Talk:The Used

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Used article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives

1


Contents

[edit] RIAA Gold and Platinum Certification

The information about Gold and Platinum certification is highly inaccurate. I just checked on the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of Ameria) online searchable database of Gold and Platinum albums. The first album and In Love and Death are both Gold, not Platinum and Multi-Platinum. The newest album, has yet to even reach Gold status. The sources sited on the Wikipedia page are not accurate. Also, as a side note, saying an album is "has sold well" without any documentation just doesn't look good on a Wikipedia page, especially when it hasn't come close to Gold certification (the first acheivable sales award) close to a year after release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.207.9 (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism and debate over genres

Some IPs have been vandalizing the History section lately with comments like "The Used sucks" and "The Used, one of the gayest bands ever". Keep an eye out for this stuff, and revert it as necessary.

Now for the issue of their genre.. They clearly have alternative influences, but those are superseded by their emo, or "emotive hardcore" style. Anyone who makes the claim that they are just alternative has most likely only heard their singles. The fact that they are first and foremost an emo band is apparent on songs like "Maybe Memories", "Say Days Ago", "A Box Full of Sharp Objects", "Take It Away", "Listening", "Sound Effects and Overdramatics", "I'm a Fake", etc. Alternative proponents often point to songs like "The Taste of Ink", "Blue and Yellow", "Greener with the Scenery", "Noise and Kisses", "All That I've Got", "Cut up Angels", etc. This doesn't hold, as those songs are constructed like power ballads, and maintain the emo sound, and screaming. Which brings me to the biggest reason why they aren't alternative -- the vocal style. Alternative rock doesn't have the kind of screaming Bert does, which is influenced by emo/post-hardcore. While their latest album took a turn in the direction of alternative, the emo is still apparent, and their b-sides are a lot like their older songs. I would call their latest effort "emo-prog" or "emo-crossover", like MCR's The Black Parade album.

To sum it up, The Used have songs where their alternative influences are quite apparent, yet they still end up sounding like themselves, and emo/screamo. They have songs that are straight up hardcore, softer acoustic ones(every emo band has a few), alt-rock influenced power ballads, and the rest of their material would fall somewhere in between. Basically, they take emo/screamo and make it their own, sounding like nothing else, and that leads to confusion.

This is relevant to the information in the article, because a lot of ppl have been changing the genres in the infobox. If the article is to be improved, we have to come to a consensus. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is interesting, but we have to go by the sources, not our own opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't quite understand that.Inhumer (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
^^Haha, you again! Please ignore him, he's just been spreading his false opinions. As for going by opinions, that's not what I set out to do here. I'm simply going behind what the sources say, and giving you all the rationale for labeling The Used a certain genre. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the articles on the genres you are talking about? I'm pretty sure the definition of the genre should decide what bands fall under it, not some website that makes up genres (emo-prog?). You say The Used is "emotive hardcore". No, there isn't the slightest form of "hardcore" in The Used's music at all. Listen to bands like Rites of Spring and Moss Icon, and tell me if The Used sounds anything like them. -- FatalError (talk | contribs) 02:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I take offense to the fact that you assume I am incapable of original thought. I didn't get "emo-prog" off a website, I made it up. Of course, I would never dream of including that original research in any of the articles. It's simply a term I came up with to categorize emo bands who wish to go beyond the accepted codes and conventions of the genre today, and that's what The Used have done on their latest album. "Emo-crossover" is something I came up with to categorize emo bands who abandon the genre in favour of a more mainstream rock sound, and that's what MCR has done with their Black Parade album. I have read all articles relating to emo, and most of them are in horrible shape, containing biased original research and shouldn't be trusted. Furthermore, the section on third-wave emo is in denial of itself. These are not reliable sources. I'm listening to Rites of Spring right now, and I tell you with conviction that they sound very similar to The Used, and they are definitely in the same genre. Just so you know, telling me I'm wrong and then saying I should listen to these other bands does not mean you are right. I don't see you writing anything justifying how The Used aren't emo, I just see you saying they aren't. That indicates that you have no argument, but you want people to believe you anyway. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If I don't have an argument, then neither do you. I don't see how you can think The Rites of Spring sound anything like The Used. The Used is not punk rock in the slightest. Emo derives from hardcore punk, which derives from punk rock. There is no connection at all. The Used has influences in many genres, such as alternative and post-hardcore, but I'd say take IllaZilla's suggestion and just put rock with desputed genre underneath or something. I'm not going to argue with you at this point because I'm not going to try to argue with the sources, and obviously I don't have any "reliable" ones to back me up. If allmusic says The Used is emo, so be it. -- FatalError (talk | contribs) 04:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The Used is a type of band that really can't be labeled. They have some post hardcore songs some screamo songs and some technoish stuff. All in all they are the greatest band on the face of the EARTH! By The way this section is more about The Used than just Quinn. :)

[edit] Logo

Due to the logo being removed from this article, i recommend people join this discussion on logos Logos Discussion (86.159.81.139 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

The logo is still in the article (look further down). --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

