Talk:Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Regarding the break-up

Before anyone gets to discussing about whether we should discuss the band's break-up, in my opinion we should. There has been a lot happen since blink-182 and there is a lot to cover. Granted, we must cover it quickly, but I believe I've accurately done so here. I'll add more about the band's reformation and more about the side-projects later. --Thardin12 (talk), July 15, 2011

Incorporating a background section is supported by WikiProject Albums. However, I feel that this section is too lengthy as it stands, and it looks like a lot of the information was simply paraphrased from Blink-182. I think if a section like this is too exist, it should be sorter and should use Template:Further to link to the relevant section at Blink-182. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternate spelling

Should Neighbourhoods (Blink-182 album) be created to redirect to Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album)? --121.216.222.11 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that might be a good idea.  Done --IllaZilla (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

New single announced

The new single is to be "After Midnight". Should this be listed as a single on the album info box/band info box? --121.216.222.11 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait until a release date for an actual single (as in CD, vinyl, or digital download) is announced. The date it will be played on the radio isn't a "release" date. Though we could certainly mention it in the body of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide release dates in different countries

Should more release dates be added? for example in Australia, the album release date is September 30, 2011 --124.179.37.74 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In general only the earliest release date and/or release date in the home country is relevant. There is little point to listing the release dates for each country, as this isn't a shopping guide. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok you said earliest date right? The Australian version date has been changed [1] --121.212.16.220 (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Leak

Should the information about the album leak be added? --121.212.16.220 (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No. See WP:LEAK: The leak has not resulted in significant responses or repercussions. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.12.115 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not really significant. All he really says is "yeah, it leaked". --IllaZilla (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

deluxe edition cover

why has it been deleted? --121.212.16.220 (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it fails Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The only difference between the deluxe cover and the regular one is inversion of the black/white, which is something we can easily explain using text alone; We don't need an additional copyrighted image for readers to understand the difference, as the difference is minimal. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

record label?

Neighborhoods is the sixth studio album by the American pop punk band Blink-182, tentatively scheduled for release September 27, 2011 through Geffen Records. But on the album information box thing it says Interscope. I know these two labels are merged together now, but this need to be fixed. --60.229.178.130 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I changed the infobox to Geffen Records to reflect the lead sentence. This seems more plausible than Interscope, as the band's last 2 albums (Blink-182 and Greatest Hits) were both on Geffen, and as far as I know they have never released anything through Interscope. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

New album Interscope? the latest video Up All Night says so. Also Unterscope has a Blink-182 page. --121.218.80.253 (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic says Geffen. Let's wait until it comes out to confirm. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your link says it's through Interscope, so it makes no sense to still label it as Geffen. I'll change it to Interscope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.233.161 (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It said Geffen at the time I linked it. It appears to have been updated. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, understandable. The page was reverted after I fixed it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.233.161 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Track listing

Does anyone have a source for the track listing? It should probably be deleted until one a source is found. Shadowhanz05 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2011

My understanding, and the article supports this, is that Blink-182 will turn in the finished copy of Neighborhoods into their label on July 31. So even if this supposed track listing is actually reflecting whatever stage the album is presently, the label has the final say on track ordering, so there's no way this is the finalized and official track listing. That, plus the fact the only sources I can find are social networking sites not affiliated with the band and fan forums which far from qualify as reliable sources. It was the responsibility of whoever added the material to also provide a source, and he/she failed to do so. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Mark Hoppus confirmed on his Tumblr 'Q&A' page recently that any and all track listings floating around in the wild are all fake and he urged readers to not believe any track lists until one comes from the band itself. The only other song beside 'Up All Night' that has a confirmed title is a song called 'Even If She Falls', which Mark Hoppus announced on his Google+ page. Still, though, it was just the title of a song that the band members had received a mix for and doesn't necessarily mean the song will be on the the upcoming album. Definitely a good idea to just wait it out as opposed to publishing song title rumors. Stoptheradio (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Mark Hoppus, the four songs off the new album they have played so far on tour are "Up All Night", "Hearts All Gone", "After Midnight" and "Ghost On The Dancefloor". Although the order of these cannot be confirmed, the fact that they will be on the album can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigc2 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. We're waiting for a full, verifiable track listing before we start a section on Tracks. Otherwise all we'll have are anons & SPAs adding "possible tracks" every 5 minutes. In fact that's exactly why the article is currently protected. Obviously we already have content discussing "Up All Night"; other tracks that can be reliably sourced (preferably through third-party sources) can also be discussed in the prose. But no tracklist section until there's a full, confirmed tracklist. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

