the fact that its not completely released (just digital download and not CD Single) and it's just my suggestion....yes I know it's not really all that important, though. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The first date the single becomes available is always used. Since it was released to radio stations on May 25, that's the date we should use. --Timmeh (review me) 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks I was jw I didn't know. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FA checklist

• Find more print media. I'm sure the album's had loads of coverage. Because someone might mention "comprehensiveness".
• Then use print media to expand sections (mainly writing and recording usually).
• It's quote heavy. Paraphrase anything and everything that is not left-field or 'special'.
• Another photo and a sound sample would be nice.
• Bit more detail on specific songs in Themes and composition.
• Add a small section on Awards/Tours (rule of thumb: if they win nothing and no further (re-)releases happen, then don't add a section simply on tours unless the tour is called "The 21StCB Tour" or smth).
• Add a Release history box with labels and codes and stuff.
• Finally get someone totally ignorant and neutral to do a copyedit and find any tiny MoS thing that needs sorting. I'm afraid I'm not anymore as I've been exposed to the article over and over again.
• PEER REVIEW
• Check the rationales of media.
• Check the reliability of the sources (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafablu88 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Third single

In the section "promotion and release" it says that 21st century breakdown will be the third single, however at the top of the page it says that East jesus nowhere will be the third single. Which is the right information? --Pasqual 8 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"East Jesus Nowhere" is confirmed as the third single. We should correct the error in the promotion section. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sales

If we look at all the certifications the album has had since its release, we can find that the album has sold more than 1,3 million copies worldwide. I think you could write this thing on the section "Promotion and Release". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.126.218 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The album has been certified platinum in Finland, have a look at this link: [13] --79.17.173.9 (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The record has sold more than 2.3 million copies worldwide [14], so I add the information. --Pasqual 8 (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Certifications

Are there any references about the two platinum certification in Italy? --Pasqual 8 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope and it'd be nice if people stated where they got their info from. The person that added it also altered the other charts to false peaks. Our chart guide has no reliable source for certs in Italy at all. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Charts

The album peaked at number one in Argentina and it has had a gold certification [15]. I think you should add this information. --Pasqual 8 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland

The record has been certified platinum in Switzerland. I added it. [16] --Pasqual 8 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Countries and charts

I found 21stCB has charted also in Belgium (Wallonia and Flanders), Argentina and Croatia. Are this ones relevant informations to add? --79.17.184.23 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a source, then it's worth including and we can work it in for you. Just post your link here and we'll take a look. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

• This is about flanders charts. [17]
• This is about wallonia. [18]
• Argentina. [19]
• Argentina certification. [20]
• Croatia. [21] Last week the album went out of the chart, so you can find the informations about the high peak,...at this link. Click "40 week" (PDF).

There, there are all the informations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasqual 8 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I refactored your comment for readability & to make it easier to distinguish the links. We'll have a look and cite them in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Kerrang! with Green Day coverage

Would anyone happen to own these issues of Kerrang! that cover Green Day? It seems like they'd have some relevant info we could add to the article. Timmeh 22:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unable to Rip Album Fully

is there any more reports than besides mine it wont let the whole album go all the way to itunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.180.234 (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything of the sort yet. Does it give you any sort of message? I've never had this happen to me with any albums, even Tommy, which is about as many tracks long... If it happens to be something that's occurring en masse, then it might be worth reporting on in the article. Look around the 'interwebs' for similar incidences and tell me if you find anything. 68.229.53.207 (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Itunes froze while ripping the final track and I haven't been able to make it do so since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.117.128 (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but Wikipedia is not a help desk nor a how-to. Unless this has something to do with the article (and the info can be referenced), then this is not the place to have this conversation. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

why are some people being such a smartass. this is the talk page,dumbf.ck. --202.138.170.146 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article, not for general chit-chat about the album. It says so in bold lettering in the big banner up top. We're trying to keep on-topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, no need for all that; pretty sure this was a misunderstanding here. I'm pretty sure that 70.230.180.234 was simply trying to verify whether this was a widespread problem.... with this exact disc/release... as opposed to a simple programming glitch in their copy of iTunes/OS. And I'm pretty sure 202.138.170.146 was just pointing out that asking if something weird that may directly relate the the subject of the article happens, it's worth discussing here (on the Talk Page) to figure out if it's a widespread problem with the article's subject (the product of a physical CD in this case)... or not. You know, before the article is edited (to include wrong information) or fails to be edited in a timely manner (to include important and notably unusual information about the article's subject).

If it were a widespread problem, then it might actually be notable. My guess is it's not and that it's simply a problem with the OP's computer or copy of iTunes... but come on. Like we haven't seen computer problems arise from misguided copyright protection not only happen before, but become notable enough for Wikipedia to cover it? I think that thar internal link gives you everything you need to know on that subject.

In other words - Have Good Faith, please. The internet is incivil enough as it is without bringing Wikipedia ever closer to the "humorless jerks" stereotype that I'm starting to notice it has in the mainstream culture. Don't be snippy just because someone asks a question, even if you think nothing of the question; think of it this way: there are no "stupid questions"... just inquisitive noobs. ;) Never, ever forget after all, that we were all noobs once upon a time... and that the whole point of Wikipedia is to build a free, (reasonably) neutral, accessible source of knowledge. And you don't achieve knowledge by never asking about anything. --70.118.24.50 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure I was quite civil in my first comment: Unless this has something to do with the article (and the info can be referenced), then this is not the place to have this conversation. I made it clear that if it had something to do with the article, then fine, otherwise this isn't the place to ask for tech help. And I don't think that calling me a "smartass" and a "dumbf.ck" counts as "just pointing out that asking if something weird that may directly relate the the subject of the article happens, it's worth discussing here...". I think both of my statements were polite and direct. If the topic had any bearing on the article, then the IPs had opportunity to say so. There is no indication that this is any kind of widespread problem that might bear mentioning in the article, and every indication that this is just one user seeking tech help. I don't require a lecture on good faith for politely reminding such users that Wikipedia is not a forum, particularly when I'm insulted in return yet continue to stay civil in my own comments. In any case the conversation is long over. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Right Lyrics

