This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Green Day template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Green Day (inactive) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Green Day, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green DayWikipedia:WikiProject Green DayTemplate:WikiProject Green DayGreen Day Punk music (inactive) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music

I Fought the Law is a cover, but it was also released as an iTunes single [1] [2]

I think this is good enough to qualify putting it in the "singles" section. anyone else?? Aeris gd 07:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Oct 5, 2006[reply]

Should Jesus of Suburbia be included in the "Famous songs" section? I'm adding it, but should it be there?Trogdor077 01:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Trogdor077[reply]

Naw, its not big enough, not like basket case for instance. Why was this template made smaller?? -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 08:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the criteria for a famous song? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either being a huge hit or being a single. Which is why Jesus of Suburbia should be there. --PokeOnic (Talk) 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it just be called "Singles"? WesleyDodds 03:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that the Famous songs list isn't meant to contain all their singles, only some of their more well-known songs. Jesus of Suburbia has been removed as it wasn't a huge hit. Andrew Eng 17:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that any selection of "Famous songs" is kind of arbitrary, as others have stated. "Singles", however, can be conclusively listed. WesleyDodds 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of color changes around in this template. Can someone give a good reason why there is so much ado about the colors of this particular template? Circeus 23:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every once in a while people change it to look more like a Green Day thing. Then someone else reverts i back. I dunno why people like the light blue one so much, but whatever. --PokeOnic (Talk) 22:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno why people like the light blue one so much

Maybe because all other band templates use that color scheme? I'm not sure whether a specific project has established it, but so far nobody has protested it (except in the case of this particular template, for some reason.) Circeus 01:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had it a nice green for a few hours, because red and black looked horrible. All band templates look like this, and I agree now. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

There is no reason for all band templates to have the same colour. They are not connected with each other in any way other than the fact that they are related to bands. They are not like music infoboxes which base colours on what type of release it is - they are individual entities that should be free to use whatever colours best suit the article in question. There is no point in over-standardisation for the sake of it - it does not benefit Wikipedia. However, individualising templates makes them more relevant to their topic area and will therefore be more apporopriate that a one-size-fits-all system where everything looks the same. DJR (T) (WC) 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, in reference to edits made of this page, that by "colour scheme", I do not include multi-coloured links. That is probably going too far, bearing in mind that the purpose of the template is to aid navigation and some of the colours are pretty much illegible. By "colour scheme", I mean background colours and headings (per {{Arctic Monkeys}}. DJR (T) (WC) 12:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are just session musicians who play with them sometimes. St jimmy 11:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why they are on the second row and smaller. It,spretty standard in these templates. Circeus 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOSt jimmy 10:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yea but that means that theyre former members they shouldnt be included at all on the template. Adozenlies97 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they could be added as Touring Members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman15317 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are already listed under "Related articles". This is a navigation template, not an infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can work as both. Many other band's templates have a touring members section (like the Dave Matthews Band template). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman15317 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Again, this is a navigation template, not an infobox. The number of subdivisions should be kept to a minimum. There is no reason to create a new section that would only include 2 links. And as I said, the links are already provided. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just giving ideas for the template.--Starman15317 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a famous songs section, but it is songs that are famous to fans, not any old Joe Schmoe. Like St. Jimmy, for instance, or Dominated Love Slave, they are popular among fans but may not be well known among others. I guess it is free for constructive criticism. Notice not all singles are there. --Therealmikelvee 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the best way to use the template. There should be a category anyway listing all Green Day songs; we should only list the singles on the template. In addition, it should conform to the standard band template look, so all those colors should go. WesleyDodds 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an 'other' section which has The Network, Cigarettes and Valentines and American Idiot: The Motion Picture on it. Thee things tie in with green day, but couldn't be placed anywhere else on the template. Scrumshus 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She, J.A.R., Walking Contracdidction, Macy's Day Parade, and Maria are not Green Day singles. They have no Billboard status chronology, but although msuic videos were made for some of them, they were never official singles. Removed.