[4] Mrkite6270 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mrkite6270, please see the discussion below (#Track listing not the correct order?). That posting is based on a screenshot of an itunes playlist that does not state that it is the album's track listing. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Track 6 Typo

On this page it incorrectly states Track 6 as "Even If She FAILS" when it's actually "Even If She FALLS", as evident in the source provided here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectPowerless (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed --IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe edition

Why were the bonus tracks removed from the track listing section? they are listed in the same source as the main track listing section... --58.168.73.125 (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right.  Fixed --IllaZilla (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Track listing not the correct order?

Here is your source. --60.229.178.130 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The track listing is properly referenced to a reliable source. Leave it alone unless/until a different tracklist is reported and can be reliably sourced. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that AbsolutePunk article is the source of the Alternative Press reference currently being used for the track listing here. So if the source of Alternative Press' article made an error, then by extension so did Alternative Press. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Absolutepunk, the original source is this document from UMG, the parent company of their record label. The allegation of error comes from (ugh) Twitter. Given that information on this album has changed almost weekly since it was first announced that they were recording it, I'm inclined to leave it as-is unless and until the album comes out or a better source presents itself, since the info comes from the company who is publishing the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

the new track listing order? [5] --121.218.80.253 (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We do not cite social networking sites. Wikipedia relies on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We have multiple such sources (Alternative Press and Allmusic) already cited in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Press posted this new track listing that's been floating around the web as the "official tracklisting for the deluxe edition" just this morning. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, it's sourced to a screenshot of an itunes playlist. This is probably the third "official" tracklist to be reported in as many weeks. As usual, the information changes almost daily. Let's leave it be until the confirmed track listing is widely published and/or the thing's released. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the track listing section should be blanked or commented out for the time being. As you point out, this is probably the third official track listing that can be sourced by third-party published articles. And the details do seem to change almost daily now. I know that the first sentence of WP:V gets thrown around a lot, but when it comes to upcoming album articles, I don't see a point in posting information that's potentially false—even if it is verifiable—when the information will be known with 100% certainty on a known date. On September 27, we will be able to post the correct track listing for Neighborhoods with 100% certainty. Between now and then, why bother arguing which "official" track listing is authentic? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also no guarantee that the screenshot represents the track listing. It's a screenshot of an itunes playlist, nothing more. It doesn't say "this is the track listing" or anything like that. I can arrange songs in a playlist in any order I choose, that doesn't mean it represents a physical album in its finished form. I respectfully ask all editors to refrain from changing the track listing while the article is protected, and to discuss the matter here rather than continually changing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I mean yeah it just could be in random order, due to the fact it's playlist, nor does any captions suggests it's the actual order. --124.179.37.74 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The itunes playlist you refering to was posted by a member of the band, why would he post it if it wasnt the actual track listing, also aside from the fact that is in order, if that doesnt prove it to you, each aong is labeled at the begining with the fucking track number! are you blind dude? why do you want other blink182 fans to see incorrect information, whats wrong with you im gonna file a complaint somehow to fucking wikimedia. stop changing it you fuck

By the way man, your what is wrong with Wikipedia and your the reason why teachers and other people do not believe its a reliable source, you are knowingly posting incorrect information. Who is more reliable to you...a journalist who doesnt know his ass from a hole in the ground...or an actual fucking member of the band who posted this picture on not just Facebook, but also his google+ page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uafausti (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

