Talk:Sum 41/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article to cluttered?

Everytime I check on this article, I always think it's to cluttered. The things that seem to stick out are the Awards listing in the intro and the trivia section. Also either the Half Hour and All Killer and Infected? sections need to be expanded or the Chuck and Future albums needs to be condensed. DrewD007 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Genres

I don't really think any of the current genres listed(Punk rock, skate punk, punk metal, grunge punk) save punk rock fit Sum 41. In my opinion I'd list them as Punk rock, pop punk or punk pop, pop rock or soft rock, rock, and metal.--DrewD007 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat agree with you. Though punk rock shouldn't be included. I've taken it out for now. Gold Stur 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There Punk-pop revival in my oppinion, through and through... and they should have no reference to grunge at all in there genres, no simalaritys

- Sum 41 according to their own official My Space [1] they refer themselves as Punk, Rock and Alternative while in their Purevolume official site [2] it is stated that they are Punk, Rock and Metal. So I'm not gonna edit nothing but I think that in the genres seccion they should be referenced as Punk Rock, Alternative Rock and Metal. Maybe changing the Punk Rock for Pop-Punk but not delete the other genres.... 201.223.45.154 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let´s face this:

half hour of power is a pop-punk album with some heavy metal in the instrumental songs.

all killer no filler is definitely pop-punk

does this look infected find sum 41 moving away from pop-punk to heavist songs. is an album with pop punk/punk/hard rock/metal songs.

chuck is metal/rock

Actually id call chuck punk metal if there was such a thing

pop-punk, alternative rock and metal works fine as 201.223.45.154 suggested. pop-punk must be included because half of their songs are in this genre. i suggest rock instead of alternative but the above list works fine for me.

they´re absolutely not skatepunk nor grunge

pitoresco 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

does anyone else think that sum 41 and hawthorne heights sound a little alike? i would classify them under pop punk, alt rock, definetly not metal. you do know that most of the time, purevolume sites created for bands are often created by fans instead. like the original nickelback purevolume page was a fan created page, and he/she put them down as rock/alternative/metal. i would also classify them as perhaps melodic hardcore, punk, and...yeah. i'm really hesitant about alt-metal, since i'm a big fan of alt-metal, and they just don't fit in too well. they sound nothing like a perfect circle or tool, and nothing like other alt-metal/hard rock bands. it's like calling hawthorne heights alt-metal. Itachi1452 02:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Songs like the Bitter End, Mr. Amsterdam, and the middle of 88, sound pretty "metalish" to me. *shrugs* DrewD007 19:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


my opinion is just based on...well, my opinion. ;)

they were pop punk in the 2 first albuns, but they began to change to a heaviest sond.

alternative rock is ok, but they really have "metalish" songs,not just in the riffs, but in the lyrics and vocals, so what can we say? metal is iron maiden and metallica , hardcore is strike anywhere or black flag, hard rock is ac/dc... so i´m saying that sometimes we can´t list bands doing comparisons...

after all, i suggest hard rock or alternative metal plus pop punk / alt. rock

hmmm, well, chuck is like, hard rock/alt metal/punk rock/pop punk. it still doesn't forget its pop punk rooots, but it adapts a more metallic sound, with more powerchords, low bass riffs etc. Itachi1452 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

pitoresco 13:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Black Metal? Why exactly now is Sum 41 listed as black metal? They're anything but black metal, they aren't even metal. That's like saying Britney Spears is Grindcore or something. I definitely disagree with this genre, but I'll leave it up to someone else to fix it.. unless I'm wrong? 74.14.94.251 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore? Is this a joke?

Whoever claims that Sum 41's later work is in anyway related to hardcore punk is sorely mistaken. I'm sure you heard it off MTV, and just decided to add it. Actually listen to some hardcore first.


someone added again hardcore punk. i´m open to discuss alt.metal and punk rock, but the hardcore listing is stupid.

pitoresco 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm, i kinda agree. more like melodic hardcore. the fact that he yells shows the hardcore side. Itachi1452 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I would say that sum 41 were originally pop-metal (not pop-punk - the rhythms/lead guitar combination isn't heard of in punk). They gradually became heavier, but lost the solos to an extent. I would say that by the time of Chuck, the music was much more reminiscent of hardcore than metal. I'm not saying that it was pure hardcore punk, just more like hardcore than metal a lot of the time. And yes, I do listen to hardcore, and don't watch MTV so I wouldn't have ever heard it there. 81.79.30.117 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Talk

Is this original work? -- Zoe

Yeah, this is the original work about Sum 41 -- Michael

You didn't steal it from some other source? You wrote it all yourself, even with your limited English capability? -- Zoe

Skeptical... All of this information about your bans, aliases, and uses of proxy servers... your reliable side exists just as much as bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Killerrobotdude 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Sum 41's plans on releasing the fifth album have been stated by Deryck and Cone, although they seem to contradict one another. Cone maintains that they plan on recording their 5th album at various points in 2006 for an early 2007 release. Deryck seems to say that the new album will be recorded mid 2006 for a late 2006 release. - I think that's not contradictory. Late 2006 and early 2007 are almost the same and stuff is sketchy when recording albums plus these are prolly from two dif interviews and dif times in the recording process. Subject to removal?

I removed the bit about King of the hill, because I couldn't figure out what it meant, as well as "realeasing hits and conquering international air waves in 2001 with "Fat Lip". Today they have performed with world-renowned rock stars, they themselves becoming prominent figures in the international rock scene." Because it seems to vastly overstate their popularity. They're a big band, but this article made it sound like they're the biggest band in the world right now, and they're simply not. Tuf-Kat 21:10, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure these guys are Californian? Aren't they Canadian?

Sum 41 are Candian. They're from Ajax, Ontario. - Houdinger

Sum 41 Group Added http://groups.msn.com/sum41zone

Not everything in this world is American..

Hair Metal? Some backing for this claim please.

You haven't heard of "Pain for Pleasure"?

Some reference to Closet Monster would be useful

I knew both bands circa 1997 when they played the Chameleon Cafe, and what is there to say other than there used to be a huge rivalry between the two bands (and I honestly thought Mark Spicoluk Aka Spic) left the band earlier since he was playing for Closet Monster. And then just about everyone from Closet Monster had the chance to play with Avril Lavigne either in videos or on tour, and then Avril married Deryck from Sum 41. --Waterspyder 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Unoriginal?

