Talk:Descendents

Spelling

Well, which is it The Descendents, or The Descendants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.229.26 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 June 2003 (UTC)

Probably The Descendents (that's what it says throughout the article). I'll look it up when I'm done here and fix it if necessary. --Hephaestos (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2003 (UTC)

It is Descendents. See ALL central for a brief history. --Vern (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

So if the name of the band is just "Descendents"... then why not move this page there? Or "Descendents (band)" if need be? --Blue Dream (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you look at the All central Descendents link? Both 'the Descendents' and 'Descendents' (no the) are referred to there. I think in the original context Vern was saying it is (The) Descendents rather than ..ants. The article referenced doesn't really clear things up though, as I said. --mat_x (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. --Blue Dream (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The official title is DESCENDENTS; sometimes there is a THE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.174 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no The in Descendents

Take out the The. Just because the linked article on the All page sometimes refers to them as the Descendents (*note the lower case the, that means its not part of the name it's just there for syntax's sake). The Descendents (*note the the is capitalized because it came at the beginning of the sentence) have never been a The band. Take a look at any recording, merchandise, or flyer and you will always see just DESCENDENTS. Descendents are not a The band. The The and a million other The bands are. --Redleaf (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean like The Ramones? Adding "the" to the title of certain punk bands is implicit while not stated. --69.164.100.92 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Redleaf. I notice "the" is usually prefixed to band names whose names wouldn't sound "grammatically correct" without it. Nevertheless, Descendents are just Descendents, I've never seen them officially adopt a "the" so adding it would be like calling Neutral Milk Hotel "The Neutral Milk Hotel". felt_friend 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Although I do feel this article is pretty good, I think it's important to add references, because some of the sentences (Like the last sentence in the introduction) really seem like POV, even though I actually agree with them. We've gotta do a better job here. --Ido50 (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Many statements in this article seem like opinion. I marked it with weasel words. Statements such as "Fans were overall somewhat disappointed with the change, but the album was still well received." and "Enjoy!, their next album (released in 1986) was not well received by critics, but fans liked it." are not fact. --Skurry (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop punk

As of a discussion and vote concerning about this issue, it has been decided that "pop punk revival" is a neologism (specific to wikipedia), similarly, "punk-pop" is a term which is more or less a neologism (specific to the music industry, public relation firms, and especially All Music Guide. These terms are referring to the style known as pop punk. In the case of the Descendents they may actually be one of the first pop punk bands. Of course they are also considered hardcore and college rock/indie kinda fit the bill too. --Xsxex (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They are in NO way pop punk. They started out as a hardcore band. They were social outcasts and sunned by the populous. They weren't mainstream or played on the radio. There wasnt even poppunk back then. Therefore it is impossible for them to e poppunk. Just so happens that when looking back on them their songs have a pop punk mold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.119.213 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed the point. You don't necessarily have to be super popular to be pop punk. I first heard the Descendents as a hardcore band with pop punk influence. Greenday was pop punk before they were signed to a major. --24.5.110.50 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No i think you missed the point: pop punk didnt exist. Because if it works this way Mozart was punk as hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.101.89 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone had to invent a sound. It's like saying that you can't call Bauhaus goth because it didn't exist yet. Mozart was too complex to be punk. There is nothing punk about Mozart. For the record, I am a huge fan of the Descendents so I'm not trying to bad mouth them or anything. Pop punk is a sound- it doesn't necessarily state anything about there popularity. Even if they aren't fully pop punk (which I will give to you), they are pop punk enough to have it included. --69.181.253.64 (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. They're a pop punk band. Sure, Milo Goes To College was a hardcore album, and they still have other hardcore songs, but why not add pop-punk as well? And yeah, pop punk existed ever since The Buzzcocks, and even The Ramones. Besides, Descendents are still going, and how can you not admit that "Clean Sheets", "I'm The One" and "Nothing With You", and many more are pop punk songs? Pop punk is not an insult, it's punk rock but with more upbeat and catchy songs and lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.234.231 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Descendants are definitely punk. Not pop punk, but punk. Punk is not a sound is an attitude. And The Ramones are definitely the opposite of pop punk. And just in case you did not know, pop is short for popular, these guys were not popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tm315 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "Pop Punk" is a confusing one because it has very little to do with the "Punk" subculture and the term "Pop" is not related to the word "popularity". Instead, it is meant to mean that it is a genre that shares qualities of the "Pop" musical genre as well as some qualities of the "Punk" musical genre. To be even more confusing, it developed a sound/ethos/subculture that is distinct from either musical genre. Still, NO, Descendents cannot be labeled Pop Punk. Though the Descendents have some musical qualities that can be deemed to be "Proto-Pop Punk" because they share many of the hallmarks of the beginning of the sound of Pop Punk music, they are much closer related to Punk then Pop Punk. Dreap 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreap (talk • contribs)