An iTunes playlist is not the same thing as an album track listing, and when there is no caption or any other text stating that it is the track listing then it is original research to call it such. Also please be civil and stop the personal attacks. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

People wouldn't attack you like this if you didn't police this page like you owned it. I provide a link with a primary source from Mark Hoppus, who had stated that the original track list was wrong and that he would provide the real one. You deleted it. The one you reverted it to was DEFINITELY incorrect, as Hoppus declared it so. Therefore, the edits I made were, if not correct, at least more likely to be so than the track list you reverted it to. You say be civil, well you don't have to call someone a "fucker" to be uncivil. You're being just as rude. 67.9.153.200 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if the track list is sourced or not. Multiple sources could say multiple things about it, with each being true at the time of publication, but still not accurate to whatever the album's final track list will be. This is the reason we have WP:CRYSTAL, and specifically point #5, which says, in part Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. On this basis I have hidden the track list; it can be corrected (if necessary) and unhidden when the album is released. Please do not restore it -- just wait a bit for the real thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd Call the person who made the album's statement the "real thing" but hey, you're probably right that it's best to just leave the track list off for a few more weeks just to avoid more of this. 67.9.153.200 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Hoppus never made a "statement", really. He never did an interview or wrote to one of the publications that reported on the track listing and said "hey, this is wrong, please retract the story". He just said something in passing on Twitter. And he never stated that the image he posted was the final tracklist either; he just posted a screenshot of an itunes playlist. with no caption or explanatory text. Does that image represent the final track listing? Probably, but the standard here is verifiability, not truth. We don't cite tweets, as Twitter is a piss-poor source as far as an encyclopedia's concerned, nor can we make a claim about the image that the image itself does not directly support (eg. "this is the album's final track listing"). On the other hand, the previously-reported track listing comes from a marketing document from UMG, the parent company who is publishing the album. Given all of this, I think that removing the track list for the time being was the right move. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Amazon a "piss-poor" source, just wondering? [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlylemiii (talk • contribs) 03:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. More the to the point, Amazon is a shopping website, and we don't generally cite shopping sites; we cite news publications, music journals, etc. (see WP:RS for guidance on sources). It's certainly no more reliable than Alternative Press or Allmusic, both of whom have published the track listing that UMG put out. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

good lord, man. you are hands down the worst user here, and i say this from seeing your "contributions" to a number of pages over the last year or two, not just this one. you're a totally irrational bully on here, i can't imagine what you're like in real life. grow up, please. 68.45.223.21 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil and lay off the personal attacks. There is a consensus (via discussions here at at ANI) to leave the tracklist out until the release date. Upholding consensus, and asking for better sources than shopping sites, is not "irrational bullying". --IllaZilla (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So is the track list here for good now? Also, Snake Charmer is typo'd. ProjectPowerless (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is being left out until the release date. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Alight, I think we can put the track listing back because it has been released in Australia.--121.212.16.220 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Track listing confirmed?

On the Australian iTunes it is available for pre-order. for the standard edition, and the deluxe edition --121.212.16.220 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

See the above section #Track listing not the correct order?. There was also an ANI conversation, and the consensus was to leave out the track listing until the album is released, due to conflicting sources. We're not the news and we have no deadline, so there's no rush. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

iTunes Pre-Order

iTunes has actually started Neighborhoods pre orders for the deluxe addition. The tracks are as follows:

1.Ghost on the Dance Floor 2. Natives 3. Up All Night 4. After Midnight 5. Snake Charmer 6. Heart’s All Gone (Interlude) 7. Heart’s All Gone 8. Wishing Well 9. Kaleidoscope 10. This Is Home 11. MH 4.18.2011 12. Love Is Dangerous 13. Fighting the Gravity 14. Even If She Falls

iTunes seems like a viable source of information, so why can't we make a track listing for the Deluxe Edition at least? --ProjectPowerless (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2011

