Talk:Awesome as Fuck

requested move

International laws forbidd mass-media to use inadequate language when children are present . The word " FUCK " is one " slang " word that is classified on internet as children-related un-apropriate . Please consider BOTS to move the contents to Awesome ( music album ) Paul-188.25.29.238 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not censored to remove or hide content that some user find objectionable. Also, as far as I know there is no "international law" forbidding the use of naughty words on the internet. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion page and Wikipedia policy says not to erase or alter the contents :TRUE. Google and other search engine may rate wikiepdia as targetting adult .Paul188.25.29.238 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The talk page guidelines permit removal of a template once the issue has been dealt with. You did not even use the template correctly (observe the string of broken code it created). This article will not be moved to a "clean" title, because Wikipedia is not censored. Please do familiarize yourself with that policy, as well as with Wikipedia's content disclaimer. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia—not targeted at any specific age group—and contains a lot of content that parents might not wish their children to see or read (such as articles on sexual intercourse, photos of sexual organs, and even articles on profane words including this one). If you do not wish your children to see such content, you can create an account and set your preferences to filter out certain content (or simply monitor your childrens' internet activity). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The admins should debate more than an hour and properly CATEGOIZE low contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.29.238 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Admins don't decide these things, consensus does. Admins mearly guage consensus and take the appropriate action. But even that's not necessary here: since this move would be directly against policy, WP:SNOWBALL applies. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, what do "CATEGOIZE" and "low contents" mean? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome as F**k

The name is wrong. I know what the first guy said, but the name isn't "Awesome as Fuck". The logo for the album is spray-paint looking letters that say "Awesome as F[bunny's head with asterisks where the eyes/u-c should be]k". So, as far as the official album cover, and the official trailer say, the name, as far as we know, is "Awesome as F**k". --FlyAjiraAirways (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus the official website agrees with me (citation on actual page, look at it). --FlyAjiraAirways (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The video does not show the actual album cover, so until that is released there is no reason to bowdlerise the title (there is just as much likelihood that the video bowdlerises the title because it is on youtube and the marketers want it to reach all ages). Once the album cover is released we will know definitively how the title is spelt on it. If the title is bowdlerised, then we probably ought to bowdlerise the article title to match as it would be a proper noun. If it's not, then we won't, per Wikipedia:Offensive material. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that the video doesn't show the album cover, but the space under it on the youtube page for the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZcCJBr_Nh4) does, plus the website doesn't censor anything, so why would the logo be different? --FlyAjiraAirways (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Album cover. http://www.greenday.com/site/homepage.php Now we might be able to get the cover on the article. FlyAjiraAirways Is right. Joseph507357 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The official press release says: "Awesome as Fuck" see here. --Abu-Dun ^Talk 07:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think they didn't put Fuck on the album because stores wouldn't like it and parents wouldn't it buy for their kids. My guess. Which one should we do? Joseph507357 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it really is just saying "Awesome as F**k" on the cover because there would have been problems with the stores or something. I bought it today and converted it to my iTunes, and it said "Awesome as Fuck". So "Awesome as Fuck" is the correct title, right?--Invader Phantom (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Track list

They released the track list on greendayauthority.com [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiejoe 666 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

greendayauthority.com is a fan site and not a reliable source for encyclopedia content. No doubt the track list will be officially announced soon through an official first-party or reputable third-party source, then it can be added. Wikipedia is not the news and does not seek to be "first on the scene" with late-breaking info; we prefer to wait for reliable, authoritative sources to announce/comment on these things before we attempt to publish them. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The title of this article.

Consensus is not needed. The primary source here says Awesome as Fuck. Done Deal. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it in such a way that both sides get what they want. I think it's a good compromise. HalfShadow 03:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I would've done. Perfect. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Hi, I added "pop punk" to the genres of the album. But it was reverted because I forgot to explain it, so now I'm explaining it. Please reply to this post if you disagree. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Merely saying that you did it is not an explanation. Why are you doing it? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Green Day (and those songs on the album) are pop punk. So why remove it? --PeterTrompeter (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like your opinion as opposed to information from reliable sources. What sources are you using to classify this album's genre other than your own opinion? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Green Day article says it is. I hear them called Pop punk more than any other genres.

@IllaZilla, how much of a Green Day fan are you. You same to edit their pages a lot. Try doing a discussion like this instead of reverting most of the edits. This will help confirm the information put into the article.Joseph507357 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not my opinion, and don't make accusations before you know what's going on. It says "pop punk" on the 21st Century Breakdown article, so I figured that since most of the songs on Awesome as Fuck are from 21st Century Breakdown, that pop punk should be added, sorry. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@Joseph507357: Sources confirm the information put into articles, not discussion. If editors would bother to source the information they are choosing to add in the first place, reverts would not be necessary.

