Talk:Dookie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleDookie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 2, 2008, and on February 22, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 19, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

!!This album is connected!![edit]

Entering into the search bar "Coming Clean" should not redirect to Dookie, because "Coming Clean" is the name of a Puddle of Mudd album. -Derek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.130.127 (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the album is called Come Clean', so the redirect is fine. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that, where I come from, "dookie" means "poop." But I've never figured out the BEST way to spell it, and couldn't find it in any dictionary.

I had never heard this in real life, but Invader Zim uses it this way, too. Unfortunately, the DVDs only have subtitles in Irken, so I don't know how they spell it. On the web, I've seen it spelled dookie, dookey, dooky. Update: In the episode "Gir Goes Crazy and Stuff" Zim has a container of sewage labelled "Warning - Dookie!".

From this album, what does F.O.D. stand for?. The song from Dookie by Green Day. -- Michael

"FOD" stands for "fuck off and die".

[1]

I own the booklet, the lyrics are :

My belly's aching now to say
You're just a fuck.
I can't explain it 'cause I think you suck
I'm taking pride
In telling you to fuck off and die

on the subject of the song, I got rid of the link to the song from the track listing, because it took you to "Foreign Object Damage" which had a "for the green day song, see F.O.D (Green Day Song)" which took you to the main dookie page, so yeah, you get it. A Jorb Well Done 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the "poop" reference: Dookie was meant in this sense by Green Day - the album was originally going to be named Liquid Dookie but the band thought it was too sick for the mainstream audience they were looking for.

  • I put one of the trivas back that was erased for unknown reasons. - "The mysterious woman appearing on the cover of the Black Sabbath's first album, Black Sabbath, appears on the top left-hand side of the cover, standing at the street. She quotes "What is this that stands before me?", the first line of the song also called "Black Sabbath"." EvilHom3r 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a major re-do and revamp[edit]

I am going to turn this article into something amazing. Expect it to be a Good Article by next month, if things go smoothly. If anyone wants to help, please leave a message on my talk page so I get back to you. I cannot see my favorite album's article be in such bad shape! I already have done some somewhat big things, like change the lead part of the article, make a background section, a part for chartings of the album and singles, and uploaded two preview songs. I mainly need sources, so really just talk to me if you have that. Thanks! Xihix 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album name and art quote...[edit]

Armstrong says in a quote about the album art: "The robed character that looks like Ozzy Osbourne is the woman on the cover of the first Ozzy album." It links to Blizzard of Ozz, which is Ozzy's first solo album, but really the woman is from Black Sabbath's first album. The link should be changed or something should be put after the quote to show that she's from a different album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelda Death (talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures[edit]

The intro states, "As of 2008, Dookie is the band's best-selling album, with over 15 million copies sold worldwide." Green Day discography, on the other hand, claims sales of 20 million, but that American Idiot surpassed this with sales of 22 million. This contradiction should be fixed. Calbaer (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre of album[edit]

This album is not alternative rock, it's pop punk and punk rock. 84.122.157.205 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am not sure why pop punk is being changed to alt rock. Everyone knows dookie is pop punk. It is probably the definitive pop punk record of the 90s. A source for alt rock needs to be found... Nouse4aname (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only alternative rock song is When I come around (and that isn't pure alternative either!)..Looks like some freak always changes the genre..--212.71.91.63 (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's alternative rock, i think punk rock and alternative rock is the perfect way to describe the album, because it's not exactly pop punk, and if it wasn't alternative rock, Green Day wouldn't have gone on the Lollapalooza tour, and they wouldn't have won a grammy for Best Alternative Music Album, or been nominated several times for Favorite Alternative Artist. --Chickenguy12 (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i think Punk rock, alternative rock, pop punk is fine for the genres, now i think somebody should put DO NOT CHANGE GENRE WITHOUT A TALK PAGE DISCUSSION next to it, just my opinion so people don't keep changing it. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I did it. The genre section as it is now seems fine to me. - PM800 (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, User:WesleyDodds just changed everything again and deleted the hidden message... Oh well. - PM800 (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to list "pop punk" specifically when you already list "punk rock" (pop punk being a subgenre of punk). I see no reason for such a stern warning in the genre field, when it really hasn't been an issue before. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that people (usually anons) kept changing the genres back and forth? It was annoying. - PM800 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this page on my watchlist for one or two years now; it doesn't happen that much, and it's not that much of an issue beyond people changing the genre and doing nothing else to the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a span of six weeks, the genre was changed on August 4, 6, and 14; and on September 10, 13, and 15. On average about once per week, so I figured that was often enough. I don't know. Nobody seems to mind, except you. - PM800 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a temporary blip. Nothing to get too worried about. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about it at all, now that the warning is there. - PM800 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no reason to list "pop punk" specifically when you already list "punk rock" (pop punk being a subgenre of punk)."Then why not just write "rock"?--188.26.60.184 (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Dookie has no Alternative Rock in it.I don't understand why you're adding alternative rock there. If you can't decide on the genre, that doesn't mean it's alternative rock. It's just pop-punk.--Revilal90 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"if it wasn't alternative rock, Green Day wouldn't have gone on the Lollapalooza tour, and they wouldn't have won a grammy for Best Alternative Music Album "-Going on a tour doesn´t change the genre of your albums. And since grammy does not have a section for each genre, that´s why they´ve won that. Dookie is ´just not Alternative Rock, it´s pop punk, please compare Dookie with 21st Century Breakdown. That album is definitely Alternative Rock, and sounds nothing like Dookie. Please don´t judge their older albums in this way just because the newer ones are Alternative.--84.217.23.53 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chickenguy13, and yes, going on a tour does say what genre you are. It's not like Justin Bieber is going on a punk rock festival or something like that. And you're basing this on your personal opinion. Dookie sounds alot like alternative rock from the 1990s. So are you going to call every band from the '90s "pop punk"? And by the way, Green Day's newer albums are more "rock", not alternative. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you delete my comments? As I said earlier, you don't even know what Rock music is. "Rock" is just an umbrella term for all the genres like punk, heavy metal grunge etc. Alternative rock is a type of rock music. Dookie isn't alternative rock, it's just a lighter form of punk rock: pop punk. There's no Alt. Rock in it.--188.26.49.18 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@188.26.49.18 Are you talking to me? If you are, what are you talking about? I did not delete anything! And yes, I do know what "rock" music is, I am not stupid (contrary to popular belief), and since when did you say that earlier? You have not even said anything on this topic before now. And that sounds like your opinion, if there is a source for "alternative rock" (and there is), then it stays, if there is a source for "pop punk" (and I am sure there is), then it should stay. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diamond status[edit]