I'm not really involved in contributing to this article, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents and give a little levity with regard to the seeming disagreements over the band's genres. As far as the infobox goes, see Template:Infobox Musical artist#Genre: "Aim for generality (e.g. [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]] rather than [[East Coast hip hop]])." So, "rock" or "alternative rock" should be just fine. Further discussion of what genres or subgenres the band's music falls under (ie. emo, screamo, etc.) should be discussed in the article body, with references to reliable third-party sources. The only genres that should be listed in the infobox are those that are mentioned in the article body. It shouldn't be necessary to use references in the infobox, since the genres are already referenced in the article body (plus it just makes the infobox look cluttered, and it's supposed to be a simple at-a-glance thing). I've got several reliable sources with articles about The Used laying around (Alternative Press, Spin, Rolling Stone, etc.) and they all describe how the band fits into these different genres. So there's plenty of supporting source material out there, and there's no reason to go on arguing or reverting genre disputes when we should just be writing what the sources tell us. Discussions about genres shouldn't be added into the article without references, and only the genres discussed in the article should be listed in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in support of this idea.Inhumer (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes that's a great idea, agreed. FatalError (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the "aim for generality" rule should apply here; it applies more to terms and, unlike east coast hip hop, which is a term not an actual genre, emo and screamo are valid rock sub-genres. I don't see why we can't have those in the infobox too. Funeral 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You can, I'm merely suggesting that you should only list genres in the infobox which are discussed in the article body with good references. For example, if you have good referenced discussion in the article which says how the band is "alternative", "emo", and "screamo", you can then list those genres in the infobox. But you shouldn't add, say, "post-hardcore" to the infobox if it's not part of the referenced discussion in the article body. The "aim for generality" guideline is meant to help readers get a general understanding of the subject in the infobox, and to help avoid nitpicky edit wars (which seems to have happened here). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
And you should start with the most broad genre, ie. "rock," to give readers that general understanding. The idea is to simply say to the reader "this is a rock band", to differentiate the subject from, say, a classical orchestra, a hip-hop group, or a jazz ensemble. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest this Broad Genre:Rock Sub Genre:Hardcore/Punk Specific Genre: ______core make up a name for the used specifically. they don't fit into any specific genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelThrash (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah! We have reached a concensus atlast!

Fleurbutterfly 19:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war: please stop it.

Hi. Please discontinue the ongoing edit war between USEDfan, Pwnage8, Fezmar9, and a few others, as edit warring is not productive, so please settle on a resolution, as most of the edits have been by these users within the past few days. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Ok, so there seem to be two main disputes with the infobox:

[edit] Emo or Emocore

Should the genre be emo or emocore? Considering emocore redirects to emo, I see no sense in using emocore, as this could potentially lead to confusion. Any further comments?

[edit] Associated acts

  • Strange Itch
  • Dumb Luck
  • Used
  • Good Charlotte
  • New Transit Direction
  • Rancid

Personally, I would suggest removing those that do not have wikipedia articles (what sense is there in listing these bands if there is no article to give further info.), but I am open to leaving them there. As for Good Charlotte, NTD and Rancid, their reasons for inclusion are clear, and there should be no argument.

So, to the following users:

  • User:Booowooo
  • User:USEDfan

before continuing this edit war, please explain why you oppose this content. Do not revert the page to your preferred version, you must clearly discuss such changes here first. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the first three of those bands are essentially The Used we see today with a variation of members, I don't believe there is any reason to leave them there at all. Kokiri kid (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Nouse that any redlinked names should be de-listed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 9, 2008 conflicts

To facilitate discussion, I'll call out some of the apparent conflicts in this current round of edit warring. Please be civil, refrain from personal attacks, and a review of the relevant Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines may be helpful – Zedla (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

(also see "Emo..." above, and the Talk:The Used#Genres section)

[edit] Status/characterization of certain (former) members

[edit] External links

which ones are appropriate for inclusion?

[edit] genre section

i added a genre paragraph to the page last night since over the years there has been so much confussion about their genre, the table has a link that if clicked thakes u to the paragraph, instead of listing genres on the main table, they are now mention in the paragraph and other info added about their genre being so hard to pick and what they say about it. USEDfan (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Finally. Although, no offense, the paragraph needs a bit of revision. And I added rock to the infobox, because it is unquestionable that they are rock. -- FatalError (t|c) 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

Yes, according to USEDFan, ive been "vandalising" this article for "removing half a paragraph of sourced information". Let me clear up a few things: 1. I was the one who added the source in the first place, USEDFan didnt even have any proper sources to back up the genres which he/she claimed. 2. i did not just remove it, i changed it. Its called EDITING, you remove existing information and add other information which you consider to be more accurate.--SilverOrion (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