She, Walking Contradiction, and Macy's Day Parade ARE singles. Please refer to their articles. Orfen 01:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

J.A.R. is a single. It actually reached number one on Billboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_(1995_film)#Soundtrack

Maria was a single too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.206.159 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Please read single (music) to learn the definition of a single. Radio airplay, a music video, or even charting do not necessarily equate to a single. A single is a song released independently of the album, in its own format. "Maria" was never released in any other format other than on the album International Superhits. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree on these colors (or some varitation of them)?

Green Day
Billie Joe Armstrong | Mike Dirnt | Tré Cool
Jason White | Jason Freese | Al Sobrante	Jason White | Jason Freese | Kevin Preston Tkozinko (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC) tkozinko 02/02/2020[reply]
Discography
Albums: "39/Smooth" | "Kerplunk!" | "Dookie" | "Insomniac" | "nimrod." | "Warning:" | "American Idiot"
EPs: "Slappy" | "1,000 Hours" | "Sweet Children EP" | "American Idiot EP"
Compilations / Live: "1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours" | "Foot in Mouth EP" | "Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking" | "International Superhits!" | "International Supervideos!" | "Shenanigans" | "Bullet in a Bible"
Singles: "Longview" | "Welcome to Paradise" | "Basket Case" | "She " | "When I Come Around" | "Geek Stink Breath" | "Stuck With Me" | "Brain Stew/Jaded" | "Walking Contradiction" | "Hitchin' A Ride" | "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)" | "Redundant" | "Nice Guys Finish Last" | "Minority" | "Warning" | "Waiting" | "Macy's Day Parade" | "Poprocks & Coke" | "American Idiot" | "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" | "Holiday" | "Wake Me Up When September Ends" | "Jesus of Suburbia"
Related Articles
Cigarettes and Valentines | American Edit | The Network | American Idiot: The Motion Picture | Pinhead Gunpowder | The Frustrators | Adeline Records | The Lookouts | Punk rock | Punk subculture
This box: view talk edit

It's sort of American Idiot-ish but still calls back to the Kerplunk, Dookie and nimrod days. Much better than the current "standard" of light blue and light grey. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

I think it says older Green Day more than American Idiot. But I actually like it because it is actually different than all the other band templates.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to ALL of the band templates as uniform? That was the idea. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

I don't understand. What's wrong with this template? Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

I think people wanted all the band templates to be the same color. For better organization I suppose, but I think each template should show the personality of the band.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 22:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