What are the lyrics to the title track? " Videogames to the tower's fall", or "From Mexico to the Berlin Wall." I heard both and i was wondering which one is correct. --Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

21st-century-breakdown.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.233.246 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to ask. There are lots of lyrics sites out there. Alternatively, you could, you know...buy the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you help, but i'm not going to buy the album for the correct lyrics to one song. --Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's "From Mexico to the Berlin Wall", to actually answer your question lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.69.53 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, was there ever any confusion between websites on this? Because... technically, Googling [song title] lyrics or [band name] [song title] lyrics or [song title] lyrics [band name], etc., gets you the lyrics of pretty much any song ever given a public release (and occasionally, some that never did get an official release). Granted, many of the sites aren't legal per copyright law (since they don't bother to request permission to post lyrics), and sometimes there can definitely be confusion (since a lot of such sites' content is user-posted and therefore sometimes prone to Mondegreens), and on occasion certain such sites can contain some malicious software or whatnot... but sometimes bands will release lyrics online, or a review will incorporate a portion of the lyrics as fair use, or... you know, sometimes the artist or their record company just don't give a damn. :P So next time you're concerned about lyrics, try just Googling it (but double-check the reputation of a site before clicking a link to see if it's safe... or legal. Since, you know, we can't in good conscience or legally actually recommend circumventing copyright law, ahem. ;) ) --70.118.24.50 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

I just recently came across this article, and I'd really like it to be brought up to a good article and maybe even a featured article. However, there are several issues that need to be resolved before it can be nominated for anything. They are:

1. Just about everything in the "Background and release" section should be moved to a "Promotion and release" section and summarized.
2. A section talking about the actual background of the album, the writing, recording, and production process, should be created, and content should be added to that. This is a very popular album and band; we should be able to find a good amount of information on the album's background.
3. The "Structure and themes" section should be renamed to "Musical style and themes", and information (with sources of course) should be added about the musical style of the album.
4. The section on the artwork should be made a subsection of the aforementioned promotion and release section, and maybe a little more information could be added.
5. Any citation needed tags should be replaced by citations to reliable sources.
6. Any MOS issues, if they exist, should be dealt with.
7. The prose and flow of the promotion and release section needs work. The first paragraph seems like just a list of chronological occurrences.

If we can fix all those issues, I think we'll be able to nominate the article for GA and get it passed quickly. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As nobody seems to be willing to deal with any of these issues, I have taken them on myself and have resolved three of them. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you reconsider a tendency to assume "structure" would only refer to "musical styles"? This is a "rock opera", as such... it's supposed to have a story. Stories do not on their own have "musical styles", though they can have something called "[narrative] structure". It's entirely possible that an article on a rock opera album could include both information on the the "musical style(s)" and information on the "[narrative] structure". :) Food for thought, since there's a pretty big distinction between "style" and "structure". They can sometimes refer to the same information, but they don't necessarily do so. --70.118.24.50 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this subject was brought up, the article has been much improved and promoted to good article status. Both the musical styles and narrative structure are covered in the "Themes and composition" section. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Genre should be left general to avoid the POV edit wars. It's not like this album is very defined in that respect anyway. --neon white talk 22:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"It's not like this album is very defined in that respect anyway" is entirely your own POV, and I respectfully disagree. Green Day is pretty much universally recognized as a punk rock or pop punk band, and the great majority of reliable sources classify this album as punk and/or alternative rock. American Idiot was widely described by a great number of authoritative sources as a "punk rock opera", and 21st Century Breakdown is widely recognized as a continuation of that same structural concept. While I usually favor generality myself, "punk rock" and "alternative rock" are consistent with the reviews and sources, are accurate, and are about as general as they need to be in this case. There has not actually been a high level of edit warring on this issue, by comparison to some other popular music articles. I count only 3 changes/reverts to the genre in the last week. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It isnt well defined, that's common sense. Green day are not 'recognised' as anything and multiple sources provided multiple views, MOS says general terms in the genre box and in this case that is simply the best thing to do as it covers the 6 or so different rock genres this can be cited (Allmusic say rock, pitchfork and digitalspy say power-pop, NME says post-punk, Spin says pop-punk etc etc etc). You cannot just pick and choose which you want to appear from multiple POVs. The current genres were actually changed by a genre fiddling ip might i add. --neon white talk 11:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority of source describe the album as punk rock, and almost all the rest describe it as some derivative or subgenre of punk rock. I don't think we need to go as general as rock. Punk rock would suffice for the infobox. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is simply not true, i listed some important sources above. I have yet to come across one that describes the album as punk rock. Power-pop, punk rock, post-punk, pop-punk are all sub genre of rock music not of punk rock music. Punk rock is entirely unsourced and nothing more than personal opinion at this stage. In order to stop there being half a dizen genres listed it's better to cover them all which requires a general genre as specified in the guidelines. --neon white talk 16:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Allmusic: "the band manages to have 21st Century Breakdown work on a grand scale without losing either their punk or pop roots" (categorizes it under "alternative pop/rock", "punk-pop", "punk revival", and "alternative pop/rock")
• Kerrang: "Popular punk is a genre steeped in conformity, one that doesn't really care to bother itself with big ideas or grand gestures. 21st Century Breakdown, though, does away with all this with an opening track called Song of the Century."
• NME: "Green Day: Grand Masters of the post-punk concept album" / "We’re left with a sprawling, obvious, über-commercial, stoopid punk-pop album that might just stop five million American idiots from voting for a war-mongering Republican baby-slaughterer when they grow up."
• The Observer: "New producer Butch Vig has both focused Green Day's stadium-sized punk rock and embellished it with flamboyance and muscle cribbed from either side of the 60s pop and rock divide."
• Rolling Sone: "All over the album, Green Day combine punk thrash with their newfound love of classic-rock grandiosity — one moment they're quoting Bikini Kill, the next they're wailing away like it's the final minute of 'Jungleland.'" / "But the highlights are the rage-fueled punk anthems."
• Spin: "Yet most tracks that start off on unfamiliar terrain generally return to barre-chord-and-bashing core, almost as if Green Day are antsy about not sounding like Green Day for too long."