if i undo ur edit, the paragraph doubles, u remove half a paragraph and it is sourced, that is what vandalism is considered. USEDfan (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
also u realize that 3 other users edited the paragraph and compilmented me on how it was, silverorion is the only problem here. USEDfan (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing something which i consider is incorrect, DOES NOT COUNT AS VANDALISM. Heres what it says on the wiki page regarding vandalism: "Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Yeah majority rules is such a great policy: you can be wrong, as long as you have numbers.--SilverOrion (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article history, I agree with SilverOrion's changes (though not the warring which both parties are guilty of). Both the tone and neutrality of the section were improved, and also some original research was removed. Bill (talk|contribs) 10:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I too would agree with this form, for the reasons stated above. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
dude how can u say that u agree, they removed half a paragraph, they changed it to "bert STATES the band insnt scremo" when all he said was "he didnt want to be considered scremo", theres a big differnece there, they also removed half of the paragraph of infomation. USEDfan (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"remove half a paragraph of information"..man, you just dont listen... how many times do i have to explain this.--SilverOrion (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
by saying bert states they arent scremo, u are putting words in his mouth, they are constantly labeled and scremo, in that interview he siad he doesnt want to be considered screamo...but they still are, u also removed the sentence after berts quote where it lets people no although he feels that way they are still considered scremao, and u removed all of the info about the genres they listed on myspace, the one place they ever announced info about genre, u removed, ur the one who doesnt listen, half of the paragraph is missing right now and the sentence shud say bert doesnt want to be scremo, because he didnt state they werent screamo, how can u no understand any of this, bottom line, u removed half the paragraph, u did not inprove it, all info u removed was sourced, and u put a false statement by saying "bert states". it needs to be reverted or re-edited to add the missing info u removed. USEDfan (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
THe Used considers their music to be, "something brighter than just this dimly lit singled-out genre that's going to fade away in a couple years. We're just rock kids.". Being constantly labelled as screamo doesnt mean that they ARE. What it means is that people have misinterpreted the band's music. You'd think that the BAND MEMBER would know what they are playing???--SilverOrion (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
he didnt say that they arent scremao, he siad they dont want to be called screamo, and if going against wha tu siad about having healing and easy listen in the paragraph, the used myspace genres are lsited to show how hard it is to determin eth eused genre, it said that it canno tbe taken seriously an dthat is a reason why there is such a debate, the used wont say what they are, but the info aobut myspace genres i sto be invloved as orginally was and then sai dho wit canno tbe taken seriously. removing it was a mistake. USEDfan (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
and even if they arent screamo, the point is the articles lists all the genres they are classifeid as and that is why it is in there. USEDfan (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] page locked due to SilverOrion

this user has changed what me, Pwange8, and FatalError worked on today, i started the paragrap, pwange8 edited it and then fatalerror edited it more and everything was fine, however silverorion kept removing half the page so i changed it back and they kept putitng it their way so i reported it and the page got locked, their edits remove half of a paragraph and put up wrong info as they say bert stated the used arent scremo when all he siad is that they dont want ot be scremo, so them removing half a paragraph of sourced info is what i thought of as vandalism so now th epage is locked on the way they want it to be and not the way that the rest of us pretty muched agreed on and loved. USEDfan (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the "rest of us", as in you and 2 other people. As i said before: majority rules is such a great policy: you can be wrong, as long as you have the numbers. You also have no idea what constitutes as "vandalism".--SilverOrion (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph right now is very biased towards SilverOrion's POV that they're "not screamo". I'd appreciate it if there was more detail, like there used to be. I'm not saying that version was 100% perfect, but it was a good start, and SilverOrion changing it made it worse. I also don't like the fact that he was constantly removing the link to the band's OFFICIAL youtube channel, and masking it as a "minor edit".[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] This is definitely malicious behaviour on his part. However, I don't agree with all the edit warring. That was just silly. Both USEDfan and SilverOrion are equally responsible for getting this page locked. You'd think if not after the third round of reverts, they'd get to actually discussing after the fourth time around :| They must've done it 9 or 10 times. Now the page is locked because of this, and no improvements can be made at all. Quite sad. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated above, the tone the current version is less POV and more encyclopedic than the previous version, although still needs work. Writing from the style I am used to (scientific punlications), the following is along the lines that I would suggest:

Remove the first line completely; it is unnecessary, just go straight in to a description of genres like this:

The Used have been classified under many genres, including alternative rock,(REFERENCE HERE) post-hardcore,(REFERENCE HERE) emo,(REFERENCE HERE), screamo,(REFERENCE HERE) and pop punk(REFERENCE HERE). The band often evades directly answering questions about their genre, although Bert McCracken has specifically stated he does not consider the band to be screamo.(REFERENCE HERE)

We want to establish ourselves as something brighter than just this dimly lit singled-out genre that's going to fade away in a couple years. We're just rock kids.

As for removing the YouTube links, I think generally they get removed because of copyright violations, however as this is an official site, it seems fair for it to stay. Also, here it says there is no "blanket ban" on YouTube in the external links section. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it any more "biased" than USEDFan's version?. As for the youtube link, how do you know it was actually created BY the band, and not a fan??--SilverOrion (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Having read the references, the bebo one cannot be used, it is a forum, not a verifiable source, whereas the ultimate guitar review is actually only referring to one album, not the band's genre as a whole. I really think some better sources are required, or this section should just be removed for being OR. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The format and wording you suggest looks good, especially requesting citations for each genre. As the genre is disputed this is essential and any genre not sourced should be removed. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's all very well having a disputed genre section, but if this dispute exists only amongst fans and not within music critics at large (ie, genre varies widely between publication), then it is not "really" disputed, and certainly not needed in the article. This is the reason that each genre should be provided with a valid, reliable, verifiable source. The best example of such a section I have seen is probably at My Chemical Romance. The tone is neutral, and does not exaggerate the facts or become too wordy. Including influences in the section is also a good move in my view. Anyway, let's see what others think... Nouse4aname (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I did say the section needed work, but that SilverOrion's revision made it worse. I like your ideas, and am not opposed to them at all. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
so i made the article "worse" by actually adding a source, and removing the misinterpretation of it?--SilverOrion (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
u removed alot of sourced info and u misinterpetted what the source about screamo said, u think bert stated they arent scremo when he sai dthey dont want to be called screamo. USEDfan (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THEUSEDCHANNEL