I have a question, should the article adress the accusations that Sum 41 is very unoriginal and/or rips off other songs? I've seen this countless times on the internet and I myself have even been able to pick out stuff from "Chuck" and "Does This Look Infected?" that is nearly a carbon copy of earlier songs from other bands. If anything, it would be fun to make a list of Sum 41 songs and the songs that they rip off.

It may be fun, but Wikipedia is not about fun. Check WP:NOT.--Zingazin 17:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen somewhere on the net that pieces bears a resemblance to the scientist by coldplay. I found a track of them played over each other, they do sound very similar. Deaths_hand 10:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it can be found on the song's article.--Zingazin 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Half Hour of Power not an album?

Why is Half Hour of Power only considered an EP when it's 11 tracks and 29:55 long? I've seen albums that are that size or smaller. Even All Killer No Filler is barely bigger than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joltman (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 May 2006

As explained on the article for EP:
  • An extended play or EP, is typically the name given to vinyl records or CDs which are too long to be called singles but too short to qualify as albums.
  • By giving the release a unique name (as opposed to it being named after the lead track on the CD) the band can garner more attention for the other tracks on the CD.
  • The term EP is also sometimes applied to compact discs with short playing times. However, since a CD can carry any amount of material up to around 80 minutes, the distinction between a CD EP and a short CD LP is somewhat arbitrary and is based on artistic and marketing factors.
If you are interested in this topic, you should visit its article. You made me wonder why it is like this too ;).-Zingazin 21:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what the difference is supposed to be between an album and an EP, but it seems to me like 11 songs at about 30 minutes is more than an EP. I've seen albums shorter than this EP, such as CVA (album) by Paint It Black which is only 18:33, but it's an album. Granted, it has 17 tracks. I guess my question is, was it decided to be an EP by someone here, or does the band refer to it as such? Joltman 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is referred to as an EP. Anyway, I'll look sources for you.-Zingazin 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an Ep. The only EP the band has release is the Motivation EP. Plus, it's just as long as Does this look infected? and i can't find one place that refers to it as an EP. The band's website does not refer to it as an EP, while refering to the motivation EP as an EP [3].

Dave Leaving

Since Dave is leaving, are they going to make the next cd without him or will they replace him with another guitarist?--Martin925 20:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They will continue making the next album without him, but when they go on tour they will hire an unemployed punk to play with them on stage. Scotteh 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Alt. Metal

Can someone please tell me how Sum 41 is alternative metal??? that really doesn't make any sense they are a pop punk/punk rock band. I might just delete that metal genre I don't get where u came up with that. Bill102 13:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok someeone put the genre back up. Please don't until you tell me why you think that they are part Alt. Metal. I am deleting it again. Bill102 20:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thet are pop punk, alternative and punk. I like actually buy the CDs you know... --198.54.202.254 07:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. I've added it to the page. Cedars 07:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You people are stupid, don't you get what alternative metal is. It is just like alternative is to regular rock, a little bit softer. Can you really disagree that The Bitter End and Still Waiting are metal. Metal means Hard rock, got it?! User:APACOlypse27 Peace Out

This makes no sense, I am deleting the alternative metal references. See list of alternative metal artists or the alternative metal article for more on alternative metal. Search Google with "alternative metal" and "Sum 41" and you'll see that the label is rarely applied to Sum 41 in comparison to the labels "pop punk", "alternative" and "punk". Cedars 23:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Metal is hard rock alright

you guys are stupid who say that they're alt-metal. seriously, a perfect example of alt-metal is a perfect circle, and they sound nothing alike. also, metal does not equal hard rock. there's a difference. metal is more of a subgenre kinda, but for example,you can tell a metal bass riff from a hard rock bass riff. there's more of a thrash feel to it, and not just that, it's the comparison of notes. STILL WAITING IS NOT ALT-METAL. IT'S POPPUNK/PUNK ROCK. it's nowhere like alt-metal. you don't know what alt-metal is then. if you want a good comparison of alt-metal bands to it, listen to soad, chevelle, 10 years, Tool, a perfect circle, breaking benjamin, godsmack, taproot, or cold. Itachi1452 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm..

... according to the Noel Gallagher article, the band "printed Gallagher's comments regarding them — "I'm just glad I lived long enough to hear the shittiest band ever" — on their official website". Perhaps it might be worthwhile including this fact? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if someone was to be researching the band, and used Wikipaedia as source, it would be noteworthy to mention this. --Scotteh 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Record Label

Has Sum 41 swithed label's? It kinda looks like they're a main stay on Aquarius Records [4].


Sum 41 New Album

Some Anon told me that sum 41's album is to be released before the end of the year, Also me and my mate saw in a local rock magazine that one song was confirmed called "Subject To Change". Note: Subject To Change was a chuck japan bonus track the version for the new album will sound diffrent around the chorus part of the song.

I again heard that it won't be released until the northern summer of 2007, which is May I think... 2007 --Adriaan90 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, every website i have been on has "2007" release so i think its along time till we see the album in stock. That Anon goof has no idea

November 29 MTV Interview

[5]

That have some important info about their recent activities and the Chuck era, I don't have time right now but it would be usefull if someone include this information on future editions of the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.223.44.147 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Genre

I see that this has been adressed before, however there is still a lot of changes going on with the genre that I have seen as of lately. So my question is what is considered the genres and subgenres of Sum 41? I would like to know what to rv and what to keep or add. It would be nice to get some sort of consensus since the genre is constantly changing.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sum 41'S Genre

They say rock/punk/alternative(myspace) and punk/rock/metal (purevolume) but don't forget that every pop punk band try to resist the pop punk tag.They are not hard rock or post grunge so i change it.They are a pop punk band with punk rock , metal and pop rock songs too.So leave it.But don't change pop punk from the first because half of their songs are pop punk and their new album is going to be more pop punk so leave it.Please don't put post-grunge.Post-grunge is 3 Doors Down and Nickelback not Sum 41. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkpop101 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

It's hard to tell, but Sum 41 claimed themselves has Rock but not Punk, they don't like the style (Old interview, in the time of Does this look... if I rememeber well)

Chuck Pelletier is from Victoria, BC Canada FYI!!!