See the various discussions above. Consensus was to leave the track listing out until the release date, due to conflicting sources. I don't see how itunes is any better of a source than amazon. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Completely unrelated, but wouldn't it make more sense to list "Reception" and "Supporting Tours" under release? As done here ProjectPowerless (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that these should be sub-sections of "Release". The supporting tours started well before the release and will likely continue well after, and Reception almost always has its own section. Most of the articles in Category:FA-Class Album articles are structured that way, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body seems to read that they should have their own sections. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.241.196.39, 15 September 2011

Neighborhoods Tracklist According to itunes pre-order 1. Ghosts on The Dancefloor 2. Natives 3. Up All Night 4. After Midnight 5. Snake Charmer 6. Hearts All Gone Interlude 7. Hearts All Gone 8. Wishing Well 9. Kaleidascope 10. This Is Home 11. MH 4.18.2011 12. Love Is Dangerous

Deluxe edition tracks

13. Fighting The Gravity 14. Even If She Falls

^ this is the tracklisting for neighborhoods deluxe edition i got it from a uk friend so update it to show people the songs oh and as well as that thats the DELUXE edition itunes has it on its pre orders for irefutable proof of it so update the albums tracklisting

216.241.196.39 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 Declined See the numerous threads on this already on this talk page. Edit request templates are not to be posted until after consensus for the change is formed. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's September 27th. The track listing gonna be fixed? Dcreature14 (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC) dcreature14

Could you be more specific? It's not broken. It's right there in the artice. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The back of the CD and the names that show up when the CD is put in the computer say "Heart's All Gone Interlude" not "Heart's All Gone (Interlude)". I changed it on the main page but someone changed it back for some reason so can this be fixed? I also changed Chris Holmes's credits because he was on there twice and I put them in one heading. Not sure why it was like that. --LAW 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkbassist31 (talk • contribs)

What the?

Why has the tack listing been removed? it is official now. this can be proved/confirmed by looking at the Australian release. Which was released on September 23, 2011. --121.212.142.150 (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, there is an abnormal amount of hypocrisy on this page. Don't place a track listing until its OFFICIALLY released, it gets released officially, track list removed. It's ridiculous.

Also, "Only first release date and home release are sufficient" has been stated, even though Australia had the first release date and it's still not presented on the article. Bah. ProjectPowerless (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the article and its sources, the release date is the 27th (3 days from now). The article does not state an earlier release date in any countries, or cite any sources to that effect. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that suggest the Australian release date. [7], [8], and itunes --121.212.142.150 (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I know for a fact it was released in ireland yesterday as i bought it. Also here's proof. [9] The tracklisting was 1. Ghost on the Dancefloor,2. Natives, 3. Up All Night,4. After midnight,5. Heart's All Gone,6. Wishing Well,7.Kaleidoscope,8. This is Home, 9. Mh. 4.18.2011, 10. Love Is Dangerous. Deluxe Edition has: 5. Snake Charmer, 6. Heart's all Gone (interlude), 13. Fighting The Gravity,14. Even If She Falls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.194.187 (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am from Australia and already own the cd so I find it hard to understand why Its tracklisting wont be allowed to stay up. Especially considering I knew it for about a month before that. Another source that can be used is the tracklisting on Itunes in Australia and most likely the American one too (the Australian one had the tracklisting there for a few weeks before it was made downloadable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.70.37 (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Some dictatorship on this page if you ask me. Oh well, this will all be finally rectified tomorrow. 178.167.249.228 (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the tracklist only two days ago, listed from the UK album release. Pretty sure that is official. I ended up buying the album from Play.com (linked here if anyone needs it.) If it was missing the citation though, surely a citation needed tag would've been more fitting rather than actually removing the track listing. harbin91 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah I bought mine on September 23. The track listing is official. it's just arrogant people won't let us put it on. just wait for the US release date, not long from now. --124.183.113.244 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

incomplete track list

Where is the deluxe edition list? it's slightly different from the standard edition. it includes "Snake Charmer", "Heart's All Gone (Interlude)", Fighting the Gravity", and "Even If She Falls". --124.183.113.244 (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's directly under the standard one. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

now it is. it wasn't when I wrote the comment above yours... --124.183.113.244 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I kind of figured as much. Just pointing it out for anyone else browsing through the discussion page... Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition length?