So do we all agree that the link to their youtube channel should be re-inserted? --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that it was actually created by The Used, and not a fan of the band?--SilverOrion (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
if u watch any of the videos ull no it cudnt be a fan, also the used have posted links on their myspace page to it and said to check out their utube page. so yes it will be added back. USEDfan (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
they also have a link to it on their official site theused.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by USEDfan (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
hah, yeah and if it is their official site, we better add "healing & easy listening" to the genre list as well....--SilverOrion (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
indeed, it was in there until u removed it. USEDfan (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
it was never labelled as "healing and easy listening". The legitimacy of the channel is also questionable as the information box simply says "wah wah wah".--SilverOrion (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
the used myspace says healing and easy listen, that is included in the article to show that used wont say what genre they are, they are obviously joking by having that on their myspace, so its included in the genre paragraph to show how hard it is to determine a real genre when the used are doing jokes like that. USEDfan (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you obviously have no clue and shouldn't be editing this page if you think that isn't their official channel. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
for an "official" youtube channel, it is certainly quite bland. Theres no artist description, pictures or comments from the actual artist, apart from the "wah wah wah", which doesnt exactly prove its legitimacy. Also you fail to realise how easy it is to just make an account and call it the "official" channel. You dont even need anything to verify that you are the actual artist. Take myspace for example, some artists have about 5 "official" pages.--SilverOrion (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
My earlier comment speaks volumes. The fact that you can't tell a fake channel apart from the official one. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ive just explained why it does NOT seem like a legitimate channel. Did you even read it???? On the other hand, if its not possible to tell the difference between a fake and an official channel, why ASSUME that it is official? Can you actually counter the points that i made??--SilverOrion (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to prove to you that it's their official channel, because like it or not, USEDfan has already done that. You are the one who has to read, not me. And you are the only one who has trouble telling apart an official channel from a fake one. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you point me to a source that proves that it is the official channel too? As far as I know, anyone can upload videos to Youtube and I'd like to be sure before I'm happy with it being linked in the article. Bill (talk|contribs) 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "half a paragraph of deleted material"

Since USEDFan insists on bring it up.. i thought i might point out some of the problems with it.

  • "mix of poppy vocals..." = informal
  • "Used's unique sound...." = opinion
  • the quote from bebo = is from a forum, cannot be used.
  • "Nonetheless, they are still often classified as such" = bands are often miscategorised. just because they are "often" called screamo, doesnt mean that they are.

--SilverOrion (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

and even if a band says they dont want to be called scremo, it doesnt mean that they arent/ USEDfan (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
also the bebo source is the only one i could find becuase it was orginally siad in a magazine and unless u can put a piece of paper as a source, thats the best that can be done or we could just site it as (Kerrang Magazine). USEDfan (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the problems that need to be resloved with the genre section

this is the paragraph created by me, pwange8, and fatalerror:

"The Used's sound gives fans and reviewers alike a difficult time classifying the band's genre of music. The mix of poppy vocals and screaming have led to the band being labeled as numerous different sub genres of rock, including alternative rock, post-hardcore, emo, screamo, and pop punk. The band members have said that they don't care what genre they are or what people classify them as, as long as they make good music. [8] However, Bert McCracken has said that they do not want to be labeled screamo, due to it being a "genre of music that is eating us alive right now" and because it is "going to fade away in a couple years".[9] Nonetheless, they are still often classified as such. Since the band does not say what genre they are, it appears that it will always be a disputed topic amongst fans."

and this is the current vandalized one by silverorion:

"The Used sound gives fans and reviewers alike a difficult time classifiy the band's genre of music. They have been classified under many genres such as alternative rock, post-hardcore, emo, punk pop, etc. When the band is asked about what genre of music they are, they never give a direct answer. Bert McCracken states that they are not screamo, commenting: "We want to establish ourselves as something brighter than just this dimly lit singled-out genre that's going to fade away in a couple years. We're just rock kids[24]"

and here are the problems with it: 1. they removed half a paragraph of sourced inforamtion. 2. they made it say that bert states the band isnt scremo when all he said was that he didnt want to be classified as scremo 3. they removed all the genre info about how the band lists themselves on myspace 4. they are removing that the band is calssified as screamo from the list of genre in the paragraph 5. they are removing the closing sentence that sums up and finishes off the paragraph USEDfan (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Accusation of vandalism : already explained it
  • Removed half a paragraph of sourced info: already explained it
  • Bert on the topic of screamo : already explained it
  • Removed all genre info about how the band lists themselves on myspace: genres were already covered. Not needed
  • removing screamo from liste of genre: already explained it
  • removing closing sentence: OH NOES!

--SilverOrion (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

u explain how ur opinion was, it is still aproblem that needs to be fixed. USEDfan (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ALBUMS

  • First album: THE USED. Review says POP PUNK [10]
  • Second album: IN LOVE AN DEATH. Review says: ""If you like mainstream pop-rock stuff them chances are you are going to like this"[11]
  • Third Album: LIES FOR LIARS: Review says: "...is a well crafted pop punk record at times laced with dark undertones, showing a new and more matured side to the group"[12]

NONE OF WHICH SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT IT BEING SCREAMO. --SilverOrion (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

i had a source ot a review that said screamo. USEDfan (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is it.--SilverOrion (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,543090,00.html USEDfan (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

well theres conflicting sources, so you cant actually say that they are. Anyways, mines more reliable.. its from a site FOR music, not some entertainment gossip site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverOrion (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
reliable is an opinion. USEDfan (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what else is an opinion? SAYING THAT THE BAND IS UNIQUE. Anyhow, whats more reliable, an entertainment gossip site, or a site that is actually dedicated to MUSIC.--SilverOrion (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
please read the topic below, its nouse4aname's version of the table and it shud settle everything. USEDfan (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

@SilverOrion: Those Sputnik reviews are not staff reviews, so they're not reliable either. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no use for a name suggestion

this is how noused4name said it shud be:

The Used have been classified under many genres, including alternative rock,(REFERENCE HERE) post-hardcore,(REFERENCE HERE) emo,(REFERENCE HERE), screamo,(REFERENCE HERE) and pop punk(REFERENCE HERE). The band often evades directly answering questions about their genre, although Bert McCracken has specifically stated he does not consider the band to be screamo.(REFERENCE HERE)

i think it covers both versions well and meets in the middle so me and silverorion should prob agree to this one, whats every1 think, if we could agree to this we can call and admin over to unlock the page and we can fix it. USEDfan (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre paragrah settlement

this is the paragraph created by me, pwange8, and fatalerror:

"The Used's sound gives fans and reviewers alike a difficult time classifying the band's genre of music. The mix of poppy vocals and screaming have led to the band being labeled as numerous different sub genres of rock, including alternative rock, post-hardcore, emo, screamo, and pop punk. The band members have said that they don't care what genre they are or what people classify them as, as long as they make good music. [1] However, Bert McCracken has said that they do not want to be labeled screamo, due to it being a "genre of music that is eating us alive right now" and because it is "going to fade away in a couple years".[2] Nonetheless, they are still often classified as such. Since the band does not say what genre they are, it appears that it will always be a disputed topic amongst fans."

and this is the current vandalized one by silverorion:

"The Used sound gives fans and reviewers alike a difficult time classifiy the band's genre of music. They have been classified under many genres such as alternative rock, post-hardcore, emo, punk pop, etc. When the band is asked about what genre of music they are, they never give a direct answer. Bert McCracken states that they are not screamo, commenting: "We want to establish ourselves as something brighter than just this dimly lit singled-out genre that's going to fade away in a couple years. We're just rock kids[24]"

this is how noused4name said it shud be:

"The Used have been classified under many genres, including alternative rock,(REFERENCE HERE) post-hardcore,(REFERENCE HERE) emo,(REFERENCE HERE), screamo,(REFERENCE HERE) and pop punk(REFERENCE HERE). The band often evades directly answering questions about their genre, although Bert McCracken has specifically stated he does not consider the band to be screamo.(REFERENCE HERE)"


i think it covers both versions well and meets in the middle so me and silverorion should prob agree to this one, whats every1 think? USEDfan (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to find citations for it now...maybe post the ones you find here first, so everyone agrees they are reliable. Obviously, more can be added to the above if necessary. The MCR section is good, as it incorporates influences in this section too...maybe that would add more. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

heres an version with some sources:

The Used have been classified under many genres, including alternative rock [13], post-hardcore,(REFERENCE HERE) emo, [14], screamo,[15] and pop punk(REFERENCE HERE). The band often evades directly answering questions about their genre, although Bert McCracken has specifically stated he does not consider the band to be screamo. [16] USEDfan (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. As long as you get sources for all the genres, I think it'll be perfect. -- FatalError 04:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think its funny how USEDFan conviniently left out the source for pop punk. I'll agree to this under ONE CONDITION: COMPLETE REMOVAL OF THE TERM "SCREAMO" from the article, that means ALL references to it. It makes no sense to put up a citation saying that it is "screamo" when there are several album reviews saying that they are pop punk. There is obviously conflicting source, so we shouldnt put EITHER. --SilverOrion (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
i am having such a hard time making u realize that the opening sentence is a list of everyhting that they have been classified as, it doesnt matter if it is right or worng because no1 nos for sure what genre the used are, the opening sentence here is to list every genre, that is why it says the used have been classified undermnay different genres such as (then it list them all) i dont think the used are screamo but since they have been classified under that it is in the list and then the following sentence makes the statement that the band doesnt consider themselves screamo even tho they get classified as that. USEDfan (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
i couldnt find the pop punk source. USEDfan (talk)
also the reason scremo is included is to show what a wide range of genres the band has been labeled as over the years, many calssified the first album as scremo, and the 2nd album as a more popy sound, the point is the paragraph is genre disbute, and screamo is disbuted so that is why it needs to be included, it is a list of every genre they have been labeled as regardless to weather its right or worng. USEDfan (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh YOU are having a hard time??? READ MY PROPOSAL.--SilverOrion (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PROPOSAL

Not really that different but yeah...

  • "The Used has been classified under several rock genres such as pop punk (REFERENCE HERE), post-hardcore,(REFERENCE HERE) and emo,(REFERENCE HERE). Their genre is often subject to debate, especially in regards to the "screamo" genre, as there are conflicting sources on whether they are truly part of that genre. However the band has previously stated in the Kerrang magazine that they don't care what genre they are or what people classify them as, as long as they make good music".

--SilverOrion (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

okay we are really getting somewhere, the only thing about this paragraph is the open sentence, i think that all the genres they have been classifeid as should be listed, alternative, screamo, hard rock, pop, and theres a few others that ill find sources for. the point of the opening sentence is to show how big of a disbute there is, and thats why more then 3 genres should be listed, silverorion, i agree that they rnt scremo, i dont think i made that clear to u, but since the band is sometimes classifed under that, it should be lsited so we can show what a range of genres they are labeled as and thats is showing that its a disbute but everyhting after that is good. USEDfan (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
or if we cant agree on what to list, then dont list any and make the paragraph like this:
  • "The Used sound has got them classified under several rock genres over the years. Their genre has always been a subject of debate and with the band refusing to make any comments about what genre they are, the debates are seemingly endless. The band has even stated in the Kerrang magazine that "they don't care what genre they are or what people classify them as, as long as they make good music".