There is clearly enough here to support punk rock being an applicable genre, not to mention the fact that Green Day are nigh-universally acknowledged as a punk rock/pop punk band and credited with spearheading the 1990s punk revival. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also sources for a million other genres too. "universally acknowledged" is your personal opinion and of no relevence to wikipedia. Keep it general is a good guideline for albums such as this that have multiple styles non of them primary or definitive. --neon white talk 11:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A million? Really...I doubt it. I read every review linked in the article and they only mentioned a handful of rock genres: Punk, alternative, pop/pop rock, just plain "rock", and some of them mention influences of classic rock ie. The Who. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Day is a rock band. So, their albums are rock. Everything that is punk, punk rock, pop punk, alternative or else are deviances from rock. So it's rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.0.130 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not original research, for its information. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 22:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that Green Day themselves qualify this album as rock, there should not even be a discussion about this. And there's no need of a source to know that punk rock, pop punk and alternative are deviances from rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.0.10 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

←There's something in the rules about only taking genre information from outside sources, and not the band themselves. --98.217.61.141 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "Green Day THEMSELVES qualify this album as rock"...if you read the "Structure, themes, and musical style" section you'll see Tré Cool saying "It's important to us that we're still looked at as a punk band. It was our religion, our higher education" and Billie Joe Armstrong saying "Ground zero for me is still punk rock. I like painting an ugly picture. I get something uplifting out of singing some of the most horrifying shit you can sing about. It's just my DNA." So even if we were going just by the band members (which we don't, we go mainly by secondary sources), there's a clear case to be made for "punk rock". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then what about when Armstrong says he tells his wife Sorry that for the last 15 years all I've talked about is being in a rock band in the May 28, 2009 edition of the Rolling Stone mag? It's not because they've been influenced by punk rock that the album is punk rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.0.245 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

...if you've been in a punk rock band, then by default, you have also in a rock band... just like you are also, by default, in a band or musical group or group of musicians. So... you really didn't prove anything there? I want to be civil here, but come on. If the band and a large number of sources including mainstream music critics consider it a "punk rock" or "pop-punk" album or both... list those, and don't worry about it. :P If you really need to clarify on any nebulousness of genre or style, then simply do so in the article proper, instead of warring over the infobox. (Am I the only one who's starting to think that music infoboxes on WP might need to start including a "blended/nebulous/multuple descriptions" genre option just to avoid silly back-and-forths like this?)

Also - always keep in mind that a.) if something is "pop-punk", that... kind of implies it's also punk, just like punk also means that it's rock (but rock, being a more general genre, doesn't imply punk or pop-punk even in influences, and neither would "pop") b.) genres evolve; 20 years ago, this probably wouldn't have been considered "punk", much the same way Beatles' music is now qualified as "classic" rock (since rock has expanded as a genre considerably since then). This doesn't mean it's not currently what the vast majority of music professionals (including both bands and critics) consider "punk", though, just like dork no longer just refers to "whale penis" and "geek" no longer refers to a kind of carnival freak sideshow star... words can and do change meaning over time, and this includes genre labels, c.) a band or album or even a song, can include more than just one' genre. This is exactly why new genre labels ("punk rock", "celtic punk", "pop-punk", "stadium rock" just to name a few) are always being invented, and it's also why one probably shouldn't worry too awfully muchabout labels, and d.) an article on the interwebs that has a genre classification that you don't 100% like is not the end of the world. ;) --70.118.24.50 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue was resolved rather satisfactorily about 5 months ago. Discussion about the nature of various genres aside, we go with what the sources say. And if you'll notice, we are discussing it in the "article proper"...all of the sources brought up above come directly from the "Themes and composition" and "Critical reception" sections. We are simply trying to make sure that the infobox reflects the content presented in the body of the article.

• Am I the only one who's starting to think that music infoboxes on WP might need to start including a "blended/nebulous/multuple descriptions" genre option just to avoid silly back-and-forths like this?

You should've seen what happened when we removed the "genre" field from artist & album infoboxes altogether (it was last year, if I recall correctly). That was a brouhaha if I've ever seen one. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This band is not "Alternative"

This band is not "alternative" therefore I am removing the term. --DavisHawkens (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude, yes they are alternative rock. And this album has alternative rock in it. leave it up there. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic and Pitchfork both refer to it as alternative or alt rock in some capacity, though these are the only 2 reviewers that do. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a lot of bands, let alone albums, are increasingly hard to classify as "just" one genre or the other... and many (Green Day is actually kind of one of them, combining various flavors of rock and punk with various flavors of pop, and occasionally really random elements like tracks that have the rhythm of ballroom dance, or include a lullaby - like the one that opens this album, in fact) are actually arguably "multi-genre" or blended genre or nebulous in genre. Many times these bands or albums will be referred to by one or more genre labels, and sometimes people will find it so hard to classify (or so utterly outside the mainstream) that it just gets labeled as "alternative" or as including "alternative" elements. So... yeah. It's neither wrong nor right to call Green Day "alterative", in truth. "Alternative" is a generic or catch-all term even more so than "rock" is. ;) --70.118.24.50 (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a punk album. They haven't been punk since 2000 and i feel it should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.133.198 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely you have a source to support your claim that "They haven't been punk since 2000"? Oh wait, of course you don't, because it's entirely your own opinion which is contradicted by multitudes of reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

21st century breakdown

I come from Italy and in some places, like our iTunes store, we can find that 21st century breakdown (the song) became the third single from the album on the 16th of October. I think that East Jesus Nowhere (not released yet) will be the third single for UK and US, whereas 21st century breakdown is the third single for the rest of the world, isn't it? --Pasqual 8 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources to back up this assertion. The only reliable sources we have state that "East Jesus Nowhere" is the third single, and say nothing about there being different singles for different geographic regions or about "21st Century Breakdown" being released as a single at all. Per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, we cannot make this claim unless we have reliable sources from which to cite the information. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates in references

According to WP:MOSNUM, we should keep consistency within references. Right now, there's no consistency, with accessdates having a different format than other dates in the references. Should we make all the dates read like 2005-04-03 or April 3, 2005? Timmeh 03:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed that. The references all use the same format throughout now, in the YYYY-MM-DD format, which is in line with MOSNUM. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FA checklist

It's time to start working toward making this a featured article. Here are some improvements Rafablu88 suggested before we nominate it for FA.