I've added a second length to the infobox that says how long the Deluxe Edition is, and it gets deleted, why? ProjectPowerless (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The infobox refers only to the original/standard release of an album. It is not meant to cover all versions/variations/releases, which may have different lengths/release dates/labels/etc. Details on other versions (such as this album's deluxe edition) are covered in the track listing. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Billboard charting.

Where on Billboard.com does it say that Neighborhoods is number 2? The link takes me to a blank page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.73.210 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Neighborhoods album as a whole being listed. One of the album's songs, "Up All Night" is # 3 on the Alternative Songs chart. http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/blink-182/182793 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.147.4 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I just scanned the entire Billboard 200 for the current week, and the top 10 going back to the week of the album's release, and didn't find any mention of it. Based on that, I'm going to remove it from the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Billboard 200 entry was added again, but the citation is not from Billboard. As much as I would like Blink 182 to be there, the article needs to be honest & accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.33.160 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's on Billboard.com now, at #2. That link is to the current Billboard 200, so it's not going to stay stable. Eventually it should show up on their chart history page there. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe version

Has anyone actually seen the standard version of the album on physical CD? I never have. I'm not saying we should remove the standard section of the listing. I'm just asking. --124.183.113.244 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I bought mine at Best Buy, and they had both versions right there on the shelf. I bought the deluxe, but the standard was right there next to it (at a few bucks less). You can also buy it from Amazon. So yes, it definitely exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a minor issue. but should it be called deluxe version or edition? Personally I think it should be version. this is because on the physical cd of the album it comes with a sticker that says deluxe version. --124.183.113.244 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe edition is common nomenclature and is what the majority of the article's cited sources use. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales Figures.

Anybody have anything on the sales? I know this was a highly anticipated album and I imagine first-day sales or something have been released. DanielDPeterson (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it is the type of release that may have a "first day sales", but I think its too soon to be looking for that already... Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like sales figures were never released because it performed rather...poorly. 151,000 in its first week. Source: http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/10/05/j-cole-debuts-at-1-blink-182-at-2-on-billboard-200-chart DanielDPeterson (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering the state of the music industry, and how much lower sales tend to be these days compared to the 90's and early 2000's, it didn't do too bad at all. I don't think it should be introduced in the article as a failure or disappointment or anything... (Unless there's reliable sources saying otherwise, I guess...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark as guitarist

Mark has publicly stated that he recorded "more guitars on this album than on any other". I believe one of these times was on an online Q&A through justin.tv or something like that. Shouldn't he be credited for this? There are videos of him recording the bridge of Kaleidoscope on his Facebook and he even confirmed it himself.--98.197.233.161 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need to cite a source for this. The liner notes simply credit Hoppus, DeLonge, and Barker as Blink-182; They don't say what instruments they played. And of course the bass guitar is a guitar... --IllaZilla (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Heart's All Gone" song sample