According to Here Magazine: http://www.herenb.com/moncton/issues/0206/sum41.html

The band was in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to film a documentary for War Child Canada. The first few days were spent in the town of Bukavu (the tourist capital of the Congo) interviewing ex-child soldiers of the past civil war which claimed more then three million lives, people imprisoned in jails, UN Peace Keepers and others. At the hotel, they met Chuck Pelletier from Victoria, British Columbia. Pelletier was an ex-Canadian soldier who had retired and was in the Congo as a volunteer working with the UN.

I'm quite happy someone from my town saved Sum 41, WERD!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.136.220 (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC). 

Bizzy looks like Sid Vicious,IMO.--69.113.131.124 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New Guitarist

>>>>They now have two touring guitarists named Nico Stephenson and Fritz Fauzherman (also on backing vocals). <<<<

Wheres this from and who put it on? Musicslave 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop Punk

They're Pop Punk, and nothing more. Don't add anymore genres. Inhumer 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Post hardcore

How are they post hardcore? DavidJJJ 09:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Never

pitoresco 22:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What the heck?

Where's all the information? All there is is a screwed up code attempt! -The White'N'Nerdy dude —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.167.186 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I removed the part about the new ablum being called Underclass hero since the ablum name hasn't been confrimed yet. Someone probably got it mixed up with the new single when writing.

Who the heck is listing the new album as Underclass Hero? That is the name of the single, NOT the album. The album title is as of yet unconfirmed. Whoever's doing this, please stop. I'm sick of fixing that act of vandalism.


Artists Influenced?

More than half the bands supposedly influenced by Sum41 already had record deals, released an album by the time Sum41 was just signed, or formed before Sum41 had released anything. I would like to see sources documenting that those artists in fact cite Sum 41 as an influence (which seems extremely unlikely), or that sentence should be removed entirely. It is not verified as it stands. --S.Reemas, Apr. 17, 2007

It appears that this sentence has been deleted. It would be nice if editors annotated such changes in the Discussion page to reduce unnecessary attempts at editing and clarification. It's called etiquette, folks. --Nonstopdrivel 16:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sum 41 or blink-182

I like blink182 and sum 41 but i prefer sum 41 sogs most of the time but i still like blink-182

This isn´´t a forum ;)

pitoresco 22:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Strength in Numbers tour

After the tour was cancelled, they didn't resume the same tour. I believe the source is wrong on this. I pretty much just know because I got incredibly psyched for the Ottawa show, and after it was cancelled I checked continuously. They never came to Ottawa, and therefore did not 'resume' their tour. 99.224.105.207 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Former band members

I've searched around and have found absolutely nothing about Mark Spicoluk or Marc Costanzo ever being in Sum 41 and the only thing about Richard Roy is from a fansite that has no citations either. In this youtube video he says that they went through around 9 bassists before getting Cone... so yeah. If anyone can get any information on these guys it'd be cool. DrewD007 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pop Punk or Punk Rock

I hate genres, its genrallizing a music group. It seems the main quip in genres right now is whether the band is pop punk or punk rock. I believe that punk rock best defines the band. If you think differently state why. DrewD007 04:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its just me but as of 2007 and underclass hero, they are hardly punk rock. Foreeye 10:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sum 41 is even more punk rock than any of their previous albums. Deryck even said so. Just listen to some of the new songs. Tim Y (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I know it was over a year ago when that was said, but I just need to say this. Saying that you are punk rock does not make you punk rock. Tithonfury (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But really who cares what genre they are? They are constantly in change and sound entirely different on each new album. Thats why I listen to them. For christs sake listen to so long goodbye and then no reason or the bitter end. A world of difference. then listen to in too deep and then mr. amsterdam and know that roughly 1 year passed between those songs. When you start arguing about pointless genres like pop/skate/whatever-punk you are REALLY becoming a wikigeek. And dont. Listen to their great music instead! Foreeye 15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they're rather emocore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.201.169.202 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, alright. Why don't you actually listen to their music, and if you still believe they're emocore, find a reliable source for that assumption. Timmeh! 20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

this band is pop punk.--Greenday21 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

The band has multiple genres. Pop Punk. Alternative Metal. Punk Rock. Just deal with the fact that some bands have more than one official genres. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
and also, for those arguing saying that "Sum 41 isn't Pop Punk!", Sum 41 (along with Bands like Blink-182 )Invented the genre known as Pop Punk in the late 90's and early 00's. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, because pop punk bands like The Mr T Experience, Screeching Weasel, Sweet baby, Brent's T.V., NoFX, etc. certainly weren't around before Blink 182 and Sum 41. Seriously, do you just make stuff up? Pop punk was a well established genre before either of the bands you mentioned even started. If you want to go even further, there's always bands like 7 Seconds.66.207.82.96 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Their first 2 albums were completely pop punk, and there are some pop punk elements in all their music, even the alternative metal album Chuck. 82.41.209.185 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear God!! What is this ofense? Sum 41 is PUNK ROCK people. Please don't kill the music, pop rock bands are like The Jonas brothers or Mcfly. And the album Chuck contents a lot of politicals issues. They created fast, hard-edged music, typically with short songs, stripped-down instrumentation, they got everything to say at least that they're more of punk rock than pop. PLEASE change the term. I'm not even agree with article Punk rock which says that they are part of the 'revival punk'. I really don't understand what they are talking about. Please change. --Josema18 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How cute. Someone who obviously thinks that punk rock was born with Green Day. More punk than pop? Possibly the band would even disagree.74.69.64.52 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Excactly as the guy above said it.Sum 41 are a great POP punk band.Punk rock of today should be catigorized by bands that haven't played in huge shows and major labels.They should be categorized as pop-punk because anyone who likes pop-punk likes them.Guys who like punk rock want to hit them in the face.--poppunk rocks (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

NOFX is in no way pop punk, this is just plane trolling. Engalazillo (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Issue with opening paragraph

As of July 23 2007, Sum 41 has 5 studio albums, and someone really should expand the section on the new studio album.

67.161.36.19 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)RJ

Half Hour Of Power is an EP, as it is only half an hour (d'oh). Foreeye 10:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

i think that they are still punk rock. walking disaster, king of contradiction, Underclass hero, Count your last blessings [etc] are punk rock. User:kevinhwashere

Or maybe it is a full album, I dont know Foreeye 09:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of their albums previous to Underclass Hero were only about half an hour. But idk much about their pre-AKNF days. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
HHOP was actually only 24 minutes long or so. The last track had 6 minutes of silence tacked on, because 24 minutes of POWER! just didn't fly...- -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 04:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Name?