• Find more print media. I'm sure the album's had loads of coverage. Because someone might mention "comprehensiveness".
• Then use print media to expand sections (mainly writing and recording usually).
• It's quote heavy. Paraphrase anything and everything that is not left-field or 'special'.
• Another photo and a sound sample would be nice.
• Bit more detail on specific songs in Themes and composition.
• Add a small section on Awards/Tours (rule of thumb: if they win nothing and no further (re-)releases happen, then don't add a section simply on tours unless the tour is called "The 21StCB Tour" or smth).
• Finally get someone totally ignorant and neutral to do a copyedit and find any tiny MoS thing that needs sorting. I'm afraid I'm not anymore as I've been exposed to the article over and over again.
• PEER REVIEW
• Check the rationales of media.
• Check the reliability of the sources (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches).

Timmeh 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder and request: Nobody's done anything substantial with the article yet to get it to FAC. The article needs more print sources. If anyone could find some good comprehensive sources, that would be great. I'll try to find some myself, but I don't know how successful I'll be. And several devoted editors will get much more accomplished than one. If anyone has any time to devote to getting this article to FA status, we could use your help. Just look at the checklist above, and if you can eliminate any one of the bulleted concerns, you'd be a great help. Thanks. Timmeh 23:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Peaks

Why don't you mention that the album has peaked at no.3 in Wallonia and at no.2 in Flanders? [22] [23] --82.50.112.240 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gold Status

The record has gone gold in Belgium, both Wallonia and Flanders. I think you should add it.--Pasqual 8 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mike Dirnt vandal

Just an FYI, I reported our problem with the Mike Dirnt-loving IP vandal to WP:ANI#Persistent non-static IP vandal, resulting in indefinite semi-protection to this and some of the other affected articles (The Blackout, East Jesus Nowhere, Sum 41, and The Network). Hopefully this will help deter the pest and make them give up, or at least come here to the talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

more articles for individual songs

well the titlekinda says it all. more of the individual songs need their own article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.232.32 (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. They don't pass WP:NSONG - they are not notable enough. kiac. (talk-contrib) 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you notice all the songs that get a separate article are singles released to the radio.Jason Shew (shewy) (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of chart succession boxes and additional tracklistings

Hi. I had recently removed the chart succession boxes and additional tracklistings from this article; as my changes were reverted I am posting here to explain myself. Chart succession boxes are unnecessary because a)they are completely arbitrary (why do they only exist for number one albums and not number 21?), b)redundant to an article that lists all the number-one charting albums of a year, and c)inappropriate—these boxes are more apt for something like a position of office, not a chart position.

I removed the additional tracklistings because the information is completely trivial. As years go by, this album will be reissued in N no of formats, with M different tracklistings; it isn't our duty to list them all . Further, none of these tracklistings have been discussed by reliable sources, so again, this information is not notable enough to include.—indopug (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, notability explicitly does not limit article content, merely topics for stand-alone articles. The various tracklistings do not have to demonstrate independent notability, they merely have to be verifiable, and they most certainly are. It makes little difference if the album may be re-released in the future with different tracklists; that doesn't mean we should exclude pertinent, verifiable information from the article now. And actually, at least one of the bonus tracks ("A Quick One While He's Away") is discussed by a reliable source (Rolling Stone) in the "Writing and recording" section. Whether the information on various editions is trivial is a matter of opinion, and I venture that you're in the extreme minority in thinking so. As for the succession boxes, I have not seen any consensus anywhere that they are unnecessary or arbitrary and should be deprecated. WP:ALBUMS and WP:FILMS both still use succession boxes in many articles, including FAs. Your edits are based on opinion and go against widespread practice. I doubt you will be able to build any consensus for removing them, particularly the tracklists. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because information is verifiable, doesn't mean it has to be included. How exactly does listing these bonus tracks improve the article in subjectively discussing the album in question? As for the chart succession boxes, there is no guideline that mandatarily requires its usage either. So it is indeed worth discussing about. (in fact I remember a talk page discussion in one of the projects where chart succession boxes were widely criticised as unnecessary and inappropriate. And again, you haven't demonstrated the explicit advantages of including these boxes.—indopug (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the succession boxes than I am about the tracklists. If you can demonstrate a consensus that says succession boxes aren't valuable, then I have no objection to their removal. The bonus tracks are significant because several of them were recorded along with the album, and in the case of the cover songs they demonstrate the type of music that the band was listening to in conjunction with its recording (again, see the "Writing and recording" section). In addition, it's not up to us to decide that only the basic, 18-track version of the album is significant. We include information on re-releases, additional tracks, etc. as their use has become standard practice in the industry. It matters little that they "improve the article in subjectively discussing the album in question", just as listing all of the recording engineers and other production personnel matters little in "subjectively discussing the album in question". How does listing the album's length "subjectively discuss the album in question"? These are all details of the album itself, and warrant inclusion inasmuch as they are verifiable. The subjective discussion, of course, takes place in the prose paragraphs. If you really get down to it, having a tracklist at all doesn't "improve the article in subjectively discussing the album in question", yet there is near-universal consensus that they are not only valuable, but pretty much essential. There also seems to be widespread consensus that bonus tracks for various editions of an album are worth inclusion, particularly when we have the {{tracklist}} template that can display them without making the section excessively long. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI:discussion about succession boxes. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Because this is a rock opera, I think a plot summary would improve the article greatly. The trouble is that I have found very few sources that would back up a section like that, so it would be unsourced. Still, I think it's very important to include at least a general statement concerning just what the story is about. Friginator (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is already "a general statement concerning just what the story is about". See the "Themes and composition" section. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Its loose narrative follows a young couple named Christian and Gloria through the challenges present in the U.S. following the presidency of George W. Bush" is not a summary of a story, nor is it an accurate representation of what the story is about. The source backing that statement up is from before the album was even released. It doesn't even name the characters. Shouldn't there be an actual, accurate plot outline in the article? One that describes the characters and events present on the album? That definitely seems like something worth including for a page about a rock opera. Friginator (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Such a section would have to depend heavily on reliable sources since, as with American Idiot, not all of the events of the narrative are explicitly detailed in the lyrics; many allegories and other lyrical devices are used which leave parts of the story up to interpretation, and listeners will likely draw their own different conclusions. But if the details are explicitly laid out by Armstrong in interviews, etc., or if reliable secondary sources have made their own analyses of it, then those can certainly be detailed here. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that there is as much of a story in 21st Century Breakdown as there is in American Idiot. It talks about Christian and Gloria but there is no storyline as such; but there is in AI. I hope this helps somehow. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 14:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's vague, but it's there. It's basically the beliefs of the two characters being tested. It's about a crisis of faith. For example, Act II clearly describes a violent riot sparked by religious protest. It begins with a song written about religious protest ("East Jesus Nowhere"), with the sound of preaching heard. "Peacemaker" describes a violent, out of control situation. After the interlude ("Last of the American Girls"), "Murder City" describes the two characters feeling helpless and guilty over what has just happened (I'm wide awake after the riot, Christian's crying in the bathroom, etc). It's that kind of thing. A lot like the Who's Quadrophenia, which was lyrically vague but still had a clear story. Friginator (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't a narrative, but it's not like most novels or films in which the characters, action, and events are clearly and obviously depicted. Like The Armory Wars narrative depicted in the lyrics of Coheed and Cambria, the story of 21st Century Breakdown is told largely through metaphors, allegories, and other lyrical devices that make most of the events vague and open to interpretation. The description you've just given smacks of original research because it's based on your own interpretation of the lyrics; other listeners may interpret the story quite differently (for example, "a violent, out-of-control situation" could infer almost anything). Without reliable sources giving the band's (or I guess just Armstrong's) account of the lyrics' meaning and the events of the narrative, or without secondary sources giving their own analyses and interpretations, we as editors can't in good conscience attempt to piece together a "plot summary" of the album ourselves without sufficient sources to back it up. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Songs Awards