I see the sample of "Heart's All Gone" is the only one on the page. Shouldn't we be aiming for a more representative sample of the album? I'm pretty sure this song has a lot more of an old-school sound than most of the rest of the album. Timmeh 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Heart's All Gone" is directly discussed/analyzed in the accompanying source, so use of a sample passes WP:NFCC as it would be difficult to convey the concept in words alone. To justify other samples you'd have to find sources that directly discuss those songs and their composition/sound. You can't base a "representative sample of the album" on your own (or even other editors') opinions, it has to come from secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, but this is a high profile album within its first week of release. Surely it wouldn't be hard to find a reliable source discussing number of the other tracks on the album in a similar manner. I'm not saying it needs to be done or anything, but it's seems pretty possible if someone bothered to look it up. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there are many reviews out there, some of which discuss individual songs in detail. One which is considered by multiple sources to be somewhat representative of the album (or band) as a whole would be the best choice for inclusion of a sound sample. "Heart's All Gone" doesn't seem to fit that criterion. In fact, it is "very much a blast from the past", according to the article cited, not something showcasing what the band has become after the hiatus. Timmeh 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting this, I think the obvious choice would be to use "Up All Night", as that was the album's lead single and as such is the main musical piece used to represent/promote the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Release bundles

The fact that blink-182 sold bundles of the album packaged with a t-shirt and a surprise (that could've been an instrument from the band) seems worth mentioning in the release section of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.233.222 (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It would indeed be worth mentioning, buy you need to cite a reliable source. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong with the amount of record sales

In the introduction to this page, the article writes "As of October 29, 2011 the album has sold 38,000 copies." According to the section "Chart history" in this article it says that the album has been certified Gold in Australia after having sold 35,000+ copies. So, for this article to be true, the album would've sold only 3,000 copies in the rest of the world. There is absolutely no way this can be the real amount of record sales. Could anyone cast some light on this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.93.206 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

First week sales in the United States alone were over 100 000 copies. Moreover, the source is very obscure. The sentence should be removed. MSandt (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think the sentence should be removed altogether. The bit about it not selling five million copies is extremely ridiculous and contributes nothing to the article. ProjectPowerless (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 November 2011

it should be edited because a person has the amount of copies sold wrong.they gave information on sales of one week not overall

Alep3 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussion above. No reliable source for the amount of record sales has yet been presented apart from the one already cited in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be edited to at least reflect the fact that the sales figure applies to week 43 only. The numbers are not cumulative. According to the same website, first week sales were 235 000: http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week41-2011.htm If any figure should be quoted in the article (so long as we don't have total album sales), it should rather be this instead of sales from week 43. MSandt (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect sales figure

38,000 is for Germany. Real number is 151k. Source: http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/10/05/j-cole-debuts-at-1-blink-182-at-2-on-billboard-200-chart

Please change 38,000 records sold in the first week to 151,000 sold in the first week.

AnimalCrackerr (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done with the undesputable reliable bilboard.com source CTJF83 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Heart's All Gone

they released an music vidoe for it isn't it a single — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericdeaththe2nd (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Music video ≠ single. A single is a format: the song is released separately from the album in its own format, such as a CD single, 7" vinyl, or stand-alone digital download. There have been many music videos made for songs that were never released as singles. The only song from Neighborhoods that has received a stand-alone release is "Up All Night", which was released as a stand-alone digital download in advance of the album's release. Neither "After Midnight" nor "Heart's All Gone" have actually been released in single format (radio play and music videos notwithstanding as, again, neither of these de fact constitute a single). --IllaZilla (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

so whys After midnight still there? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

After Midnight as second single?

Should "After Midnight" be listed as second single? It has been charted, and the video is to be released.--121.216.40.20 (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

See my response above to #Heart's All Gone. A single is a format, a song released in a stand-alone way (such as a 7", CD single, or stand-alone download). A single may be accompanied by a music video, and a single and/or video may help a song to reach the charts, but airplay/videos/charting do not in and of themselves make a song a single. The only way for a song to be a single is for it to be released as a single (in a stand-alone format separate from the album). "After Midnight" has not been released in any format other than on the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Genre

I know this is original research which is why I'm talking about it in the talk page but has their been a reliable source suggesting this album is post-punk? It fuses a lot of influence from The Cure with the new wave keyboards and lyrically some of the album is styled as quite gloomy. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single source classify this album as post-punk. Merely having keyboards and being "gloomy" doesn't make something post-punk. I suggest you read up on post-punk (not necessarily on Wikipedia—the article is pretty sparse—but there are some good published books out there). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do, cheers for the suggestions. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bundle

Is it worth mentioning album bundle? (if not already mentioned on the article) Source for bundle [10] [11] --121.218.201.74 (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Not encyclopedic information. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sales comparison to Enema to the State

The article currently ends the lead with "In its first twelve weeks it sold 259,000 copies, much less than the five times platinum Enema of the State of the band's commercial peak..