Is there some meaning behind the band's name? I've heard that some people think "42" is the answer to life (whatever that means)...Does this have some influence on the band's name, like it's just off? MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly it was the combined ages of the founding members when they started the band in their early teens... however, as I actually came looking to see if I was remembering that right, and there's no info on here, I don't want to put too much weight on that without independent confirmation. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Genres

What the heck is everyones problem with genres. It just keeps changing. I personally think that if people are that obsessed with the genres, that they should know have to state a reliable source PROVING that that is the actual genre for Sum 41. For example if it says anywhare on Sum 41's website they are (genre) then put the source on the talk page.
Does anyone agree? -Posted by:ΡЦЛќ41t̪ on 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.myspace.com/sum41 it says the sum 41 genres. rock, punk, alternative User:kevzilla8

Aye screw genres Foreeye 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Influence Green Day

Saying Chuck is the album where you can most here a Green Day influenceis bollocks it's probably the last of their albums youd compare with Green Day as it pisses all over anything billie joe can play on guitar.

Mwhaha yeah he really is a crap guitarist For comparison listen to green day plays heavy metal and sum 41 plays heavy metal A LOT of heavy metal fans said they would stop listening to metal and start listening to sum 41 after that show Foreeye 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And sums recorded that piece after 2-3 years from their first ep, green day must have been at least 6 or so, but then deryck had his faithful dave to back him up then *sob*. Foreeye 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourced Genres

Someone needs to stop all these ips vandalizing the page and removing sourced genres. They need to be blocked if they won't stop, or someone needs to semi-protect the page please. Tim Y (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried (At least 10 times) to get this page forever semi-protected so anonymous vandals won't change the genre, but they keep saying "Not enough recent vandalism to justify protection at this time."The Spooky One 10:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve or Stevo

During the 2007-present section, the name Stevo appears constantly. is that a typo?

No, it's not a typo. That's probably his most popular nickname. It's what most fans call him. Though Deryck and Cone just call him Steve. Timmeh! 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget Stevo32.. Or has that worn out by now? - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

New picture

Can someone find a new picture to put up of the band? The article needs one. Make sure it's free use (concert picture,etc.) so it doesn't get removed like the last one. If anyone has gone to one of their concerts recently, you could upload a picture you took, if you took any. Timmeh! 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I put one up, its horrible though. I think its just barely better than none at all. Sadly, this is probably the best one i took (out of ~35) Random89 20:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least we have something up now. If you happen to find any that are better, don't hesitate to put it in. Tim 23:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Many different genres

i dont think that sum 41 is pop rock becuase then they would sound like fall out boy they are better described as hardcore punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spagett (talk • contribs) 00:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardcore punk is an entirely different genre that includes bands like Black Flag and Circle Jerks, that type of music is much more fast paced and not as radio friendly as what Sum41 plays.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Something i noticed

just today i noticed that up until Chuck, Steve Jocz was on the cover of every album, is this worth mentioning anywhere? - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 02:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so, wouldn't say the information is significant to the development of the article. Seems almost like trivia.  Orfen  T • C 03:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed that every single one of there studio albums charted #1 in Canada. I beleive THAT is worth mentioning. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 03:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, just find reliable sources and an appropriate place to put it unless it is already listed somewhere.  Orfen  T • C 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrites and Genres

While the article for Sum 41 is a great article, the corresponding articles for each band member are terrible and need to be re-written. See Deryck Whibley, Steve Jocz, Jason McCaslin & Dave Baksh. They sound like they were written by a small child... (no offense to small children)

also, as for the genres, who says you can only have 3 genres in the infobox? i propose adding "Alternative Metal" to the list and in small text next to it say (2003-2005) and for Pop Punk have (whenever-2003, 2006-present). Or we should just go back to the Disputed Genres link to the genres section that it was at a while back. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the genre format in the infobox now good? It links to the musical styles section and looks a lot neater than when it had citations in it. The music styles and influences section still needs citations in it though. Timmeh! 15:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's good the way it is now. also, i think the current news section (or whatever it's called) needs to be updated to present tense. And it should also be mentioned that Sum 41 (after like 3 shows) is done touring for this summer. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination

i think it's up for it. It's a Featured article on Italian Wikipedia, so lets nominate it for GA AND FA here.

I recommend using a translator and checking out the Italian version here . Somebody should take that chart the use for the lineups and use it over here on the english article. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 11:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the GA criteria is listed here. I know just by a quick skim that it wouldn't pass criteria 2. There are quite a bit of things that are not cited. I'd suggest going and doing that first and then request a peer review to see what else can be done.  Orfen  T • C 04:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Would the Maximum Sum 41 CD be a reliable source? it has a ton of facts on it that are unsourced in this article. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 07:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It'd be helpful if you could provide a link of some sort so I can see information about the CD. Without knowing anything about it I'd say not to probably use it. If it's on a CD I'd think there would be a reliable source somewhere else with the information. Not everyone would have access to the CD and can check the facts provided by the CD. I'd say search the information you wish to source and the odds are there would probably be some sources available in print which would be reliable and provide the same information.  Orfen  T • C 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
it can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Maximum-Sum-41/dp/B000060K6U - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking just at the cover of the CD it says that it is an "Unauthorized Biography" and it says it includes interviews. I'd suggest possibly trying to find these interviews in print somewhere. I'm looking at this page and I can't seem to find an author either. It says it is an audio book and it also says that the CD isn't made by the band's label. Being unauthorized I'd say not to use it. The band probably had little to no involvement with making it and I would think that you would be able to find the information you need cited in a different source.  Orfen  T • C 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sum 41/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello everyone, I have decided to do the GA review for this article. I have scanned the article from time to time and have found some things that need to be addressed before we go on.