i think the Grammy award is on 2010 not on 2009. only MTV VMA awards is on 2009.. i think121.54.32.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

Certifications

The album has gone Gold in Norway. Here's the source. I added the info in the article. Gold certification in Norway --Pasqual 8 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to actually cite the source in the article itself, not on the talk page. Put the citation next to the certification, and you're done :) --IllaZilla (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a bunch of unsourced info in the "chart performance" table. Specifically, there're no references for 3 of the chart positions (Argentinian, Belgian, & Middle Eastern), 5 of the certifications (Belgian, European, French, Irish, Italian, & Middle Eastern), or anything at all in the "Sales/Shipments" column. These either need citations or they need to be removed. I imagine that some of the sales figures are extrapolated from the certifications, but that's kind of pointless: either there's a source for exactly/approximately how many units the album's sold, or there isn't. If there isn't, there's no point to these figures because the List of music recording certifications is already linked (by a piped link from "sales thresholds") at the top of the Certifications column. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you satisfied by the sources I provided about the certifications in Ireland and France? --Pasqual 8 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. My problem was with unsourced entries. As long as there's a source, I'm copacetic. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Is this album really punk rock? i don't see it at all, Know Your Enemy is kinda punk rock, but that's only one song, for example, "iViva La Gloria!" is not punk at all, none of the songs on here are really punk. Just my opinion, i think Hard rock should be added as one of the album's genres, and it's not really pop punk either, alternative rock should stay though. --Chickenguy12 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Genres are not based on editor opinions, but on reliable sources. Please read the "Themes and composition" section of the article. The infobox must reflect the contents of the article, and the genres/styles of the album are discussed in that section. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion, from what everybody calls punk rock, this is not punk rock, from what everyone calls pop punk, this is not pop punk, and from what everybody calls hard rock, this is hard rock, think about it that way, also there's no reliable source for the genres that are listed right now, how do i know that's not just some editor's opinion. --Chickenguy12 (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, read the "Themes and composition" section. There are plenty of references there describing the album's musical style. You can also read some of the reviews referenced in the reception section, which also discuss the styles and classify it amongst various genres. "By what everybody calls punk rock/pop punk/hard rock" clearly reads as "By what I call punk rock/pop punk/hard rock"... Again, the infobox genres are not based on the opinions of editors such as yourself. They reflect the article text, which in turn reflects the sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The "realiable sources" like Almusic don't care too much about punk rock. They don't know how to define it. 21stCB has only 1 punk rock song in it (Horseshoes and Handgrenades) and only a few pop punk songs. I don't why we need to put Punk Rock as a genre. Alternative Rock describes the album the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revilal90 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant. Only the sources matter to an encyclopedia, and a number of reliable sources describe the album as punk rock (in addition to other genres). These sources are reliable and are cited in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Last of the American Girls

{{editsemiprotected}} Take in count that Last of the American Girls is going to be released as a single. Felipe Mancheno (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Do you have a source? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Here its the source, taken from [24]

"03-25 - GREEN DAY MTV VIDEO EXCLUSIVE

MTV is proud to present the Exclusive Global Premiere of Green Day's latest video, "Last Of The American Girls" from the multi platinum album '21st Century Breakdown', on Thursday, April 1st, 2010. The band is about to embark on a worldwide stadium tour which will see them playing to hundreds of thousands of fans around the globe!"

THNKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmj492 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A music video and a single are not the same thing. Many music videos are made for songs that are never released as actual singles, and many singles are released that never have music videos made. Green Day themselves have made a number of videos for songs that were never released in single format: "Last Ride In", "Macy's Day Parade", "Maria", "Poprocks & Coke", and "St. Jimmy" all come to mind. They have also released a number of singles that never had music videos: "She", "J.A.R.", "I Fought the Law", and "Shoplifter". Bottom line, music video ≠ single. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, then you can check this either: [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmj492 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a single, and you're wrong if you say it isn't. It is on iTunes as a single, and if that's not enough, I'm giving to you another source: "Green Day will be filming a video for their next single “Last of the American Girls” sometime soon with director Marc Webb, keep a lookout for it here in the near future."