Isn't American Idiot a diamond album now? It's sold over 14 million according to the article. can someone fix the statement where it says its Green Day's only diamond album? 24.141.7.98 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Track list template[edit]

Why is someone removing the track listing template? Just curious. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually need the template if it's already written out. The template is intended for use in articles where there is no tracklist currently and the author doesn't know how to format the section without a template. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's not nessecery to remove the track list template. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been the long-established template, so it should remain. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i don't think you should just come and remove the track list template if it's already there, but i'm not gonna re-add it because i don't wanna start an edit war. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tracklist template is not "intended for use in articles where there is no tracklist currently", it is intended for use wherever editors see fit to use it. That this article's track listing has long been formatted without a template is not a compelling argument for reverting (I venture that the reason an untemplated track list has been status quo here is because this article achieved FA 7 months before the tracklist template was even created). What is the advantage of a standard numbered list vs. using the template? I tend to prefer the template as it gives a cleaner presentation, separating tracks and lengths into columns and avoiding the need for en-dashes, and places notations such as authors in small text to distinguish them from the track titles. There are album FAs that use the template, and others that don't; there is no standard or rule as to when it may be used. For what it's worth, every single Green Day album article uses the template with the exceptions of American Idiot and Bullet in a Bible (which I believe don't use it because of the "chapter" subdivisions of some tracks, though there are workarounds for this). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's the established tracklist format is an argument not to change it; it's what's been established and there's no necessary reason to change it to a template with unnecessary code when it can be plainly formatted. The only compelling reason to convert it to the template after the fact is to heed the recommendation by WP:ALBUMS that it be used for complicated tracklistings, which does not apply to this album (and note it emphasizes the use of bulleted tracklists first). As for presentation, neither is cleaner than the other. It's totally pointless to add the template if the tracklist is already written out. Whether other Green Day album articles use it or not is irrelevant. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is "established" doesn't mean it can't be changed. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of factual inaccuracies throughout Wikipedia - but as these are established I assume we shouldn't go about correcting them? It seems consensus is to go with the template, I agree that it looks neater, and presentation should be an important consideration for articles. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just 'cause something's been one way for a long time doesn't mean it can't ever be changed or improved. Like I said, the most likely reason it's been that way for a long time is because the article's FA review predated the creation of the track list template by almost a year. The fact that all the other Green Day articles use the template is hardly irrelevant, as these articles are all part of a series (Book:Green Day) and consistency across that series is a net positive. Which format looks cleaner is entirely a matter of personal taste. Clearly there are several editors, myself included, who feel that the template is a cleaner look regardless of the complexity (or lack thereof) of the tracklist. And I don't see any "unnecessary code" involved in the tracklist template, at least no more or less than is used to create a numbered list with en-dashes. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre edit-war[edit]