  • There are several formatting errors including:
    • There are several bolded words throughout the article that do not need to be bolded such as "DeeVeeDee", "Underclass Hero", and a second "Sum 41". Keep in mind albums and DVDs should be italicized and song names should contain quotations around them. Done
    • References are not formatted correctly in two ways:
  1. The reference must come straight after the period. It must not contain a space after or be before the period. Done
  2. The {{Cite}} template is not used. Citations need to include titles, authors, dates and other information found in the template. A quick way to do this is you can turn on a button in your preferences where you can quickly enter in all the information and a citation is then provided for you. You may also go to this website as well. Correctly formatted citations is a must.  Done
  • Another aspect that needs to be addressed is the lead section. Please look at other GA bands for examples such as Green Day. It needs to be long enough paragraph-wise to summarize the subject and it needs to explain why the subject is notable such as certain awards they have won or their charting positions. Again look at other articles for examples. All sales numbers and awards should have references as well. There are also capitalization problems in the lead such as the "f" in "Far" and the "p" in "Platinum" should be lower cased. Not all the numbers of studio albums and EPs need to be listed but if you are listing smaller numbers like that they should be spelt out fully.
  • Look at the Underclass Hero section and remove insignificant information. There are one sentence paragraphs, either find a way to combine or expand those with another paragraph or remove them. This section could also use some more citations. Especially where it says a press release was made. That needs to have a citation to it.
  • The Internet Videos section also could use some more citations towards the end of the first paragraph. This also contains one sentence paragraphs. Look to either expand, combine, or remove if insignificant. Done
  • There are a few things that need citations, I will mark these things for you so you can find things on them. Remember to correctly format them. Everything must be verifiable. Done

Those are some things you can work on for right now. If there are any questions please be sure to ask and I will help as best I can.  Orfen  T • C 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on formatting the references; got about 3/4 of them; found sources for the things needing them; removed stuff i couldn't find sources for. Now i need some help expanding the lead.- -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 01:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright I see some pretty good work so far. I have marked out the things that are completed. The stuff not marked out yet still needs to be done. Remember to correctly place all the references as well. There are still quite a few references that aren't placed after the period or there is a space after the period.
For the lead section read WP:LEAD for more information on the lead section. Again, look at Green Day for some ideas. Their lead contains some sales numbers for some albums and some awards they have won or been nominated for. You could contain some charting history. Those are just some ideas. I probably wouldn't keep the numbers saying how much albums or EPs or other works they made. It's rather insignificant but rather touch on the more important aspects of their career and summarize it in the lead.
Also as another thing that needs to be done there are a couple sentences in parenthesis. They are unneeded and should be implemented into the paragraphs some other way.
Good work so far but more work needs to be done.  Orfen  T • C 17:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Finished the references; they should be all good now. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also worked on expanding the lead; listing the awards they've been nominated for. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, very good so far. Everything is formatted correctly but now the article needs some writing work. The lead already looks better but it still needs some work. I wouldn't mention how they got their name, that's already mentioned in the next section. I'd also just completely remove this sentence: "Since then, the band has released four studio albums, one live album, five DVDs, one Demo tape, four EPs, & 17 singles." It's unnecessary and you should instead touch on their most important work with Island Records. Which record sold the most? Which record had the most acclaim? Which record sparked their popularity? That is the stuff that needs to be addressed in the lead section. There are still some more things that need to be done besides the lead section. There are a couple sections you might be able to add to make the article cover all aspects of the topic. Here are some ideas for a couple other sections:
  • Is there any criticism of the band or its music? This is not mandatory if there isn't any but I would be surprised if there isn't any.
  • I'd suggest creating a related projects section summarizing the band's other projects such as their side projects. Maybe remove the internet videos section and combine it with the related projects section.
Also, the Chuck and Underclass Hero sections have some things that still need to be worked on. The Chuck section has a couple one sentence paragraphs. Those need to be combined with the other paragraphs or expanded. The Underclass Hero section has some pretty short paragraphs towards the end of it. Those need to be combined or expanded. You could actually put the whole thing about Cone interviewing Slash in the related projects section and then remove it from Underclass Hero. You could also combine all information about the singles/releases in the Underclass Hero section (March of the Dogs, Underclass Hero, Walking Disaster, With Me). That way the paragraphs won't be as short and all related information will be together. It's all right next to each other anyway.
That's all I have for now, good work. Just work on the lead, adding the related projects section, and then work on the Chuck and Underclass Hero section. The article is on its way.  Orfen  T • C 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've worked on expanding the lead to the best of my ability, also cleaned up the 1 sentence paragraphs and made a new section that combines collaborations and internet videos. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You've done really well with the rest of the article but the collaboration section now has a lot of one sentence paragraphs. That must be addressed. Also the lead could use a little work still. It could probably flow a little better. Perhaps ask someone who has a nice amount of experience writing to look through it for you. The rest of the article is looking good though. The musical style section needs a little more work though. It needs more citations. There can't be original research when saying what a band sounds like. That must be sourced. Other than that it looks pretty good.  Orfen  T • C 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've worked a bit more on the lead; found a couple more sources for the musical styles section; reworked the collaboration section to remove one sentence paragraphs.. now what? - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright I have done some formatting a capitalization changes and notice you need a couple more citations for the lead. I have looked through it all thoroughly now and there are a couple citations that need changing. References 7, 10, 11, 27, and 34 all need to be changed. They are either message board posts or a Myspace. Perhaps look for MTV articles or another website because you're using them for TRL information and such and I'm sure you'd be able to find that information elsewhere. Reference 44 is also rather questionable. How reliable is the biography? What are his affiliations with the band? Where did the information come from? That all needs to be answered to know if the source is reliable. I also added two more places that need citations in the style and influence section.  Orfen  T • C 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, the disputed subgenres is going to have to go. Look on a website such as allmusic for the band and then put the genres found there in the infobox. All genres need to be sourced. Also even if the genre is "disputed" if it is sourced it will have to be included due to no original research.  Orfen  T • C 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Today i found some images on flickr that can be used on wikipedia; so there in there now. Is this process of reviewing over yet? I don't really see what else i can do to make the article any better. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Every picture in the article still needs a fair use rationale.  Orfen  T • C 23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure they don't have them? do they need a fair use if the image is Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0? There were old images in the article that were removed because they were all copvio's but the ones in there now i uploaded using a flickr bot. What exactly do i need to do to them? - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, my mistake then. I see that they are under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license. Taking another look over everything while the forum citations were removed that still leaves some content unsourced. Such as: "...which is referred to by fans as Rock Out with Your Cock Out." That one needs to be sourced. I don't see anything else though. If you are going to attribute a name to the demo tapes then the name has to be sourced.  Orfen  T • C 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though I know it's true (since i'm a fan and me and other fans refer to it as that), i'm removing the ROWYCO from the article; becuase i can't find a reliable source for it. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I passed the article. Good job.  Orfen  T • C 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Back-up web sources

Since this article uses a fair number of online sources, I would suggest archiving them at Webcite so there will be back-ups in case the pages expire. Ink Runner (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning for name and Thacker