The green background is very bright and it's hard to read the text upon it (this is made worse by the fact that one line is white text and one is black). I think customized colours are a good idea in general, but you have to be careful you keep the template readable. It is, after all, meant to enhance the main article, not distract attention away from it. plattopus^talk 14:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mac Davis, why did you delete J.A.R. and I fought the law and put on Poprocks and Coke under the singles section? Just because Poprocks has a music video on the DVD doesn't make it a single. Anybody else can confirm? Aeris gd 19:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it was released as a single, but it was proved above that J.A.R. is a single. Hello2112 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike "J.A.R.", "Poprocks and Coke" wasn't released to raio as a single and didn't chart. In fact, if I remember correctly "Maria" was released to radio to promote the comp. So it doesn't belong. WesleyDodds 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which category should it be put in: EPs or Compilations/Live? Hello2112 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever it is, stop adding the three other EPs. They are SINGLES. And leave the American Idiot EP there. This is seriously getting irritating, and I consider it vandalism. Hello2112 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I seen the album years attached on a band template. I have removed them, as it makes it look a little more tidy. -- Reaper X 17:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) hey i just figured out if you add up the times of every song on the jesus of sururbia single it actually does not qualify to be a single it is actually the length of an ep not a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.204.68 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day
Members: Billie Joe Armstrong • Mike Dirnt • Tre Cool Other/Former Members: Jason White • Jason Freese • Ronnie Blake • Al Sobrante
Discography
Studio albums	39/Smooth (1991) • Kerplunk! (1992) • Dookie (1994) • Insomniac (1995) • nimrod. (1997) • Warning: (2000) • American Idiot (2004)
Live albums	Live Tracks EP (1994) • Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking (1996) • Foot in Mouth (1996) • Tune in Tokyo (2001) • Bullet in a Bible (2005)
Compilations	1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours (1991) • International Superhits! (2001) • Shenanigans (2002)
EPs	1,000 Hours (1989) • Sweet Children (1990) • Slappy (1990)
DVDs	International Supervideos! (2001) • Riding in Vans with Boys (2003) • Bullet in a Bible (2005)
Singles	1994: "Longview" • "Welcome to Paradise" • "Basket Case" • 1995: "She" • "When I Come Around" • "J.A.R." • "Geek Stink Breath" • "Stuck With Me" • 1996: "Brain Stew/Jaded" • "Walking Contradiction" • 1997: "Hitchin' a Ride" • "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)" • 1998: "Redundant" • 1999: "Nice Guys Finish Last" • 2000: "Minority" • "Warning" • 2001: "Waiting" • "Macy's Day Parade" • "Poprocks and Coke" • 2004: "I Fought the Law" • "American Idiot" • 2005: "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" • "Holiday" • "Wake Me Up When September Ends" • "Jesus of Suburbia" • 2006: "The Saints Are Coming" • 2007: "Working Class Hero"
Related articles
The Network • Pinhead Gunpowder • The Frustrators • The Lookouts • Screeching Weasel • Pop Disaster Tour • Cigarettes and Valentines • Pop punk • American Edit • Live Freaky! Die Freaky! • Adeline Records • Related projects
This box: view talk edit

Is anyone for this more organized template? Ṣ₡ЯՄ♏ʂɧ♆☭ ^{♲ recycle kids! omg i'm ur biggest fan...➤} 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• the one proposed above is better In my opinion... LukeTheSpook (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting this from the template.--Greenday21 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Greenday21[reply]

On the template I was wondering if someone could add an other songs section in the template.Songs like "2000 Lightyears Away" and "Maria". —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAPTAIN234 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a Other Songs section should be added and should list Last of the American Girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman15317 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is already listed under "Related articles". This is a navigation template, not a discography. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I'm just saying that this section should be made to put Last of the American Girls and any other songs that have videos or are usually played live, but aren't singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman15317 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a discography or a list of songs, it's a navigation template. Its sole purpose is to provide a navigational link between related articles. Any song that has an article should (and does) have a link within the template. Last of the American Girls is currently the only existing article about a Green Day song that is not a single. Creating a separate section in the template for just 1 link would be stupid. It fits just dandy under "Related articles". No other articles should be created for "other songs that have videos or are usually played live, but aren't singles", as these would not pass the notability criteria for songs (also, "songs that are usually played live" could cover half the band's catalog). --IllaZilla (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good point.--Starman15317 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Adozenlies97 thought the green was pretty, so it seemed like a perfectly plausible thing to do. I have no clue about policies for this, but I do know the colour is definitely superfluous, and removing the categories - smart move there. Then to top it off, instead of making it an easy one edit revert, he decides to replace the Singles template with this piece of crap as well, so now somoene has to edit dozens of pages to fix it up. Thanks Adozenlies97! You're a real winner. Someone want to pull out AWB? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :) Maul day (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legend :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think the 21 Guns Live EP and Last Night on Earth EP should be placed in the EP section rather than live album? I think that EP would be a better classification for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.83.133 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that there is a page for the song St. Jimmy. I don't think it was released as a single. Does that mean it should go in related projects? Rock drum (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's not a single and doesn't pass WP:NSONGS anyway, so it should be redirected to the album article. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. I notice somebody else has already done it anyway. Rock drum (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a song that was nominated for a grammy! it should have its own pg shouldnt it and thus be put into related articles?? as its not a single but its an obviously well regarded song —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeanjones01 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the place to ask; this page is for discussing the template itself, not potential new articles. I suggest asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Day. But first, decide if it passes WP:NSONGS; not every song is notable enough for an independent article. If all there is to say about "Espionage" is that it was nominated for a Grammy, that's easily mentioned in the article about the soundtrack album or film itself. It wouldn't fill more than 1 or 2 sentences of a separate article, which isn't enough to justify having one. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be linked to in the singles section? It is mentioned as a single on Green Day's discography There's also some information here. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 18:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it has its own article, then no. The navbox is for navigation between related articles, not subsections, and "21 Guns" is already linked. Remember: it's a navigation template, not a discography box. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this song has been in and out of the 'Singles' and 'Related' sections alot! It is a single, the article says it! It's got a video (but 'Last Ride In' does and that's not a single). Why should it be in the related section? It's a little confusing --77.99.231.37 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has received airplay, and charted, and has a music video, but technically it hasn't been released as a single yet (I stress yet; it's entirely likely that it will be released in single format sometime soon). So it doesn't really belong in the singles section. There are plenty of examples of songs that have charted or even had videos but were never technically released in the "single" format. Whether "Last of the American Girls" is released in single format remains to be seen. But we do have an article on it, as it has charted, so it fits better for now under "related articles". --IllaZilla (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining it. Downloads seem to have a big effect on charts nowadays, and not all of them are singles!--77.99.231.37 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's set to be released on June 18 2010. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} --IllaZilla (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.greendayauthority.com/news/547/ Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 16:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed many times on various Green Day-related article talk pages, greendayauthority.com is a fan site and not a reliable source. It has no official connection to the band or its record label and is not a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --IllaZilla (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it being ready for pre order on the German Amazon site, http://www.amazon.de/Last-American-Girls-Green-Day/dp/B003M0HVIO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1277031529&sr=8-3