You can read all about pop-punk at the Wikipedia article on (you guessed it :) pop punk. benzband (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Member list, formation date, etc

Not sure why the two early singers were erased from the 'previous members' section of the member list or why the dates were tinkered with and such, but I'm going to go ahead and revert all of that. Colinclarksmith (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to have to get to this later. A number of the changed dates are wrong and there are some omissions, I'll need more time to fix it all up. Also, I don't see the point of the member list if we're going to omit the intermediary lineups and merely list who plays on each record. If you ask me, the point of member lists is to see what exists between the gaps of album liner notes. Colinclarksmith (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we could discuss the issues here rather than you simply reverting my work. I couldn't find sources for two of the names previously listed (David Nolte & Gwynn Kahn). This was the source for Nolte, which kinda establishes him as an early member during the group's embryotic stages, but he wasn't part of any recording lineup and only sang at "a few early gigs", and isn't listed on the infamous "All/Descendents Family Shrub", which begins with the "power trio" lineup. This was the source for Kahn, and it actually doesn't mention that name anywhere in it, so...

Also I'm not sure what you mean about the dates being wrong: from going through the website & other sources (as well as the recording & release dates of the albums) I feel they're pretty accurate. I'm not sure about the formation date: the official site says '78 but nearly every secondary source I can find, like Allmusic, gives '79, likely based on the date of the first single. Also the previous version of the table had a number of dates that were just flat-out wrong: A lineup in 1984? That's when the band were on hiatus after Milo went to college. In fact Milo states (Juice interview, Sept. '95, question 6) that they were "on hiatus – no shows or recordings during 1983-1985." Also, 1987-1989? Milo left the band in 1987 following the "FinALL" tour. If you're basing those dates on the release dates of Liveage!, and Hallraker: Live!, those were released posthumously; both were recorded in '87 on the band's last 2 tours supporting All (the album). There were no Descendents from 1988 through 1995: By '88 All were already underway, releasing Allroy Sez and Allroy for Prez that very year. The Descendents didn't re-convene until Everything Sucks, which was recorded June–July 1996. Cool to Be You was recorded Feb–April 2002 and released March '04, so I think 2002–2004 as a range of their most recent active dates is accurate.