  1. Can someone please source the statement about where the name of the band came from?
  2. Does Thacker belong in line-ups? Enigmamsg 02:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
1. Done.
...so where is it, then?! 193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.179.192 (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Tom Thacker be 2009 to present rather than 2007, as he was only a touring member back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.177.85 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Genere

who was the stupido qho put ska punk!!!!!!!! i changed it again lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.165.198.220 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks toward another editor, no matter how wrong you think them to be. Just reverting their edit, explaining why it was wrong, it enough. Timmeh! 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kaspir

The article currently states: The band was originally a NOFX cover band named Kaspir; they changed their name to Sum 41 for a Supernova show on September 28, 1996. This is supported by two citations, yet when I check those sources, they say nothing about this. ...unless I am missing something? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

40 Million Albums

Where is the proof that the band has sold 40 million albums becuase it sounds ridiculous

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Olympic Closing Ceremony

On February 28, 2010, SUM 41 gave a performance near the middle of the concert portion of the 2010 Olympic Games Closing ceremony performing "Burn It To the Ground".

-Stereo Soul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereo soul (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 March 2010

Not done: Welcome and thanks. Please provide an independent source for this factual change. Celestra (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello I'm a Italian Wikipedia user.Can i to put the Sum 41's song on their Italian Wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidonzolo77 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

What idiot protected this page? This needs to be unlocked and reverted back to its original source. Damien Russell (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming album, Screaming Bloody Murder

This seems legit. The catalog number seems real. See [6], found after I did a Google search using the catalog number from the Allmusic listing of the album. Timmeh 02:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a listing on Amazon: [7]. However, looking through different sites, I've seen at least 3 different release dates. Timmeh 02:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't this album have a page? It has a release date and a tracklist and everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.81.58 (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Genres: Melodic hardcore/Alternative metal

A large portion of their material, notably the songs No Reason, We're All to Blame, and Still Waiting, and a large portion of Chuck, are considerred Alternative metal or Melodic hardcore. however, these genres are not listed in the infobox. Since it states not to add/change genres without consent from a discussion on the talk page, I cam here. Should these genres be listed? ~L.H.C.D.1~ (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. --217.24.66.238 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Half Hour Of Power is a Studio Album, not an EP

The cut off between EP and studio album in length is 25 minutes. It has to be in fact, 25 minutes in length and have more than four tracks to class as a studio album. The full length of the album DISCOUNTING THE SILENCE AT THE END is 26 minutes and 19 seconds. There you go, 26:19 and that DOES NOT include the silence at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.241.177 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, those are the UK's technical limitations for defining an EP. I am almost positive that Canada and the US do not have a similar list of rules. Because there is a long list of conflicting sources, the debate between studio album and EP could go on forever. There was a rather lengthy debate almost two years ago at Talk:Sum 41 discography, the result of which decided that if the band wants to call it an EP, then it should be regarded as an EP despite its length. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's fair enough, but did the band decide to call it an EP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.138.206 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the user that contributed to the discussion I linked you to, that's what it says in the liner notes. I don't have a physical copy myself, so I cannot vouch for that. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have just read the discussion about this issue on Talk:Sum 41 discography. It appears that no consensus has been reached, and Half Hour of Power is still regarded as an EP. But let's face it: it has 11 tracks, which is not insignificant, and the band wouldn't have placed it under the section Discography on its website if they didn't regard it as an album. Sum 41 has made plenty of releases over the years and the only ones that appears under that section are the major releases (except the latest single, recent activity obligation), and as such it belongs under Studio albums rather than EP. No objection ? Maimai009 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you also read the RfC at Talk:Sum 41 discography#RfC: Is HHOP an EP? Two third-party editors joined the discussion and gave pretty well structured arguments for why this should be considered an EP. I also don't understand your comment about Half Hour of Power being listed on the band's website somehow making it a studio album. Their website also lists All the Good Shit, so does that mean this is also a studio album and not a compilation album? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion you've mentioned is also the one I am talking about in my previous post. Although as you said the arguments given there are well structured, I fail to find relevance is any of them. The first poster assumes that some reliable sources may make mistakes. However, as he/she said, some sources lists HHOP as an EP, others as a studio album...
Secondly, I have never said that all releases in the Discography section on Sum's website are studio albums. I just said albums, but I should have specified I was talking about full-length albums, which fits all items under the section (except the single, here for promotion purpose obviously).
Anyway, it still look weird that it is listed under EP. The frontier between EP and studio album here is too vague, the note Some sources consider Half Hour of Power to be a studio album and others extended plays is here for us to remember it. Considering the fact that it is their first major release, considering the number of tracks (11), considering the fact that it has charted on Billboard (I know, this is not studio-album specific), this tips the balance on the studio album side. The little note would still be here... Maimai009 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

Is anyone going to fix the timeline? Sean Quinn (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. It should be working now. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Update 7/22/2020 There seems to be an issue with the black bars in the background trailing off to the left. 50.84.72.190 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Over My Head...

"The third single, "Over My Head (Better Off Dead)", had a video released exclusively in Canada and on their website"

Any reference for this? I seem to remember the video being played on Kerrang! TV in the UK many times. Skullbird11 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Debut album

Is the band's debut album titled All Killer, No Filler (with the comma) or All Killer No Filler (without the comma). Currently the article is with the comma. But on the album artwork I can't see the comma. Can someone confirm this? --121.218.113.135 (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre

For the sourced genres, there are no sources for melodic hardcore, so therefore it should be removed until a source comes up. The other genres must stay. Although punk rock should stay off (for now) since the sources for punk rock ONLY described them as pop punk. So therefore, they didn't call them standard punk. However keeping punk rock seems redundant since it was implied by pop punk. Although I personally don't see pop punk as punk. But the genre mentioned in the sources should be there. I also added rapcore since its sourced. I do remember it there before

Blink182182 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is currently only one source for melodic hardcore which is on some Italian site. But can't we get some stronger sources? If not, I think it fails WP:UNDUE as I've never heard them referred to this elsewhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Complicity?

It seems every time Sum 41 is about to release a new album somebody always changes the Wikipedia article, with no citations, to claim that their new album will be called Complicity. This has happened with Underclass Hero, Screaming Bloody Murder and with their upcoming album. Why?! I even recall Steve was asked this on the Q&A section of the Sum 41 website in about 2007 and he'd never heard anything about this. Is it a running joke or...? --Gpmuscillo (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In Too Deep

Is there a reason or does anyone know why the hit single, "In Too Deep" was rarely in the band's set list during their 2004 to 2006 set list? (Source here) --124.176.69.146 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Pop Punk really?

