Talk:¡Uno!

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by the nominator.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Green Day (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Day, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green DayWikipedia:WikiProject Green DayTemplate:WikiProject Green DayGreen Day articles

Album searching

It seems to be a problem for people searching for this in the search bar, due to the ¡ character. Perhaps !Uno! and/or Uno (Green Day album) could redirect into the article too --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion and have created them. →TSU ^tp* 06:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stones

They interviewed GD in the studio. Some could probably be added to the article. http://www.greendayauthority.com/articles/162/1/ Joseph507357 (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day authority is not a WP:RS, but there are many other articles. I have added the info in the Music section. Thank you! →TSU ^tp* 07:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lots of info from Billboard

tons of it https://www.dropbox.com/s/g7j5v3xnrkbi69e/Green%20Day%20Billboard%202012.pdf Joseph507357 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will see what can be added. Thanks for the link again! — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 02:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

music videos

Oh Love is being recorded. Others possible http://itunes.apple.com/de/preorder/uno!-deluxe-version/id543327776 Joseph507357 (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Hello. I know that it says the title can't be ¡Uno! because of technical reasons but I was just looking on the page for one of the Killer's christmas singles, ¡Happy Birthday Guadalupe! and see that they have the ¡ in the title. Didn't know if someone could look into it to see if it can be used for this article and when articles are made for ¡Dos! and ¡Tre!. Thanks. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to "¡Uno! (Green Day album). It seems to be fine at the moment. I hope I did not mess up any redirects. Please fix if I have. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the length of 'Let Yourself Go'

We have the length of the live version that they played in Texas, but we don't know the length of the studio version, so I deleted it. Billwhite93 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Title

I had raised this on the AfD as well, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special_characters this article needs to be renamed. please discuss below for a consensus on what name to be used. --DBig Xray 06:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre change

Can we please remove "punk rock" as genre? As it's redundant to add both "punk rock" and "pop punk", as "pop punk" is sub-genre of "punk rock". --2.100.179.62 (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are no one to predict genre by hearing 2 songs. I've illegal music of Stay the night and Carpe deim. Both are alternative bash as well as sounds like punk rock. Genre should not be added unless the album gets released or BJA sprungs up and says in his way, "you know...the genre is blah blah blah". TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length of "Nuclear Family"

Where did Wikipedia get the length for "Nuclear Family"? I thought I should discuss this before I remove it. I don't know if that length is for the live version or not, but if it is, it should be removed. BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkeye?

Does anyone know if the artwork on the cover(s) is a tribute to Plaid Retina's Pinkeye album? Don Retina has been real excited about it. The bands used to be label mates on Lookout. 12.39.179.62 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason White

I made a minor edit earlier today in the article, where I created a place called "Additional musicians" and moved Jason White's information there. Later, someone moved that information back to the list of band members.

I am a member of the official Green Day fan club. I have not seen anywhere on the Green Day and Idiot Club websites that Jason White is an official member. In the article Green Day he is credited as a touring and session musician. On the Green Day article talk page "Talk:Green Day" one person said there is not enough information to add Jason White to the list of band members.

While I personally don't want Jason White to be an official member of Green Day, that is not the reason I had removed him from the list of band members in the article. I did so because of the conversation on the Green Day article talk page and because I have not seen anywhere any confirmation of Jason White being an official member. I would have reversed the edit made but I think that might have been considered edit warring and I didn't want to do that. --Jesant13 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Membership notwithstanding, I added the full credits from Allmusic's entry for the album. Band membership on such releases doesnt need to be delineated. Dan56 (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think its actually more informative now. --Jesant13 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes seemed to omit personnel and the remaining seemed to be missing the credits verified by Allmusic (e.g. Billy Joe Armstrong, cover photo, composer) While delineating band members is a novel approach, they are collectively credited, Green Day, as the producer, so the bold heading would look a bit silly with an em dash "producer" next to it. Those non-index headings are unnecessary; the members have their respective articles to be linked to, their contributions should be noted in the article's body, and this reverting back and forth between IPs and other users over Jason White being part of the band or not just makes it more contentious. Dan56 (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm reciting a soliloquy here. Would you mind justifying your edits for a change before actually seeing if your right enough to introduce them to the article? Your change here kept the unsourced Aus. and Eur. dates, and the others, all of which belong in the body of the article; the sourced release dates are in the release section. The point of the lead is the summarize the most important aspects of the body. You want to improve this article, then consider the fact that no featured quality album article would be nominated and passed if it elaborated on such a minor aspect. Like the infobox, only the earliest release date being noted makes sense, and more specific release history should be elsewhere in the article (Template:Infobox album#Released): "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section." BTW, you should look up "through" here, so you'd understand that it's not the most appropriate term in the context of the lead sentence. Stop REVERTING and TALK here. I'm tired of going to your talk page and seeing you continue to make contradictory edits. Talk pages are the forum for this, not repetitive edit summaries for reverting. Dan56 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your comment of leaving it for now, the current revision should be left for now, for both our sakes. This has developed into a content dispute, and we both seem to have three reverts with the recent changes (WP:3RR). Dan56 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not justifying your changes after I justified mine. If you disagree with my reasoning, take it up at the talk page where I've invited you several times, not by edit summaries that express opinions like "is very relavent to the article" or "actually doesn't really need to be here", none of which cite any Wikipedia guideline or policy, which I am doing. This response seems like repeating the previous edit summary in the article. Dan56 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While this article is far from being one, featured quality articles strictly mention the earlist release date, generally in the first sentence, which is simpler. At least that leading sentence in Uno is as good as it can be. Dan56 (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uno

you said that i should stop re adding it to that page but i never added it before? so we could just add him to both like how green day is in the band and a producer and im pretty sure it was intended to be good and isnt bad or close to vandalism

Sorry, I mistook you for someone with a similar name who was introducing similar changes before. Contributors should only be listed once, and the currect format suits the article best, as the band is collectively credited for one thing, while each member is credited for separate things. Separating the band from the other contributors isnt necessary. Dan56 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your text. Dan56 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Former Single

http://greendayunodostrelyrics.blogspot.com/ there is a picture from a Green Day live show showing the tracks for all three albums. And it seems the ones with stars were to be singles so it seems that Carpe Diem was originally supposed to be a single instead of Oh Love. But it seems that this is what the singles were originally supposed to be for the trilogy. So uno had 1 song switch up so I thought I would share this. BlackDragon 19:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cover

The Cover is not the oficial cover, can you put it rigth? --186.137.196.134 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally right, this is not the correct artwork as it can be seen in this video. I'll try to fix it. KYwzor (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]