I don't particularly care whether or not this is listed as 'alternative rock' (one of the least well-defined genres of music around), but since this appears to be an issue upon which editors disagree, I would suggest that a source is found to justify its inclusion, or else that it is left out.--Michig (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic lists it as Alternative Pop/Rock, Post-Grunge, Punk Revival, Punk-Pop, and Alternative/Indie Rock. BOVINEBOY2008 11:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These also suggest that alternative rock can be sourced: [2], [3]. Also included in Dave Thompson's book Alternative Rock. So the question now is what justification is there for removing it? Unless there are more authoritative sources that say it isn't alternative rock, that justification doesn't appear to exist. Some may not agree, but if reliable sources support it, just move on. --Michig (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor who removed it seems to base it on personal opinion, or says that amg is not a good enough source. This seems like adequate justification in my opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 12:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Allmusic is a good source? it´s obvious that they don´t know anything about punk rock, as they consider "punk revival" as a genre..Also,. how can they think that Dookie is post-grunge? It has absolutely nothing to do with Grunge music. Seriously, they´re pretty pathetic, classifying Dookie as post-grunge just because it was released when Kurt Cobain died. Come on, I´m having a neutral point of view, Allmusic is rubbish.--Ogica1234 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Grunge? This really proves that Allmusic isn't a good source..How can Green Day be post-grunge? Releasing an album after Grunge "died" doesn't make it post-grunge..--Revilal90 (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dookie was released even before Kurt Cobain died. Allmusic is not a reliable source and it is not post-grunge. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider Allmusic not a reliable source? BOVINEBOY2008 06:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that Allmusic focuses more on trends than actually does on music when labeling and adds a lot of genres just for everybody to be happy. "The more genres, the better" isn't a professional way to label music..--Revilal90 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well even with Allmusic not a reliable source that still leaves Alternitive Rock by Dave Thompson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.174.161 (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In allmusic, the genre list does NOT matter. It always does that. It's only the body and review that is used for a source. the site puts random styles on the list, doesn't mean it's true.

2601:A:4100:5A:E04D:3352:CEAC:9F0D (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dookie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Dookie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dookie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dookie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Dookie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dookie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dookie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dookie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Release dates of the singles[edit]

Hello. I'm from the French Wikipedia and i'm currently working on this album with a collaborator. We have an issue with the release dates of the singles, which are not always the same according to different sources, and we especially noticed that three books about Green Day (Nobody Likes You from Marc Spitz, American Idiots & The New Punk Explosion from Ben Myers and Green Day: A Musical Biography from Kjersti Egerdahl) cite a release date in August for "Basket Case", whereas in that FA it's in November... but without references. So, i would like to know if you have an explanation for the release date in November which seems doubtful to me. Best regards. Olyvar (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody follows this page ? I made the change for "Basket Case" and added a citation. Cheers. Olyvar (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made this article into a FA about 12 years ago! I may have gotten a date wrong or two since information like that was difficult to come by with a lot of verification. Apologies for not being able to help more. 71.90.213.112 (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilman Street[edit]

The Background section of the article mentions the band being banned from the famous Gilman street venue, in the present tense. That may have been true at one point, but they have played sets there in 2001 (informally) and 2015. I don't know enough about the history of the band and the venue but maybe someone with knowledge of it can fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C300:6FE0:BC44:2670:5AA1:2CE4 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA status - French article may be of help[edit]

Frwiki called this out as a featured article that aged badly, and they're right. I've taken a skim through this version and as this record grew more popular, it seems this was left in the dust of the 2007 era of FAs. Had this been presented years later, I don't think it would even pass the GA process. Dookie's French article is in much better shape and is a featured article there, promoted May 2018. I encourage anyone who is interested in rescuing this article to try their hand at translating for material to bring to enwiki. I would really like to not take this to FAR, so I hope this has a lot in sotre for us. dannymusiceditor oops 06:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have edited up through a track-by-track relay of the album. I have much more to do, but as time goes on I will have this completed. dannymusiceditor oops 22:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: - from a quick look, setlist.fm is user-generated and shouldn't be used in a featured article and I'm worried that the youtube link to the full concert is a WP:ELNEVER situation unless Green Day is taking the Grateful Dead approach to distribution of live concert filmings. Hog Farm Talk 20:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice those, thanks for the heads up. I have corrected the issue. dannymusiceditor oops 20:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

924 Gilman content[edit]

I'm worried there may be a bit of hyperbole in the 924 Gilman Street content that doesn't align with the venue's own article; but some of the sources are dead, others blocked outside the US, and others are hour-long documentaries with no indication given when the statement appears!

This article says: Signing to a major label caused many of Green Day's original fans to label them sell-outs, including the influential punk fanzine Maximumrocknroll and the independent music club 924 Gilman Street. After Green Day's September 3 gig at 924 Gilman Street, the venue banned the group from entering or playing. Reflecting back on the period, lead vocalist Billie Joe Armstrong told Spin magazine in 1999, "I couldn't go back to the punk scene, whether we were the biggest success in the world or the biggest failure [...] The only thing I could do was get on my bike and go forward." The group later returned in 2015 to play a benefit concert.

The 924 Gilman Street article says: Bands with major label contracts, including AFI, The Offspring, and Green Day, are only allowed to play the club when membership approves that individual show, a policy that enabled Green Day to play at Gilman again at least twice since they signed with a major label.

While this is a featured article and that one is labelled as having 'multiple issues', I have to say their version sounds plausible - a venue has a policy that normally doesn't allow major label artists (without a specific exception, which has been used for Green Day), rather than the venue (a 501(c) non-profit) specifically spitefully banning Green Day as sell-outs - and I have a fear that the version here has been dramatised for effect, which isn't ideal for a featured article. But I can't see enough of the sources to be sure. Is anyone able to clarify or investigate further? TSP (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dookie&oldid=1219331178"