It's clearly listed as a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewfeet (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now its a single (as yet only in Germany) but still a single, ill just put it in the singles now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeanjones (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not there any more. Why is it not a single? Is it because it is a promo or download or whatever? What was "J.A.R." and "Walking Contradiction" to be included then?--90.212.181.118 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned quite a few times above, it is a single and has been available for purchase -- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003M0HVIO. What more proof could you possibly need? It was the only song under "Related articles", and to me, there's no sense to that distinction except clutter. -68.63.135.63 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently changed the infobox to look like this, so it's easier to organize the listed singles. But then it was reverted to this, under the reason that it makes the infobox look "bloated". Is there a given rule on how the infobox should look? Because I've seen ones like Template:Avril Lavigne that contain less content yet uses subsections. Could someone just clear that up? Xij29y6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is a navigation template, not a discography (and not an infobox). The more sections & subsections it has, the more is starts to look like a discography and the less useful it becomes as a navigation aid. Keeping things simple with 1 row per each type of release provides the easiest navigation aid to readers. If readers want to know which singles are from which albums, there is the Green Day discography article to serve that purpose. The purpose of the navbox is not to inform, but to navigate. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. You stated that in the edit history. But do you suppose the other templates I've listed above should be formatted accordingly as well? Xij29y6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In my opinion, yes. However I have never worked with {{Avril Lavigne}} and don't know why its editors have chosen to format it that way. To answer your original question, no there is no "rule" on how these things should look, but generally we should strive to keep them uncluttered and as conducive to inter-article navigation as possible. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed there are quite a few of these songs, and I think that because of the mass of them they deserve their own section. Last of the American Girls (even though I am a supporter that it is a single, Wikipedia doesn't think so), Poprocks and Coke, Macy's Day Parade, Maria, Last Ride In, and Whatsername (and probably some I'm forgetting). Is this a good idea? --24.255.37.229 (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a discography, this is a navigation template. Its purpose is to link readers to related articles, not to list all of the band's releases. None of these have articles, and thus they do not belong in this navigation template. Green Day discography has a list of videos. Every existing Green Day article is already linked here. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they could have articles made (I think they qualify as notable songs) and I don't see why there couldn't be another section, there's enough of them. It's not like it'd be a section for one song. You said that it's a navigation template, not a discography, but it wouldn't be a discography to add songs that have music videos, as not every song has a music video. --24.255.37.229 (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. This is a navigation template linking to articles on Wikipedia. It is not a list of Green Day's releases. These songs you are talking about do not have articles on Wikipedia, therefore they are not mentioned in this template. As for notability of songs, see WP:NSONGS; there isn't enough reliable secondary source coverage of these songs to merit stand-alone encyclopedia articles. Most of the songs you're describing had articles at one time or another, & they were all either deleted or redirected as being non-notable. If enough source coverage didn't exist to support articles then, it's unlikely that it does now. All of Green Day's notable songs and singles already have articles, and all of those articles are linked from this navbox. Merely having a music video does not guarantee enough secondary source coverage to justify an independent article. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is The Networks live DVD album it should be included but to where. it should be either put in the related articles or something but it shouldnt be put in by the network since that if for studio albums and the live albums are for green day themselves ??? BlackDragon 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not belong in this navbox. This is for Green Day articles, not their side projects. The navbox already links to the main articles on the side projects (Pinhead Gunpowder, The Network, and Foxboro Hot Tubs), from which readers can then find the articles on their releases. Linking every release by each side project is beyond what this navbox is meant to cover. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have locked the template for a week due to edit warring. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then lets compromise ill list the things i have added and say why they should be there and then you do the same and say why they shouldnt