what do u think of that? if we amke it like this we will no that no wrong or right gerne has been listed and then the arguement about what shud be listed in the opening sentence would be settled. USEDfan (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah ok fine. Dont list any and just use that paragraph. Just use that, and dont be sneaky and try adding anything extra, i will be checking..--SilverOrion (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
alright cool, it sure wasnt easy but we finally agree *shakes your hand*, if u are a fan of the used then i hope to aviod anything like this in the future because i do not like to have any problems with my fellow used fans. USEDfan (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2008

(UTC)

Can the appropriate citations be inserted into the paragraph? I have added fact tags to where I think they should go. Also, "the debates are seemingly endless" doesn't have a very encyclopedic tone. Bill (talk|contribs) 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the above paragraph is terrible. It is purely observational, and provides no evidence. The whole point of a disputed genre section is to list all the genres that they have been classified as, with sources. It is to show that various people have used different genres when discussing the band. Stating that the genre is a subject of debate, but providing no evidence is not encyclopedic in the least. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
To make it clear, the idea is to list every genre that they have been described as in reliable sources. This includes genres that you don't necessarily agree with (it wouldn't be a dispute if everyone agreed with them all, would it). Each genre should be provided with at least one reliable source. see here for an example of how it is done. As it stands, the paragraph adds nothing to the article. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
i wouldnt of minded them listed but SilverOrion would not allow screamo to be listed and what u just said above is what i tried to explain to them but they have a thick skull and i couldnt get it tru. and we cant even say what source is reliable or not because we dont no waht they are, every1 has a diff opinion about it so any source that lists a diff genre shoul dbe included in that case. USEDfan (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, take care to avoid personal insults in future. But essentially, they cannot have it their way. The list of genres and sources are required if the paragraph is to make any sense or contribution to the article. Take a look at WP:RS for help on what is reliable. Basically, any review or interview published by a reputable source will suffice, just so long as it is not "user-submitted". And yes, any source that lists a different genre should be listed, so long as the source is reliable. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
then u rewrite it and explain that to them becaus ethey dont lsiten to me or any1 less but themself. USEDfan (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING. Are you trying to start another revert war or what?--SilverOrion (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT ARE YOU DOING!??!

After all this discussion, you go and change it to something you KNOW i disagree with. Fine, if you must have genres, use my original proposal

  • The Used has been classified under several rock genres such as pop punk (REFERENCE HERE), post-hardcore,(REFERENCE HERE) and emo,(REFERENCE HERE). Their genre is often subject to debate, especially in regards to the "screamo" genre, as there are conflicting sources on whether they are truly part of that genre. However the band has previously stated in the Kerrang magazine that they don't care what genre they are or what people classify them as, as long as they make good music".

We do NOT need to add screamo into the first sentence because the the next sentence is covering the issue. DONT MAKE THIS ANY MORE DIFFICULT--SilverOrion (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

yea its very tempting for me to just change it as i please, but since im not a complete moron who goes and breaks an agreement less than a day after it was discussed, i wont. --SilverOrion (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You need all the genres to be listed, whether you agree with them or not. There is no point in disputing one genre if there is no evidence to suggest that they have even been described as that. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The whole point is that sources do not agree on the genre. There is no reason to treat one genre differently to the rest, just because you disagree with it. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there's no reason to not list screamo in the list of genres. Entertainment Weekly is a large, reputable establishment so it's not as if the band was classified in this genre by an independent blog. Anyway, I've noticed an issue here.The biography on http://www.last.fm/music/The+Used (used in 2 citations) is actually part of an open wiki. I was able to sign up and make an edit to the bio. Obviously now this cannot be used as a source, but as it's being used to indirectly use Kerrang as a source, the Kerrang interview should be cited directly. The rest of the text in the last.fm biography shouldn't be used to produce any critical analysis of the situation due to its wiki status. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Screamo needs additional information because it is the one with conflicting sources. It is misleading to simply say that they have been classified as screamo because you are only giving one side of the story. You all know that one of the band member has clearly stated that they dont consider themselves as that genre, PLUS there are many reviews which say that they are not. Isnt this the whole point is a genre dispute? to actually DISCUSS both sides?--SilverOrion (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Totally. After the list of genres, I'd add a sentence along the lines of: "However, in an interview with MTV News, Bert McCracken stated that he doesn't believe the band should be classified as screamo, stating "We wanted to say [no] to the genre of music that's eating us all alive right now — emotional screamo".[17]" Bill (talk|contribs) 11:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
see, i told u guys, silverorion does not understand that the opening sentence should list every gerne that they have been classified as, i tried explianing it 5 times to them and they just dont get it, i read sumwehre them saying they dont even like the used that much so i dont no why they are sepnding so much time with this page, it seems to me like they want to be involed in an edit war. USEDfan (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
@ USedfan:Im going to say this here now, so you dont go completely mental for no reason. I'm going to add "However, in an interview with MTV News, Bert McCracken stated that he doesn't believe the band should be classified as screamo, stating "We wanted to say [no] to the genre of music that's eating us all alive right now — emotional screamo".[18]". See what im doing now? im DISCUSSING THINGS before i change it.