@Blaguymonkey: When genres are changed without any reason given or any sources cited for the change, the assumption is that they are being changed to suit the editor's own point of view. I might "know what's going on" if you gave an explanation in the first place. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes sources mostly. It's a good idea to have discussions about these things once in awhile. Reliable sources [2] [3] [4] and there's a lot more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph507357 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(A) Those are all the same source (read them: the iheartradio and yahoo texts are merely copies/mirrors of the allmusic bio). (B) The source is not about (nor does it even mention) this album. (C) The Allmusic bio categorizes them as "punk revival" and calls them "punk revivalists", says "they brought the sound of late-'70s punk to a new, younger generation", and calls 21st Century Breakdown "another ambitious punk rock opera." (D) The Green Day article itself begins "Green Day is an American punk rock band...", and Green Day#Musical style and influences explicitly describes them (with a number of sources) as a punk rock band. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the genre should be alternative either. Nowhere on the Alternative Rock Wiki Page does it even mention Green Day. I think leaving it strictly punk rock is for the best. --Mr.greenqueer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

I Agree with the original post, green day is even a precursor to pop punk, What genre do you think green day is, hardocre gangsta rap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviourte1992 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, as I explained above, citing several sources, I think they are a punk rock band. The sources back this up. Being a precursor to something doesn't de facto make you that thing. Neanderthals were precursors to modern homo sapiens, but neanderthals were not homo sapiens. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On a point you would be right, but it would be taking into account that they evolved into the homo sapien, Green Day music is still the same genre of music pop punk, american idiot is pop punk, not punk rock. Boulevard of broken dream the same, wake me up when september end would not even enter punk rock or pop. I mean we have a point in common, both are pop. I say we just put it both, but GD is more pop punk than rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviourte1992 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That all just sounds like your opinion. We rely on what reliable sources say, and I've cited several above that refer to them as punk rock. American Idiot was widely described as a "punk rock opera". Pop punk is a subgenre of punk rock anyway, so having both would be redundant. Punk rock is the parent genre of pop punk, so if there's confusion or overlap it's better to aim for generality and simply use the parent genre, which would be punk rock. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March 21, 2011...

...is the release date (today). It's tommorow in the US but surely the article should list the first release date, and not just the American one - unless it is the American one.--92.237.84.183 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and, where i got it, the titled is Awesome as ****, but the content on the album isn't censored or anything. --92.237.84.183 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Source? Also the title is obvious...it's right there on the cover. If they're censoring it differently on labels or stickers or something (like those stickers they use to seal CDs/DVDs so you don't steal them out of the package) that doesn't really matter. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To quote GreenDay.com; "coming March 22^nd, 2011" A F K When Needed 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cigarettes and Valentines

I watched Awesome as Fuck today and noticed that Cigarettes and Valentines doesn't play after Good Riddance (Time of Your Life). I discovered that in order to watch Cigarettes and Valentines, I had to go to the place in the main menu where you can manually play songs. I found Cigarettes and Valentines after Good Riddance (Time of Your Life) and learned that it is a bonus video. The video was shot in Phoenix, Arizona, which I know because it's the same as the track Cigarettes and Valentines on the CD. I was wondering if this should be mentioned or not, since before the track list it says "Live at the Saitama Super Arena, Saitama, Japan". --Jesant13 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On the [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B004GHBQ7O/ref=dp_otherviews_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&img=1 track listing on the back cover] "Cigarettes and Valentines" is listed along with the other DVD tracks under the heading "Bonus DVD: Live in Japan". I purchased the album yesterday but haven't watched the DVD yet. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for editing the article without using a source. However, I did know my information was correct because the audio from Cigarettes and Valentines on the DVD matches the audio for the same song on the CD. I knew that Cigarettes and Valentines on the CD was recorded in Phoenix, Arizona, which meant that was where Cigarettes and Valentines on the DVD was from. I have edited the article again, this time adding a source, removing the dispute template, and mentioning that Cigarettes and Valentines on the DVD is a bonus video (as it was not recorded at the same location as the other videos and it is mentioned as a bonus video on the disc) and where it was recorded. --Jesant13 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The source refers to the CD and doesn't discuss the DVD at all. That said, it seems self-evident that the Cigarettes & Valentines video isn't from the same show (it's given separate credits in the liner notes), so I put it in a separate tracklist template below the Japan tracklist. It seems to look better visually that way to me, as opposed to having an "except where noted" in the header when there's only 1 exception. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you said. I thought that the source I used referred to the song on the DVD, not the CD. I thought I'd point that out. Jesant13 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Blu ray

I have removed the mention of Blu ray from the lead, as I can find no evidence that a Blu ray version of this has been released. The only places I could find listings for it were at Rhino Records and [http://www.amazon.com/Awesome-As-Blu-ray-Green-Day/dp/B004IE0G58/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1301356054&sr=1-4 Amazon], but if one looks at the actual listings, both of these indicate the media as "CD&DVD". When I bought the album I searched for a Blu ray version and could not actually find one (or even a listing for one) at retail. Even Green Day's own website does not mention a Blu ray release at all, only a DVD. If someone can verify that a Blu ray version actually exists/has been released, then I may be convinced, but I would expect to be able to find such a thing (a release by a major artist in the most current format) at one of the major retailers. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=awesome+as+fk+blu+ray&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=905&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs= Joseph507357 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Venues and dates

I don't agree with IllaZilla statement that dates/venues can be referred on the tour article (see revision undo comments). Out of the 18 different locations (20 songs, but Nickelsdorf and Chula Vista twice), 10 are at locations where Green Day played more than 1 show in the same city, but at a different date and/or venue. To detail those 10 locations, the tour included:

• 4 London shows
• 3 Manchester shows
• 2 Glasgow shows
• 2 Dublin shows
• 2 Phoenix shows
• 2 New York shows
• 2 Saitama shows
• 2 Brisbane shows
• 2 Montreal shows
• 2 Hartford shows

Venues and dates would be useful information in this article, e.g. to enable people to know if the show they attended is on the album. Bonzon (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If they played more than 1 show in those cities, then how do you know which dates specifically these recordings come from? I am looking at the album's liner notes right now and they do not give the specific dates or venues. So how do you know which dates/venues these recordings are from? Verifiability is important. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)