1. International Supervideos!: This is its own DVD album. yes it doesnt have its own psge but it really adds to the template and it doesnt just redirect but it has its owns section on the same page and the only reason it never got its own is because it was released as the dvd to international superhits!
2. Green Date: This is a Green Date tribute/mock band which is related. the article itself is in the Green Day category and besides we have American Edit which is a mock of American Idiot so i feel that both of the same importance and if one is in the other should be aswell
3. Pinhead Gunpowder: The Side Projects are GD side bands not members or we would have to add mike and tres past bands to it. Pinhead is Billies side band by himself without the others while the network and foxboro are Green Day project Since the members of these to include| Billie Joe, Mike, Tre and even Jason and foxboro has 2 of GD's touring members aswell so thats why they are GD projects and Pinhead is not. They are an entirely different band dont want to be known as a Green day band but as there own
4. The Side Albums: part of the above one but these bands dont have a template as they only have one album but foxboro is GD's name when they book secret shows so you cant say that they are the same band and their album under this name doesnt belong in the template and the network is a past GD project including and the members so they are just GD in disguise playing New Wave instead of Punk so again they are the same band

This is why i feel they should be added, please do the same and then leave me a little message on my page saying that you left a message here for me if you will so i can get it as soon as possible and dont miss it BlackDragon 00:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this over from my talk page so others may see it and take part. To respond to your points:

1. It makes no difference if it was a separate release. This is an article navigation template, not a discography of the band. Supervideos doesn't have its own article, so it doesn't need to be linked. Readers looking for a full listing of releases can go to Green Day discography for that info.
2. It does seem to be related (though I question its notability). I have no objection to linking it under related articles.
3. Pinhead Gunpowder was formed 3 years after Green Day, features 2 members of Green Day (Armstrong and White), and is only active when Green Day is not active. Sounds like a side project to me. The section could be renamed "associated acts" and include the same links as found in the infobox of the band article.
4. Your argument is difficult to understand. Since we are already linking to the articles about the side projects, we do not need to also link to all of their releases. That is beyond the scope of links this template is meant to include. By linking to the side projects themselves we are providing the necessary navigation for our readers. Comparative examples:
   • Blaqk Audio is an AFI side project. {{A Fire Inside}} links to Blaqk Audio but not to their albums.
   • Box Car Racer is a Blink-182 side projet. {{Blink-182}} links to Box Car Racer but not to their album.
   • Devil's Brigade is a Rancid side project. {{Rancid}} links to Devil's Brigade but not to their album.
   • Viva Death is a Face to Face side project. {{Face to Face}} links to Viva Death but not to their albums.