I know they are Pop Punk but their sound is heavier than a lot of pop punk bands. I think their early stuff was pop punk and some stuff from underclass hero but they are mostly Punk rock. Pop Punk is stuff like Blink-182, Simple Plan and All Time Low and Sum 41 sound is heavier than a lot of those bands. Their new stuff doesn't sound Pop Punk to me at all. Sum 41 is NOT Pop now, they are Punk rock and have no Pop influence into their Punk sound now so I don't much agree with the Pop Punk label. Yes they did it but not much anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeis1996 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Band Start Date

Maybe this source will be good for the band's starting date? https://www.facebook.com/Sum41/posts/10152382420107890:0 172.218.205.103 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rephrasing of sentence in opening paragraph

As it would be more formal and more encyclopedic, I propose that the line

The band was formed in 1996 and as of 2015 consists of members Deryck Whibley (lead vocals, rhythm guitar), Cone McCaslin (bass guitar, vocals), Tom Thacker (lead guitar, vocals), Frank Zummo (drums, percussion, vocals), and the recent return of Dave Baksh (Lead Guitar, Vocals).

be rephrased as

The band was formed in 1996 and as of 2015 consists of lead vocalist and rhythm guitarist Deryck Whibley, bass guitarist and backing vocalist Cone McCaslin, lead guitarist and backing vocalist Tom Thacker, percussionist and backing vocalist Frank Zummo and the lead guitarist and backing vocalist Dave Baksh.

--Peter Dzubay (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sum 41. 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) 11:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Genres again

The infobox instructions suggest that the listed genres should be more general, and not very many of them. The recommendation is not more than four genres showing in the infobox. Of course, more genres can be discussed in prose in the article body.

Artist genres should be sourced to reliable publications that discuss the artist's genre. Artist genres are not merely a collection of their song genres or album genres. If more publications state a particular genre, then that genre is more suitable for listing in the infobox.

So which four genres should we list? Binksternet (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should strictly stick to 4 genres ("suggestion" is the keyword here). I'm fine with an extra genre or two, if necessary. That being said, pop punk obviously stays, as its the genre they are most associated with. Then punk rock for their less poppy stuff. Skate punk seems to get a lot of sources too. I would replace nu metal with alternative rock and alternative metal. Nu metal seems to be a more controversial genre for Sum 41, with only a small minority of sources describing them as such. Alternative rock and alternative metal, however, are more encompassing, and the later covers the metal influences they've had in their music, with albums like Chuck and 13 Voices. Kokoro20 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sum 41. 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) 21:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sum 41. 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) 22:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Former members

Where did these "former members" come from and who listed them? All the former members but Steve Jocz and Richard Roy can be verified that they were actually in Sum 41. The others; however, seem to be just names that appeared out of nowhere without any sources. Can anyone please verify these names, or should they be removed?

Looking back at this page's history, the unsourced former band members really does look like they came from nowhere. I am looking back as far as July of 2010 and these members are not listed at all. Some time around in 2013, someone was adding them with no sources or unreliable sources and are very questionable. Furthermore adding to the mystery, none of these members are listed anywhere in the body of the article.

I am sitting here reading the article and thinking how is this page considered as a "good article" with very poor, if not no sources about the former members? I think the band members should be researched and be challenged and/or removed. ❂stringDTD❂ 23:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead and band members section...wtf!?!?!?

This is a good article right? The lead is messy and looks horrible especially for a *cough *cough good article. Also the band members section needs more ciations because there are seven citation needed templates on a good article...wtf!?!?!? I'm going to find citations for the band members section but the lead...I'm not sure what to do with the lead because I don't know much about this band and I don't want to screw anything up. How is this a good article? Every section has atleast one thing that is not sourced. I'm trying to find sources for everything that is unsourced, it may take a while but I'll try. Bowling is life (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sum 41. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Heavy metal

Heavy metal appears to have more sources backing it up than alt rock and punk rock, shouldn't that mean it should be included in the infobox, or is it too controversial of a choice? I'd argue, and there are sources to support this, that a majority of their albums fall into the umbrella term of heavy metal (the only one's that don't being AKNF and Underclass Hero).

We already have alternative metal in the infobox, so it would be unnecessary to add heavy metal. Based off of consensus, alternative metal was included to cover their heavier music. They have also been described as thrash metal, nu metal and regular heavy metal and alternative metal covers those three genres. Also alternative metal has 6 sources, more sources than heavy metal. Yes heavy metal has more sources than alternative rock and punk rock but heavy metal is covered just fine by alternative metal. Bowling is life (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Good article?

How? Seriously how? For a GA, this article is a mess! This article has seven citation needed templates, seven more than a GA should have, the band members section has a note about the lack of sources, the awards section cites only THREE sources, there is a "not in citation given" template in the musical style section, and there are multiple sections that are just unsourced. How did this article pass the GA review? This article wasn't even in good shape when it passed the GA review. I think this article should either be improved greatly (I'll try to add more sources but it's not going to be fun) or be de-listed as a GA. I've seen better C-class articles. Bowling is life (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed this type of stuff happens a lot on music articles, they get Good article or featured article many years ago and after years of edits the quality of the article goes way down. I wish there was like a bot or something that would tag Good articles that have gone through a certain amount of changes over the years and set up a re-review for it. RF23 (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ringerfan23: I'd rather see this article get improved and stay listed as a GA. Once more sources are added, this article is definitely a GA. I understand that articles change a lot after they become GAs and sometimes get worse in quality but I feel this article has gotten better since then. That just shows how bad this article was when it passed it's GA review. I'm going to work on adding more sources to this article, which is going to take forever. Bowling is life (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

influences

I got in an editing argument with another user (Ringerfan23) over the influences section. One of the sources he used (udiscovermusic) isn't a reliable source. Biographies like that aren't reliable. Also, it's hard to believe Sum 41 would be influenced by Len. If I can find a quote where they say themselves they were inspired by Len, I can accept it, because the idea of Len influencing Sum 41 sounds very unbelievable. I can imagine Sum 41 being inspired by Treble Charger, but because Treble Charger were mentioned in the same sentence as Len, I'll still need an actual quote from the band involving Treble Charger. All I know is a member of Treble Charger produced Sum 41's albums or something but that doesn't = influence. I included reliable sources for certain bands that got removed from the influences section. Also, i think it's unneccesary to mention "60s and 70s artists such as" or "metal bands such as". Statik N (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

