Template talk:Blink-182

Listing singles by album

What do you think about this idea? I was going to do it, but it seems like a big change since it makes the template kind of long. Opinions? Disagreements? If no one opposes, then I'll do it, but if they do, then that's fine, too. --- Fantasy Dragon (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dumpweed single

Please do not change this from "Dumpweed (Live)" to just "Dumpweed". The studio version of "Dumpweed" from Enema of the State was never a single, but the live version from The Mark, Tom, and Travis Show (The Enema Strikes Back!) was. That's why in this list of singles it appears AFTER "Man Overboard" (also from The MTT Show), instead of it being grouped with the Enema singles. Also, if you go to the article for "Dumpweed", it states right there that it was LIVE and not studio. Thank you. --- Fantasy Dragon (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Dumpweed (Live version), so now there's no need to link it as [[Dumpeed|Dumpweed (Live)]], which should save some time and trouble. --- Fantasy Dragon (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the article we explain that is a live single, doesn't need the title (Live version), (song), (live)... The title is only Dumpweed. OffsBlink (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is not an article on it so we don't know that it's live. The article should either be restored or it should say it's live here. Weluvjezza (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lemmings

This should be in the EP section not the singles section

Why must the 'Singles' section always consist of those that were made into articles?

This is the REAL order:

• M+M's
  
• Wasting Time
  
• Lemmings
  
• Dammit
  
• Apple Shampoo
  
• Dick Lips
  
• Josie (Everything's Gonna Be Fine)
  
• What's My Age Again?
  
• All the Small Things
  
• Adam's Song
  
• Man Overboard
  
• Dumpweed (Live)
  
• The Rock Show
  
• First Date
  
• Stay Together for the Kids
  
• I Won't Be Home for Christmas
  
• Feeling This
  
• I Miss You
  
• Down
  
• Always
  
• Not Now
  

Other Songs:

• Anthem Part 2
  
• Another Girl, Another Planet
  

TDW ✉ 09:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a navigation template. If there is no article there is no need for its inclusion. The purpose is to simply ease navigation between related pages. Complete chronologies should be detailed in discography sections, but not the navigation box. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Which one is more suitable?

the current version (where it lists all the singles with the studio album) or the less complex one? -- 124.184.110.93 (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The version with many sub-sections has a number of problems:

1. It contains text that does not link anywhere (like "Lemmings" and "M+Ms") and links that are redirects to other articles (like "Dumpweed"). This is a navigation template, not a discography; it should only contain links to existing WP articles.
2. Grouping the links together in this (sub-sectioning) way is actually less organized: It forces certain links ("Man Overboard", "I Won't Be Home for Christmas", "Not Now") to be divorced from the rest of the band's singles and placed into a weird "other songs" section, when in fact they are singles and should be grouped with the band's other singles (thus the navbox organizes the singles in the same way that the "chronology" parameter of the singles infobox navigates between them, resulting in a unified system of navigation).
3. Separating the albums/singles into multiple sub-sections makes the template unnecessarily long and with a lot of unused horizontal space. Again, since this is a navigation template and not a discography, there is no reason for this.
4. The "less complex" version is cleaner, less cluttered, groups articles of like types (studio albums, singles) together instead of unnecessarily separating them into multiple lines/sections, and mirrors the format used for many of our Featured Article topics (see Metallica, Slayer, and Sex Pistols). It also leaves out non-links, redirects, and articles that are only tangentially related to the main topic.

Finally, keep in mind that you do not own this template, and that "I like how it looks" and "It's been this way for a long time" are not valid arguments against the points I have listed above. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But how about pages like 30 Seconds to Mars, Lostprophets, and Sum 41?--124.183.184.21 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What about them? None of them are featured articles. I pointed out featured articles as they represent Wikipedia's best (peer-reviewed) work. All of the problems I listed above could easily apply to those 3 templates (30StM, Lostprophets, Sum 41) as well; Just because those templates are disorganized and treat their links like a discography doesn't mean this one should too. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I created a template without reading your previous discussion and I realize that I should have checked this page out before I did. I created it with the name of all singles but decided to remove the names of the songs without WP articles when I read your answer above, thus avoiding issue 1 as listed above. I do not agree with you on issues 2,3 and 4. I see this way of organizing the songs as better simply because it avoids linking articles that the user might not be looking for and instead linking articles very relevant to the subject at hand, blink-182 singles. Singles not on any studio album can be seen under "other singles", which is precisely what they are, a fact that is omitted in the other navigation box. Just because one system is used for FA's doesn't mean that it is the best for every case, I'm sure you are aware of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. Nominate my navigation box for deletion if you think that I'm wrong but please explain why first. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for 2 separate navigation templates when there are not that many articles that are being dealt with. There are only 16 Wikipedia articles about Blink-182 songs/singles; It hardly warrants splitting off a separate template altogether. As for your arguments, it is not up to us to assume what readers might be looking for. A reader navigating their way through a list of the band's singles is just as likely to be interested in the non-album singles as the album ones (as a music fan, I sure would be). This template is for navigation, not notability. All the links in it are "very relevant to the subject at hand", or they wouldn't be in it. The OTHERSTUFF argument doesn't hold up because Blink-182 have a very simple discography, as do most musical artists. They are the norm, not the exception. It's not like they're {{The Beatles}} with hundreds of articles and a very complex discography to deal with. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)