And check it here: [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.114.181 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god, with all this stuff why dont you just go on and put Last of the American Girls on the single list. I mean, come on!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.7.125 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Posible Single Artwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.60.174 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The link is broken, the site is unofficial, and "possible" ≠ "confirmed". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ok but What about the single?!!!!!!! its there you can see it. You can download it on iTunes,so why dont you put it on the single list????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.7.125 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is your proof: See May 11. Happy now?--Legoguy92 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, only mentions it as an "impacting song" (whatever that means), not a single. Let me reiterate: a single is released in its own format (typically a CD), separate from the album, and generally has B-sides, its own artwork, etc. Merely having a music video does not classify a song as a single. There can still be a separate article on the song, but it has to meet the notability requirements, mainly having enough secondary source material available to justify a stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

it DOES mean it's a single, ok? David1287 (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Fortunately the definitions of terms aren't determined by your say-so. A single is a single; if it hasn't been released in single format (which it hasn't), then it's not a single. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Impacting Song" means that it is available for radio play. Whether it means it is a radio-only single or a commercial single doesn't make a difference, it is a single all the same. --Legoguy92 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow the itunes link [27]!!! It was already released as a digital single on 05/02/2010. The song has a video, is being heard on the radios, it has an artwork[28] showing a girl making a graffiti. Face it Last of the American Girls is the 5th single of 21st century breakdown.You can also check this links [29] [30]190.155.7.125 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Last.fm and greendayauthority.com are not reliable sources. Last.fm content is user-contributed, and greendayauthority is an unofficial fan site. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Face it even though it is a single and everyone knows we can't post anything because this is wikipedia the website anyone can edit... as long as it falls under these rules: You Have citations, You're willing to post it 50 times over and over again, You don't piss the people who can and will delete the page, And as long as your page is in favor and agrees with the opion of the people that delete EVERYTHING. so i say one wikipedia gets off their high horse we stop "complaining" (as they call it) by the way here i a page that states it as the single released on april 1st and info on the video and the single stating it was released after the title single, 21st Century Breakdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.60.174 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever point you are trying to make, it is totally incomprehensible. Look: if a single for "Last of the American Girls" is released, then it will be added to this article and a separate article for the song will probably be created. There's absolutely no problem with that. But since no single has yet been released, and we have no prospective details like a release date, track listing, etc., we can afford to wait. Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadline, so we can wait until we actually have something to write meaningful encyclopedic content about and reference to quality sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OK so what about the digital release in itunes? Hello!! It is right there if you just folow the link. Itunes is a reliable sourse. LAST OF THE AMERICAN GIRLS IT IS ALREADY A SINGLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.7.125 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

←An iTunes download is not a single either. All it is is the one track. There's no difference between it and just downloading the one track from the album's listing. The song has not been released in single format and has not charted. If/when it is released, it will undoubtely chart and have its own separate release with B-sides (as do all of the band's other singles). --IllaZilla (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Not all singles have a B-side. Examples of this are: She, and Walking Contradiction. Some singles can also be released on itunes as Foo Fighters did with Cheer Up, Boys (Your Make Up Is Running) Felipe Mancheno 18:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmj492 (talk • contribs)

East Jesus Nowhere does not have any B-Sides, is it now suddenly not a single? Songs do not always chart, are they not singles? The fact of the matter is that your argument is flawed. While the download linked to is "no different than downloading the one track from the album's listing," the same can be said for many iTunes singles. The song is still available as a separate singular download, with its own listing and its own artwork. If that does not constitute a single, I don't know what does. Just because it doesn't have any B-sides doesn't discredit the fact that it is a single. --Legoguy92 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not a single because it has not been released in single format. Singles generally have B-sides...nearly all of Green Day's do. This is Green Day...if "East Jesus Nowhere" is actually put out as a single, surely it will chart. The fact that iTunes is offering the song as a download separate from the main album (and in only 1 market, apparently...it's not available as such here in the US) does not suddenly make it a single. Like I said earlier, this is Green Day for pete's sake, and this song is from a highly successful album. If they're actually releasing it as a single, then it'll chart, it'll be available as a single in most major markets, and we'll have numerous sources to verify it other than just a single iTunes download in 1 market. Time will settle this issue for us, and since we are not the news and have no deadline we can wait for these things to actually happen. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, I really don't care if an article is on Wikipedia, I was just curious as to how many singles were released for the album. That said, it is incredibly likely for the song to be released as a single (as it already has its own video/artwork), and I do believe that it deserves its own article as it is a notable song from the album. As you said yourself, time will tell, and until then the Green Day fans really should calm down on this article.--Legoguy92 (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just scoured greenday.com's news posts going back to late February and found no mention of a single release for "Last of the American Girls". No cover art, no track listing, no release date...nothing. A music video, yes, but absolutely no mention of a single release in either vinyl, CD, or digital formats. I also checked the U.S. iTunes and Amazon.com's music and MP3 stores...nada. It appears that, if a single for the song has been or is to be released, it is not in the U.S. market. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that... try searching ASIN B003M0HVIO on Amazon.--Legoguy92 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