1. There isn't a source for udiscovermusic listed anymore, that was removed (although it isn't an unreliable source; it's ran by Universal Music Group). 1.A I don't get your stance on "biographies can't be used it has to be from the band themselves", this is not the way it's ever been on Wiki. Unless a policy was changed recently, if it is then please point me to it. 2. In the source listed for Len it says "Rejoining Sum 41 has Baksh reminiscing about their early days, mentioning influences like Len and NC17 (a.k.a. Treble Charger), who he says were doing something different from what was happening in the mainstream". 3. When i went through the sourcing the first time around, I removed bands not supported by sources (and importantly, moved the sources to the actual claims so they are not clumped in a citation dump). 4. It might not be the most necessary but it gives it a little flavor and shows the diversity of their influences. 5. And I'm not sure why you removed the legacy section, that's also a standard for bands that have been around for a while (and Sum 41 has been around for 23 years). 6. In your reversions you reverted several clean edits. Please do not do that in the future, it is not constructive. RF23 (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
AllMusic is a reliable source, but using their influences section of AllMusic as a source isn't good either because AllMusic could put any band in the influences section. A lot of the time, biographies just assume what the band's influences are. For example, a band could sound like another band without being inspired by them. Also, I already said that Len don't seem like a band that would inspire Sum 41 and because they didn't share an actual quote stated by Dave Baksh, I can't trust it. Statik N (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're having a reading comprehension issue so I'll requote it with proper wording to help you:

"Rejoining Sum 41 has [Dave] Baksh [Sum 41 guitarist] reminiscing about their early days, [with Dave Baksh, Sum 41 guitraist] mentioning influences like Len and NC17 (a.k.a. Treble Charger), who he [Dave Baksh, Sum 41 guitarist] says were doing something different from what was happening in the mainstream."

It doesn't get more explicit than that actual quote from Dave then that. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the sources say. And yeah, the influences section of Allmusic is user-generated (kind of), so it's not allowed (same as the genre part), but if a biography of a band from a reliable source says "[Band] was influenced by [band]" then that's acceptable. You don't get to write the rules of what's a standard on the project, that's already been done years ago. RF23 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A biography from a reliable source stating that band is inspired by another band doesn't mean the band was inspired by them. Many people believe that being inspired by a band means sounding like them. Also, that wasn't a quote from Dave Baksh. That was something the article's author wrote that he said. The singer of Len, Marc Costanzo, helped sign Sum 41 to a record label, and a member of Treble Charger, Greig Nori, produced the band's Half Hour of Power album (and Does This Look Infected). It could be that Dave Baksh didn't actually say he was influenced by those bands. He could've meant the band had members who helped Sum 41. Sometimes articles don't describe things accurately. The odds of Blink-182 being inspired by Len are really low and if you can find a source where it shows a quote literally said by the band (not the author) that they're influenced by Len, then we can allow it in. Also, you removed some of the bands I included who were sourced like The Vandals, Rancid and Pennywise. Statik N (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
"Also, that wasn't a quote from Dave Baksh. That was something the article's author wrote that he said." What Dave said = a quote from Dave. He was interviewing Dave. I'm not sure why you aren't understanding this. And again, you're just throwing your own ideas that directly contradict the purpose and guidelines of this project. I removed the specific bands listed because they were not backed up by a reliable source when I went through and actually parsed the sources to the claims (all though I don't doubt they were influenced by them, they need to be backed up by a source.). I'll page a few other users here who either have history with this page or have general music project knowledge to further discuss so it's not just an echo chamber: User:Bowling is life, User:Yeepsi, User:DannyMusicEditor, User:Popcornduff. RF23 (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
"A biography from a reliable source stating that band is inspired by another band doesn't mean the band was inspired by them. [...] That was something the article's author wrote that he said." Seriously, Statik? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? If the article's author wrote that someone said something, that individual can be credited as saying something. Otherwise, it doesn't pass muster at the editor's table, except in extremely rare cases where context was misunderstood and the person clarifies. That's how journalism works. It wouldn't be published like this if it wasn't correct. dannymusiceditor oops 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Many articles will often write down things that aren't completely accurate. For example, many will assume Aiden are inspired by AFI or Dope are inspired by Korn, but those bands said they weren't inspired by those bands. I really don't think Sum 41 ever listened to Len. Len don't sound like something Sum 41 listened to. Treble Charger i'm sure do but if Treble Charger are mentioned as an influence in the same sentence as Len, I just don't trust it. If Sum 41 worked with the backstreet boys on something back then and an article later on said the band mentioned being inspired by the backstreet boys, wouldn't that sound like the article wasn't stating what the band actually said? also, the sources i used were reliable. Statik N (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There's no way you can prove they never listened to Len based on the information given. It's that simple. Working together and being inspired by one another, though often co-existing attributes, are not necessarily mutually guaranteed, correct. But there's no reason to suspect that's the case here. I haven't looked at the sources you used, so I can't speak for that. dannymusiceditor oops 04:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox, and disbandment note

I am opening a discussion regarding the Infobox as the following edit I have made was reverted. I had changed the hidden note(s) regarding the years active, and I am unsure why they were changed as the band's final show has been mentioned in the History section, where it is mentioned. I also removed the note that was provided for the same reason as mentioned, even for the lead section. What I would like to see here for this discussion is to come to a consensus, or at least a compromise. As the final show is mentioned in the History section, I don't see the point in having the note for years active as it is mentioned that the band is disbanding AFTER their final show on January 30, 2025.

Pinging Bowling is life to participate in the discussion. HorrorLover555 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@HorrorLover555: The note is next to the years active to avoid confusion. It clarifies that they will be disbanding soon, but are still active. That way, someone doesn't change present to 2025. When Sum 41 announced they would be disbanding after this final tour, various edits, mostly IPs, change present to 2025. I put the note there in hopes to stop changes to the years active. And it worked perfectly. I say we should wait until after their final show to remove the note. Bowling is life (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bowling is life: Alright, if the note is not going to be removed until then, fine. But at least change the hidden note(s) so that any editor knows not to change the year to 2025 until after the final show. HorrorLover555 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@HorrorLover555: Done. Bowling is life (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sum_41/Archive_1&oldid=1220064469"