It's sourced and true and everything...but is that really a fair observation? I mean, albums in general just don't sell like that anymore, between piracy and the advent of single song downloads. Unless you're among a few exceptions like Adele or Glee or something, sales like that aren't expected anymore. It seems to insinuate a sort "failure" on the bands part, where as likely no one involved, or even speculating, would think it would reach those levels in this day and age.

Secondly, even if you disagree with that sentiment, it's Wikipedia policy that the lead isn't supposed to introduce any new ideas, but I'm only seeing the sales info in the lead. So I'd propose perhaps strictly the sales of Neighborhoods were mentioned in the lead, and then the comparison could be mention somewhere in the reception section.

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. Not only does the sentence in the article compare it to an album that spawned two hit singles and was released over a decade ago, but it also tries to input opinions stating that the album was a flop. 151,000 scans in its first week is by no means a "flop" considering the day and age it was released, and it seems that whoever added this sentence is trying to input his/her ideas in a very un-encyclopaedic fashion, rather than presenting the number of sales the album achieved in black and white. ProjectPowerless (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm neutral on it. The source specifically calls the album a flop and compares its sales to those of the band's previous album and their most successful one. Given that this is the band's reunion/comeback album, a comparison like this seems relevant. The "day and age" argument isn't very relevant: Piracy and single-song downloading aren't new. They were certainly around in 2003 when Blink-182 came out, and Enema came out during the heyday of Napster. Sales figures these days generally include digital sales. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen a comparison to past work (in terms of sales) in the intro paragraph. I would say that the "day and age" argument is very relevant, "Take Off" debuted at #1 with sales of more than 350k (went on to 3x Platinum), and that was without a lead single. The fact is, people just don't buy music as much as they used to. DanielDPeterson + talk 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No other blink-182 album page compares the sales of that with the sales of another. Why should this article be any different? It's not like it's necessary or encyclopaedic information? ProjectPowerless (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "people just don't buy music as much as they used to" is probably partly what this comparison is meant to illustrate: That Blink-182, a multiplatinum act in their heyday, couldn't sell as many copies of their reunion/comeback album as they did their previous albums is relevant, regardless of what the reasons may be. As for "No other blink-182 album page compares the sales of that with the sales of another", that's probably because nobody's found a source specifically commenting on those albums' sales in comparison to the band's others. The fact that such information isn't found in other articles isn't a justification for removing it from this one, so long as it's sourced here (which it is). I agree that it doesn't seem pertinent to the article lead; It would probably fit better in the "Reception" section, if we started a paragraph on the album's commercial performance. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is such a necessary comparison, why isn't it implemented on other albums that the source writes about? For example, the Incubus 2011 album's "If Not Now, When?" sales are directly compared with the sales of their 2006 effort in the source, yet there is no mention of it on the Wikipedia article. If the "people don't buy music like they used to" idea is going to be used, then there should at least be consistency in the articles, rather than singling out this one alone. ProjectPowerless (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems everyone can agree it's not right for the lead. (Technically, it looks like there's consensus to remove outright, with "3 for removal" and "1 neutral", though Illazilla doesn't argue a neutral stance as much as a "keep" stance.) I've moved the more detailed sales information down to a sales section, keeping some vague summary points in the lead. I still say remove it outright, but this is a start at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's suitable for the Reception part. And ProjectPowerless, chances are that a blink fan happened to read this page and added it to the article. I suppose you're welcome to add it to other pages. DanielDPeterson + talk 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)