--SilverOrion (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

or u can use the website one, or maybe both. USEDfan (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Just this one. It sums it up pretty well.--SilverOrion (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rock

I changed "Disputed" to "Rock (disputed)" in the infobox just like on Panic at the Disco's article. This will make it a bit more clear for people reading the article that have no clue about The Used. I realize "rock" is in the first sentence of the actual article, but the first place people glance is usually the infobox. -- FatalError 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

mmkay, at least silverorion has stopped removing everything they dont like. USEDfan (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Its too bad i can't say the same for you.--SilverOrion (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
i dont remove anything except vandalsim. USEDfan (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kerang!

Anyone have the exact article that the quote came from? It would be nice to be able to cite it and not have that ugly "citation needed" tag. -- FatalError 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

i had one but bill is being a pain about it, sometimes i realli wish ppl would mind there own buisness. USEDfan (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is everyone's business. This isn't just your article. He's right, Last.fm isn't a reliable source, so we have to find the actual quote from the actual magazine. -- FatalError 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
but the only reason he came to the used page is cause he is stalking all my edits since i put a bad source on the gta page. USEDfan (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha, i dont blame him. --SilverOrion (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed subgenres

As there's a bit of back and forth currently I'll start a discussion. I think that saying that it is the subgenres that are disputed in the infobox is better than just saying disputed[19]. Otherwise it looks like it is Rock that is disputed. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Bill (talk|contribs) 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i agree. "Rock, (disputed subgenres)"--SilverOrion (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

True. I didn't think about that. My bad. -- FatalError 01:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

its not jsut sub genres that are disputed so put "Rock/Disputed" or just "Disputed" USEDfan (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This whole argument is quite trivial. I cant believe its locked.. again. How long has it been? a week!?--SilverOrion (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you say it's not just subgenres? The fact that The Used is a rock band is not disputed. You could only say that if there were multiple sources citing them as metal or another non-rock genre, but there's just one, so it's not really a dispute. -- FatalError 03:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

it can be listed the way it is or "rock/disputed" ir "rock(disputed)"...that it is. USEDfan (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not "rock, disputed subgenres"? --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be "rock, disputed subgenres", not the way it was. I think the rest of us agree, yes? -- FatalError 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
agreed. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
the whole reason a war was started is casue we cudnt agree iwth what was to be listed in the table, and u guys are casuing it all again, it was listed as disputed and eveyrhting was fine then sum1 tried ot add rock to it which is not nessacy, the only thing it will say is disputed, rock is a genre of music but no band is just classified as rock, almost every band is called a rock band cause they play rock n roll music but thats not what genre they are called, that why it will stay the way it is or the page will prob remain or get locked again. USEDfan (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"but thats not what genre they are called" Yes it is. You have one source calling them metal, that's it. The fact that they are a rock band is not disputed. Anyway, I have requested that the article be unlocked. USEDfan, please don't change it, or I will consider it vandalism. We have all reached a consensus and you're the only one that doesn't agree. -- FatalError 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

and if u add it, ill consider it vandalism, no agrreement was reached, like 3 ppl siad it was ok, but it aint, its wrong, the agreemtn we reached happened a week ago and now ur going against it.USEDfan (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add metal is a subgenre of rock anyway so therefore that makes them a rock band...The article wouldnt be very good if it only said "The used are a band", rather than "The used are a rock band". The point of this is an encyclopedia, rock should be added as it covers most of their genres of music. Along with the disputed subgenres tag. Thanks Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

no band is consider jsut rock so listed it is pointless, they are obviously rock, it could say rock and disputed but no sub genres cause all thei genres are disputed, they are a rock band obivouls bu like i said u jsut dont call a band rock, it doesnt work that way so list it as rock/disputed an its coll. USEDfan (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But it's the subgenres of rock that are disputed, not just rock. The last half of that sentence didn't make any sense. -- FatalError 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan - you are impossible to work with. Even in the face of opposition, you insist your view is correct. It is not. The Used are a rock band. The subgenre of which is disputed, thus their genres are Rock and disputed subgenres. Accept it. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
your impossible, we finally reached an agreement and now a week lator ur changeing everyhting. USEDfan (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And if it's been reached in agreement elsewhere, such as Talk:The Used#Genres, as part of dispute resolution, then that is a decision I am comfortable staying with. This is really something not worth edit warring over. seicer | talk | contribs 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ur the ones making the war not me, its been liek this for a week b4 u started changing it, they have been classifed as rock and metal which are 2 main genres so therefore just lsit it as disputed and that aviods the war, i will change it if it gets listed liek that becaus eit shudnt be that way, it doesnt make sense, if it isnt worth edit warring about then just leave it as is since is been this way for a while and there will be no warring. USEDfan (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, define what a "main genre" is. Metal itself is a subgenre of rock. A lot of today's alternative rock sounds like the metal of the early 70s. That just shows you how the two are related. But as for defining The Used as metal, that's just one source, and is a fringe theory. Please read WP:FRINGE. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
just keep it as is and all is fine. USEDfan (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
USEDfan: face facts. you are in the minority here and have presented no valid argument why Rock shouldn't be listed. The very first line of the article on Heavy metal music contradicts what you are saying "Heavy metal (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music". Rock is the umbrella genre for the band, and is not disputed. The subgenre of which is disputed. That is why the genres should be listed as "Rock" and "disputed subgenres". Just because you are "the biggest Used fan" does not mean you are right, in fact it means that you are almost certainly unable to edit from a NPOV. It doesn't matter how long an article has "been like this" for, this is wikipedia, people edit it, change it and generally make it better. If you are not willing for articles to be changed, then perhaps you shouldn't be here. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
rock (disputed), put it like that < and its cool. USEDfan (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No. You don't get the final say, consensus does. Rock is not disputed. The subgenres are. Please, learn to contribute constructively or go away. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
no, u. USEDfan (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh right, I say. An informed and educated argument there. Well presented and meaningful. Seriously kid, grow up. Your disruptive attitude is not welcome around here. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
ur being mean. USEDfan (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
yes, and you are being disruptive. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan just stop or you will be reported. A consensus has now been reached and it is that "rock" will be added along with "disputed subgenres". The article will be changed to this and if you change this then it will be treated as vandalism. Don't be so immature or you will be blocked. Again. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ill be reported for helping settle a dispute on a talk page? ull be reported for false reporting. 2 ppl agreed to it, that is not a agreement.USEDfan (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok lookie here. Let me make this clear. Just look at this section of the article. The people who agree for "rock (disputed subgenres) JUST FROM THIS SECTION is Fatal Error, Silver Orion, Pwnage8, Bill, Nouse4aname and ofcourse me. And thats just from here. You are the only one against it. Even if there is someone else against that disagrees you are still outnumbered. Ok? Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan, do you act like this at school too? Because I'd hate to be friends with you. "ill be reported for helping settle a dispute on a talk page?" No, you didn't help settle the dispute, you made it worse. Stop. We have reached a consensus. If you don't agree, that's too bad. Life is unfair; suck it up. -- FatalError 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
im done with school and im a loner. USEDfan (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to resist responding to this....Nouse4aname (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ok guys, kiss and make up. (Rock, disputed subgenres) it is. --::semper fidelis:: 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurbutterfly (talk • contribs)