Finally, I've got no problem with listing the intermediary lineups but we've got to be able to verify the dates somehow, which is a bit difficult. Even the "family shrub" diagram doesn't give dates. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty soon I'm going to take a stab at rewriting and sourcing the history section, so maybe some details that come up in that process will add clarity to the dates & lineups, and the members section can be adjusted accordingly. Please give me some time to work on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything you're saying is fair. I think I was a little frustrated this morning when I saw the massive changes, but the whole article (member section included) needed a lot of work so I'm glad that you've embarked on all of that and I think it's fair to say that a lot of the info is interpretive and can stand to be re-evaluated. Also, I shouldn't have made it sound like I planned to wholesale "revert" any edits, merely specific bits of certain information, but I will definitely hold off on that while you do your work. Anyway, moving along.... I think the biggest point I would contend in what you're saying is the 1978 formation and the legitimacy of Nolte as an original member. The formative years of band histories often get tricky, since bands evolve out of other bands and a simple bifurcation between one group and the next isn't always unambiguous. This seems to be the case with the Descendents, who actually give self-contradictory information about their history in various places. The (indeed infamous) Family Shrub actually neglects to list several lineups, including the 1982-era post-Milo lineups, and doesn't seem to me to be a very good place to start since it seems only interested in an album/release-oriented chronology. Even though the 'Shrub doesn't mention Nolte, it seems to me that the band's own F.A.Q. makes a clear-cut case for Nolte's having been involved in a significant, formative version of the band. Also, while I remember reading that interview where Milo claimed that there were no live shows from 1983-1985, I found another source (which I can't seem to find right now) that seemed to confirm shows in both '83 and '85. My only point here is that their own primary sources are not always trustworthy. But of course, you're right that the Descendents properly disbanded in 1987 (I could have sworn it was '88, but it doesn't even matter because the chart incorrectly said '89), and a 1984 lineup would also have been wrong, so you're definitely addressing problems with the chronology. So go ahead and do the work you have in mind and we'll talk about any concerns at a later date. Again, sorry for being crabby this morning : ) Colinclarksmith (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not a morning person myself :) Thanks for the polite reply. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's Just Bad

This article is extremely badly written and requires a major overhaul in my opinion. It is written more like an (favorable) opinion column than an objective encyclopedic article, there are no sources and citations, and there are a lot of claims that (even though I agree with some), just make this article seem ridicules. I think there's a great need to start collecting information about the band from different sources, not just on the web, and attempt to find as much content that goes back to the band's origins. With a large enough arsenal of sources the article can then be overhauled.

# Ido50 (talk to me), at 07:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free content

You have a real issue with non-free content in this article, which needs to be resolved- the article is certainly unable to pass at GAC until the issue is dealt with. Basically, you have a large number of non-free music samples, which is problematic in and of itself (ideally, we need the minimum number of samples that can still convey the message). However, the samples themselves are far too high a quality (64kbps should be sufficient) and have useless, copy-paste rationales that clearly do not apply to this article. Instead, non-free content should have specific, individual rationales taylored to the use in question, explaining what the sample is adding and why it is needed, tying it in with the article. J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Most of them are valid, but I see no issue with the quality of the audio being an issue due to there size not being incredibly large. But the rest I will work on. Cowik (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have finished cleaning up the file descriptions. Thank you Cowik (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Descendents. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207044805/http://www.descendentsonline.com:80/archive/shows/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/shows/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Descendents. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709014738/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/gnusletters/pages/1996fall-b-norb.htm to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/gnusletters/pages/1996fall-b-norb.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205014747/http://www.descendentsonline.com/discography/full_lengths/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/discography/full_lengths/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/shows/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108051619/http://www.epitaph.com/videos/player/596 to http://www.epitaph.com/videos/player/596
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221112207/http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/64/Im_The_One to http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/64/Im_The_One
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418035045/http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/65/When_I_Get_Old to http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/65/When_I_Get_Old

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  sami  ^talk 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Descendents → Descendents (band) – With there being a multitude of notable, and possible even more notable, subjects and articles at the disambiguation page Descendant (which redirects Descendent and Descendants redirect to), I'm not seeing how the spelling variation of this subject distinguishes itself from the other notable subjects at the aforementioned disambiguation page, including Descendants (2015 film) (which gets more page views that Descendents almost daily.) In order to ensure that readers are locating the correct artidle when looking up this spelling variation, I propose that this page be moved to Descendents (band) and the leftover redirect Descendents be redirected to Descendant, the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. This band is fairly notable and is the only topic on the DAB page to use the spelling "Descendents" outside of the obscure Chilean horror film which is rarely viewed. Google also points to the band being the majority usage of this spelling variation. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per the small text of WP:SMALLDETAILS re details which aren't consistent. This band's name is a misspelling but a very common misspelling for Descendants. (band) is only going to help readers and hurt no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The only two articles that use the spelling descendent (with an "e" instead of an "a") include the band, and the 2008 film. Per page views, the band is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. All other articles listed on the disambiguation page use descendant with an "a" instead of an "e" and according to WP:SMALLDETAILS, ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, which in conjunction with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, allows the band to have the current page title. CookieMonster755✉ 03:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary overprecision. This is the primary topic for the precise title. Any possible confusion is best handled by a hatnote. Station1 (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