[http://www.amazon.com/Last-American-Girls-Maxi-Green/dp/B003M0HVIO/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1275768705&sr=8-1-fkmr1 This?] Interesting it didn't come up when I searched "Last of the American Girls". Anyway, I guess it's worth waiting to see if such a single actually does come out, but it sure doesn't look like it's coming out in the States. In any case we can't cite Amazon, so we'll have to wait for other sources to report on it I suppose. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It actually has a track listing too, two B-sides, both are alternate recordings of songs from the album. Yeah, it's an import, but it looks pretty legit to me. We'll just have to wait until the 22nd to see.--Legoguy92 (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hate to reply to myself, but according to Billboard the single is out and has charted in the US. If that isn't enough, there really isn't anything else. I understand you want 100% sources or whatever, but in the day and age, more and more artists come out with releases and just not announce them. This is just getting silly, for some reason or another you just don't want to give into the fact that the song is indeed a single. Whether the song is released as a physical single in the US or not doesn't really matter. 21 Guns never got a physical release in the US but it is still a single. Just because it's not released in the US doesn't mean it doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoguy92 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The video was released on MTV, there is a cover art for it, they have it as a SINGLE on iTunes and Amazon, and it got radio airplay. Why would radios play it if it is not a single? I mean there are lots of songs that are good and dont get airplay because they arent singles. But last of the american girls is a single, no doubt about it. Plus gonna leave some links here that proove itis: [http://www.amazon.com/Last-American-Girls-Maxi-Green/dp/B003M0HVIO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1283401965&sr=8-2] [31] [32] For knowledge to advance sometimes people need to admit they were wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.42.61.90 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In Germany, it has also been a single! [http://www.amazon.de/Last-American-Girls-Green-Day/dp/B003M0HVIO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1284156533&sr=1-1 source] It has been released on June 4, 2010 and reached No. 45 source, making it a single... So please add it! --79.216.157.204 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a single, this is the primary song that they have been playing at most major events such as the jimmy fallon show, Source:http://www.greendayauthority.com/news/686/video-of-green-day-performing-lotag-on-late-night/ and Monday night football,source: http://www.greendayauthority.com/news/686/video-of-green-day-performing-lotag-on-late-night/ also it is being sold as a CD single on most internet websites. It really isn't that difficult to realize it is a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

it is being sold as a CD single on most internet websites — Source? The only proof of this that has been presented so far is a single listing on Amazon listing for an import CD (possibly from Germany?). It is not available as a CD single from any US retailers, nor as a digital single on the US iTunes, from what I've seen. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to name a few, [33]

and they wouldn't be just playing a random song from their album at almost all major televised events they play at if LOTAG is not a single. They don't go around playing viva la Gloria or before the lobotomy. And green day rarely makes a music video of a song that is not meant to be considered a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just the same listing we've seen before. It doesn't matter what it's "considered", a single refers to a format of release, not a music video or a song played on radio. A song is a musical composition, a single is a release format. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the single from, "Dookie" "She" it was a radio only single. No CD single was ever made or released at least i couldn't find one(Source: [34]) yet it is considered a single. Also, she had no music video associated with it and LOTAG does, not saying that makes it a single but it does lean toward it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"She" was released commercially as a single in 1995, which is why it is included on International Superhits! (on which every track was a single with the exceptions of the new songs "Maria" and "Poprocks and Coke", and "Macy's Day Parade" which was their radio airplay song at the time). True, no music video was made, but that is not the only Green Day single for which that is the case (see "Welcome to Paradise", also from Dookie) and as has already been stated, a music video and a single are not the same thing, though they often accompany one another (Green Day also has a music video for "Last Ride In", which was never released as a single). It isn't surprising that you'd have trouble finding the "She" single on Google, as it was released in 1995 (the internet, though popular then, not being quite what it is now). However, one would expect that if a single were actually released for "Last of the American Girls", that information on it would be readily available through a multitude of sources, Green Day now being a multiplatinum worldwide superstar band and dozens upon dozens of music publications covering their activities. Yet all we can turn up is 1 solitary listing for some sort of import single, with none of the pertinent information that would help us actually identify it as a single or write anything informative about it: What label has released it? What format it is available in (CD single, 7" vinyl, digital download)? What markets is it available in (apparently not the U.S.)? What tracks are on it? None of this information appears to be available at present, and of course one would expect such information to be readily available concerning the latest single by an internationally chart-topping band currently gracing the covers of music publications worldwide. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize that a music video does not make a single. But as I stated earlier "She" was never released as a CD single. That is one of the points you are arguing about LOTAG. LOTAG is played on the radio as opposed to other Green day non-singles it has specific artwork and is played on most live televised events as of late. Who gives a care if it's not hugely publicized with thorough information regarding it. Why is this? BECAUSE IT'S NOT A POPULAR SONG!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and by the way here is the itunes download page for the song http://itunes.apple.com/be/album/last-american-girls-single/id352469049. Read the top of the page and tell me this song's not a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh one last thing you stated LOTAG must have bonus tracks to be considered a single. "She" contained no bonus or extra or B-side tracks as reported by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I never said it "must have bonus tracks", I said that we can't even find a track listing. The iTunes download appears to only be available in 1 market and is no different from downloading the song from the album's listing (it's not even available as a stand-alone track here in the States). "She" was in fact released as a CD-single (this image shows a CD single jewel case with cover art). Again, live performances, radio play, etc. do not constitute a single. A single is a format. It is a song released separately from the album as a CD, record, download, etc. It does, in fact, matter if it's publicized with significant info given about it, as otherwise info about it cannot be verified. You say it isn't a popular song, yet you make a big deal of pointing out that it's played at all of their televised appearances etc. Remember we're talking about one of the most popular rock band in the world right now. One would think that info on their latest single would be readily available, and we wouldn't have to scour international iTunes listings to argue its status based on a piece of artwork. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What about "when it's time"? That was released as a single only in the U.K. and yet is considered a single although not from 21st Century Breakdown but on it's own here on Wikipedia. Is it that big of a deal to consider LOTAG as a single? Why are you so opposed to the idea that maybe it doesn't fall under the category of a dictionary definition single? It has quite a few more qualifications as a single then "she" or "when it's time" (at least in my opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a discography link, http://www.greendaydiscography.com/singles.html Not sure if it will be considered "legit" as far as proof toward the song's validity as a single but here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And here's the songs fact sheet, http://www.greendaydiscography.com/lotag.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.139.145 (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Last Ride In" never got airplay or art cover. "She" and "LOTAG" did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.188.55.4 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the image of the jewelcase, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B003M0HVIO/ref=dp_otherviews_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&img=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.42.52.163 (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have one thing to say, if "Last of the American Girls" isn't a single, than neither is "East Jesus Nowhere", "21st Century Breakdown", or "When It's Time", i know there is a track listing for "21st Century Breakdown", but there's no source for it. That's my whole point, not saying this is a single, but if this isn't than "East Jesus Nowhere", "21st Century Breakdown", or "When It's Time" aren't either, think about it that way. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, most mainstream media outlets only consider singles as anything that gets released on the radio or promoted in some other fashion. Wikipedia, however, takes a more objective approach to defining a single. Basically anything released in a stand-alone format independent from an album is considered a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.187.98 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quit reverting my edits