--IllaZilla (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. K but Supervideos has its own page now and should be added.
2. I think we both agree on added Green Date to related articles and if you are worried about notability they have a website online so theres that *and Pinhead is more of a associated act or Billies side band but its not a Green Day side band so still think it doesnt belong in the side bands section.
3. As for the others Foxboro is just green day under a different name which is used to book secret gigs so they are just green day and Stop Drop and Roll!!! should be added and as for the network this is just Green Day in disguise and this is a template for all things green day and should redirect to Green Days other two albums because they are just a secret name or a disguise so they are in fact green day and not a separate band at all but one in the same.

People keep changing this back to normal but i think it should be like this because foxboro hot tubs includes all members of green day and no one else so there album under a different name should also be included and the same with the network so what do you guys think BlackDragon 23:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, it doesn't. You can't take it upon yourself to split it off to a separate article and then use that as justification for your argument here. That's gaming the system. Supervideos has redirected to Superhits for over a year, and with good reason (as I explained on my talk page). There is no reason to split it off again and thus no reason to link it here, because it is not a stand-alone article.
2. "Having a website online" does not make a thing notable. As I've asked you before, please read Wikipedia:Notability. All the way through. Right now. You can quibble about Pinhead Gunpowder all you want but it's still a closely associated act that includes 2 members of Green Day, so it ought to be linked. As I said, we could simply rename the section to "Associated acts" just as it appears in the infobox of the Green Day article.
3. "this is a template for all things green day" ... No, it's not. This is a template for Wikipedia articles about Green Day. It is not an infobox, nor a discography, it is a navigation template. The side projects are not "just green day under a different name"; Yes they have the same members, but they tour and release records under separate names. Foxboro Hot Tubs do not get up and do a set of Green Day songs, nor does Green Day play sets of Foxboro Hot Tubs and Network songs on their tours. The side project albums are not Green Day albums, plain and simple. That the same people play on them does not change this. We already link to the projects themselves, readers can get to the albums from there.

"People keep changing this back to normal" ... I'm the only one who's reverted you, so you can just call me by name. There's a reason it's "normal"; This is how these navboxes look pretty much across Wikipedia (see the several examples I noted above). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya by people i mean you but i dont care to spell it out or not and whatever i dont care about it having its own page anymore

And when i said they have a website meaning that there all real and release albums and since you seem to think everything i add isnt notable enough to have a page this band must be completely notable by all means if you havent deleted it yet

And again All things green day is the same as pages about green day there both the same. And to quote 'you' "Foxboro Hot Tubs do not get up and do a set of Green Day songs, nor does Green Day play sets of Foxboro Hot Tubs and Network songs on their tours" they do foxboro "covers" Green day songs and on tour as well as network songs. Green Day "covers" both of those as well so your wrong there and they are green day rather you like it or not BlackDragon 21:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are bordering on unintelligible. I'd never even heard of the mock/tribute band before and I don't really care about them. I'm questioning their notability but that's separate from whether the article is linked from the navbox, so it's irrelevant.

"All things green day is the same as pages about green day there both the same" ... No, it's not. Wikipedia has thresholds for notability that limit article topics. We do not and likely will not have articles on every Green Day-related topic. A navigation template is for links to extant Wikipedia articles.