according to this search there are 2,174 pages on Wikipedia with "descendents" "-band". @Station1: @Nohomersryan: @CookieMonster755: the primary topic for the precise title is clearly not a punk band which has never had even one charting single, but a misspelling of descendants. I cannot see with so many Wikipedia articles misspelling the word how anyone can argue all those mispellings mean a band. Unless those opposing are volunteering to go through those articles and fix every one? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Also note this Oxford Dictionary of English Angus Stevenson - 2010 Page 474 0199571120 USAGE The correct spelling for the noun meaning 'person descended from a particular ancestor' is descendant, not -ent. Descendent is a less common adjective meaning 'descending from an ancestor'. Almost 15 per cent of the citations for the term in the Oxford English Corpus use the wrong spelling. 15% of all usage is very high for a misspelling. And again those 15 per cent of the citations for the term in the Oxford English Corpus we can guess that not one of them refers to a non-charting punk band. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Descendents" is the correct spelling for the band, whereas it's an incorrect spelling for "descendants". In an encyclopedia, correct data should take precedence over incorrect data, otherwise we're further encouraging the misspelling. Furthermore, Descendents is getting about 470 hits per day, while descendants is getting only about 23 [1]. Using your figures, if descendants is misspelled about 15% of the time, it means only about 4 hits per day (23 x 0.15) out of 470 are landing on the band's page in error. Station1 (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but (not even mentioning mislinks) I think this comment shows a misunderstanding of how people get to articles. And why are those 23 people a day not important? No one would be harmed by (band) and 23 a day could be saved downloading an article onto their phones they don't want. Wikipedia isn't here to bully readers into submission, or correct spelling or anything else - the reader is the customer. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not 23 people per day, it's about 4, and yes, they are important. That's why there's a hatnote on the article. But those 4 are not more important than the larger number who search for or link to "Descendents" knowing what they want, who would be sidetracked to a dab page. That larger number would in fact be harmed unnecessarily by adding "(band)" to the title. And I'm amazed that anyone thinks correct spelling is not important in an encyclopedia. Next thing someone will propose redirecting beatles as a common misspelling of beetles. Station1 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:ASTONISH, the page descendents needs to be an R from misspelling._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. In conjunction with this RM, a concurrent RM has been initiated at Talk:Descendant (2003 film)#Requested move 27 December 2017, proposing to move Descendant (2003 film) → Descendant (film), Descendants (2008 film) → Descendants (film) and Descendents (2008 film) → Descendents (film). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The above stats from Station1 prove that this article is likely what readers expect when they search "Descendents". Nothing else challenges it for the title, either. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

For example, see incoming link from article Elmont, New York; where a link from "descendents" of Sephardi Jews is arriving at a punk band. Or from List of biochemists.... this is a misspell and mislink magnet. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

But that misspelling should be corrected (I just did Elmont) whether or not this article were moved. Don't the vast majority of incoming wikilinks correctly point to the band? The one from List of biochemists is correct, btw. Station1 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What about the 2,174 pages on Wikipedia with "descendents" "-band" that aren't linked? Those show that Wikipedia content editors reflect the OED comment, that these are just variant spellings. The purpose of titles is to help readers find articles not hinder them. How does the current title help the 15% of readers who spell descendants as descendents? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The current title does help the greater number of readers find the article. As explained above, only roughly 1% of the readers landing on the article are here in error, and they are helped by the hatnote. The far far greater number want the band, and redirecting them to a useless (to them) dab page hinders that larger number. Station1 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article has conflicting info about founding members

The summary states the band was formed by Navetta, Lombardo and Stevenson, but the history starts by saying the band was founded by Navette and Nolte. -Joltman (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)