Please stop reverting my edits on here, it's not like i'm vandilising it or anything, so please stop, it's gets so frustrating. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are technically incorrect. Template:Infobox album indicates to use {{Start date}} in the release date parameter; it is standard English grammar to use ";" as the deliminator in a list where entries contain commas, and you are completely ignoring the note to maintain alphabetical order in the personnel list. You other edits were petty, they were not really improving anything. BOVINEBOY2008 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, just quit, i'm sick of people getting on my ass, it's not like i'm vandilising. And how were my other edits petty? huh? And another thing, if you guys on here keep acting like assholes, no one is gonna want to join wikipedia, you guys are making me think about quiting, but that would probably be for the best since everybody on here hates my guts, i'm trying so hard to improve things on here, and it's obvious nothing i do is right. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but some of your edits are improvements, and some aren't. Like this, except for adding the word "their", the rest of it just made the wording worse. (A) "Cover" is not a proper noun and therefore isn't capitalized; (B) "originally perfomed by xxxx" is more descriptive than "xxxx cover". And this, you clearly don't realize that people are alphabetized by their last names, not first. If your edits make the article better, they're probably going to be left alone. But if they make the article worse, they're probably going to be reverted. If you don't want your contributions to be mercilessly edited by others, then don't submit them. I'm sorry, but that's the way Wikipedia works. It doesn't help matters when you call other editors "assholes" and tell them to stop "getting on my ass". Try to stay civil, and if your edit is reverted, take the issue here to the talk page to find out why. Be bold, but if you get reverted, discuss. That's the best way to learn around here. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Though one thing, it can't be by last name, because in Production, it goes Butch Vig, then Chris Lord-Alge, haha, i proved you wrong, think about it that way, i'm not as much of a dumbass as you people seem to think, another thing that's i think is stupid, even if i did an improvment, you guys just undo the whole edit, if i did just one thing wrong, just change what i did wrong and don't undo my whole edit, you guys act like you're my parents and i've done something so terrible, and i have every right to be mad cuz you guys treat me like shit. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But I haven't seen any of your edits being an improvement. Also, none of the entries in production or artists are sorted alphabetically, either first or last. You do not own your edits and we would appreciate it if you discussed your edits before editing again, see WP:BRD, emphasis on the discuss. BOVINEBOY2008 07:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe you should explain that so people don't get confused, and you should've seen my last edit as an improvment, since Elvis Presley did not originally do "That's All Right", he covered it, it was originally done by Arthur Crudup, you guys are just trying to find reasons to get on my ass, and don't say you're not. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chickenguy, nobody here has called you a "dumbass". We have simply pointed out that there are problems with some (not all) of your edits. Please watch the language; it's not a sign of civility. When your edit makes numerous changes, and most of them are unconstructive, it is easier for other editors to simply undo the edit and then go back to manually restore the 1 or 2 tweaks that were a net positive. With this edit, for example, it was much easier for me to revert the whole thing, then go back and change the 1 word that was an improvement, rather than go back through the whole article and manually reverse the 7 changes that weren't improvements. As for the production credits, they are not listed alphabetically for 2 reasons: (1) they are listed in order of significance...Butch Vig as the producer had a much more significant role in the creation of the album than Kenny Butler the drum tech; (2) the reason we had to institute alphabetical order for the band members was because we had a long-term problem with a single-purpose IP vandal whose agenda was to move Mike Dirnt to the top of the list in every Green Day-related article, apparently because Dirnt is his favorite member. That's why the article is indefinitely semi-protected. Again, saying things like "haha, i proved you wrong" doesn't indicate civility nor a collaborative spirit, and it certainly doesn't incline other editors to want to take your arguments seriously. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, edit summaries like this are completely unacceptable. You are now putting yourself in danger of being blocked, as you are testing both the civility policy and the 3 revert rule. I highly recommend that you refrain from editing the article for a while, and attempt to discuss the (perceived) content issues here on the talk page so that you do not find yourself being blocked for edit-warring and incivility. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead and block me, i really don't care anymore, and why the hell are you reverting my edit when i'm imrpoving it? Apparently you guys don't care that it's not correct. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and therefore don't have the power to block you, though I will certainly report your behavior if it continues in this manner. The article is, in fact correct. True, "That's All Right" was originally written and performed (as "That's All Right, Mama") by Arthur Crudup. However, Green Day's cover is not of Crudup's rendition of the song, it is of Elvis Presley's rendition. If it were a cover of Crudup's original version, it would be titled "That's All Right, Mama". Sometimes artists cover particular renditions of songs that are not the originals; for example, most artists who cover "Louie Louie" are covering The Kingsmen's 1963 rendition of the song (which is the most famous and well-known version), not the original 1957 Richard Berry version which is, by comparison, significantly lesser-known. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i'll try to calm down, i'm really sorry,i really don't wanna be blocked, i just got so mad, i hope you forgive me, i know you probably won't though, and btw, i don't think Arthur Crudup's and Elvis Presley's versions are any different, just the name was changed. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

←Have you actually compared them? Because they differ rather significantly. Crudup's original ([http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000S3PFDG/ sample here], full length but lesser quality here) is a blues number. Presley's version ([http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001QL76IQ/ sample here], full length here) is quite inventive, with an altered musical arrangement mixing in country and hillbilly and contributing to the origins of rockabilly and rock & roll (not detracting from the original, just saying it's different). You can listen to a sample of Green Day's version on iTunes if you don't own it, and compare to the Crudup & Presley versions. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't compared Elvis' or Arthur Crudup's version, though everybody says that the only difference is the name, sorry i didn't know. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)