Stop Drop and Roll and Money Money 2020 are not Green Day albums, in the same way that Riverdales albums are not Screeching Weasel albums despite both bands having, at times, the same lineup. The navbox already links to both Foxboro Hot Tubs and The Network; linking their individual releases, and creating separate sections for each within the navbox, is going beyond the scope of this template. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again of supervideos not being including because this isnt a discography and a link to superhitss should be included twice then why are there to links to Bullet in a Bible and Awesome as Fuck. If they can be listed under the video and live albums section then superhits/videos can be listed under Compilation and Video Albums anyone agree to my point --BlackDragon 22:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and as for Foxboro, heres is a direct quote from Bille Joe "The only similarity between Foxboro Hot Tubs and Green Day is that we are the same band" so there green day is foxboro and foxboro is green day. So this is also a GD album so I still feel that Stop, Drop and Roll!!! needs to be listed BlackDragon 22:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "video albums" section should be removed since those are just duplicate links. You can keep quibbling about FHT all you want but their albums are not Green Day albums. If they were then they would have the name "Green Day" on them and not "Foxboro Hot Tubs". It is possible for the same group of musicians to have multiple projects. See Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds/Grinderman or Descendents/All. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im making my opinion noticed and your the only one who disagrees about it. and no it shouldnt be. its been like that for years and should stay. You just want it removed so I cant add supervideos because your mad at me even though I bring a valid pointBlackDragon 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has voiced any support for your position, so there is no consensus for your proposed changes. Just because something has "been like that for years" does not mean it should stay that way. If that were the prevailing attitude, nothing on Wikipedia would ever change. There is absolutely no reason to link the same article twice in a navigation template. Again, this is an article navigation template, not a discography of the band. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say that but at the same time know one has supported yours either so its no consensus as well. Yeah things change but its fine just because you dont like it doesnt mean that it should be added or deleted. Because thats all it is. your to stubborn to admit to being wrong. BlackDragon 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get outside input --Guerillero | My Talk 23:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just because you like something doesn't mean we need an article on it, or to add it. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. It's laughable of you to accuse me of being "too stubborn to admit being wrong." Pot, kettle, black. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Albums (1990-2009) is part of green day's compilation album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastenereboldila (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a box set. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the edit warring over the past few weeks, I locked the template. To make any changes to it for the duration of the lock please

1. start a section with a level two header, == Like this ==, where the change to the template and your reasoning is presented.
2. Discuss the change over several days.
3. If you feel that there is an agreement amoungst the people discussing for the change, post an {{Edit protected}} with the discussion above it with the agreed upon change.
4. An admin will look at the discussion and if they see the agreement the change will be made

I hope that after tw or three of these the full protection will be removed from the template and it can act like a normal template. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add "Xmas Time of the Year" to the end of the song list. It was released in 2015, and was the first song in over 18 months released by Green Day.^[1] 2606:A000:F789:4F00:CBE:62D6:F376:F993 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already done The song is underneath "Other songs". cyberdog958^Talk 09:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Navbox contents moved out of edit request.

71.48.243.4 (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, please consider using the template sandbox to suggest changes. See WP:TESTCASES. Looking into this now separately. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Edit request included 2 redirects (not helpful in the navbox), and a live EP, which should belong at EP. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Navbox contents moved out of edit request.

71.48.243.4 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved navbox contents out. Looking now... — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Edit consisted of a new Live EPs section (but mostly redirected), and a Boxsets group that had red-links and an incorrect last link. I think the groups might be more appropriate if the articles are more fleshed out. Otherwise, the navbox does not help in navigation. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Green Day|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Green Day|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

Thank you for another informative website. Where else could I get that kind of info written in such a perfect way? I've a project that I am just now working on, and I have been on the look out for such information. dfeaeefkacfeecce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.122.138 (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would Like To add A link For Macy's Day Parade. A page currently exist for that article Thank you Aaron Kirey Aaron Kirey (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by Bamyers99 Stickee (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Touring members: Jason Freese, Jason White, Kevin Preston Tkozinko (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the band's discography continues to grow, and more articles are created for individual songs, the singles section kind of makes this template a bit bloated. As a proposed alternative I made a Green Day songs template that covers all of their songs that have articles, and any covers that have their own sections in other articles. There could be some that are missing, but this is at least a start that has enough content for its own template, and would help this one by removing songs, and making it feel less bloated. Before adding it to any other pages though, I wanted to make the proposal to see what the rest of the community thinks. Please answer with Yes, No, or Maybe in any responses. Thank you! PopDisaster182 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this would be good to have since a lot of other bands with extensive discographies have the same (The Beatles, Blink-182, Queen). PopDisaster182 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]