I've made a request that the page be unprotected here. Ill add Rock (disputed subgenres) in when its unprotected. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Woah, hang on. Was the consensus for "Rock, disputed subgenres" or "Rock (disputed subgenres)"? --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the need for parentheses. "[[Rock music|Rock]]<br>[[#Genre Dispute|Disputed subgenres]]" -- FatalError 18:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough that works for me lol Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah that works for me too, it looks better and looks matter very much in an enclyopedia. USEDfan (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is not welcome here. Just trying to improve the article. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, shouldn't the albums' genres match the band's? Currently, all the albums are labeled alternative rock, and the former two are labeled emo. For the sake of consistency, I think they should also be "Rock, disputed subgenres", not "emo, alternative rock, disputed subgenres", because that defeats the purpose of the dispute paragraph. -- FatalError 02:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

thats wut i siad but pwange8 already changed it back after i fixed it that way a couple weeks ago USEDfan (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you changed it just to disputed, with no other genre listed....Nouse4aname (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So we've reached a consensus. Why is the page still protected? --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still here. I asked User:Toddst1 to unprotect it so just be patient. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to semi-protected, expiring 5/31. Good luck and please edit nicely. Toddst1 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved here. I just wanted to say it looks good now. Nice to see everyone could finally agree on something. Hopefully this will put an end to all this edit warring and nonsense, or at least give it a good long nap. Nice work everyone. Cheers! Landon1980 (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference issues

If you think the "Talk page references" section is ugly, don't just simply remove it, because then the citations don't link to anything. Convert to embedded citations instead. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, my bad, I got lazy. I'll go do that. -- FatalError 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Hiatus"?

I'm not sure if section 1.4 has an appropriate title. The Used never announced they were going on a "hiatus", it just says that they took some "time off". I was going to change the title, but it could be that it was their intention to go on hiatus and just didn't announce it. Essentially that's what they did by taking "time off". I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on this. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

its a hiatus, doing nohting got 7 months is a hiatus, a short one but its a hiatus. USEDfan (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Taking time off is technically a hiatus, since they weren't doing anything to do with the band in that time. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed to "unofficial hiatus" ? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
no such thing, a hiatus is a hiatus stop making a big deal out of nothing. -USEDfan (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't making a big deal out of nothing. Details matter in an encyclopedia. You've edit-warred over more trivial things before. Usually when a band goes on hiatus, it's announced. If they just take some time off, it's not commonly referred to as a hiatus. But I don't think it should be changed now, as consensus has determined the right course of action (do nothing). --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References in the genre paragraph

I just looked at the references used in the genre paragraph, and I was forced to remove a couple of them because they were completely invalid. For example, the Rhapsody link was used to cite punk and grunge, when it clearly didn't say anything about either genre. The source for pop pointed to the Yahoo! Music directory, which is not reliable in the least. The sputnik review also didn't say anything about pop punk, so I removed that. And the source for alternative rock cited a music video website similar to YouTube. I added more reliable sources for the ones that I could, and removed the rest (so as not to have the ugly "citation needed" tag). In the future, don't just slap on sources because they say The Used is of a certain genre, you need sources that are at least marginally reliable. I realize that the point of the paragraph is to just list the genres The Used have been labeled as, but if you have a bunch of really unreliable sources, it kind of defeats the purpose. So if anyone could find better sources, that would be great. Thanks. -- FatalError 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

removing the gernes liek that ruins the point of the paragarah, the used genre is an opinion so it does not matter where th eosurce comes from because there is no official word, we have ot ahve as many gernes as possible there not just 3 or 4 cause that defeats the point of the paragraph. so if u want to replace the sources do that, but dont remove anything like that again cause it ruins the paragraph. USEDfan (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
All sources must pass the reliable source criteria on the reliable source guideline. Any source that isn't reliable can be removed. Bill (talk|contribs) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources aren't supposed to fit the paragraph, the paragraph has to fit the sources. If there are few, then so be it. But you can't just use every link that comes up when you search Google, it doesn't work like that. Might as well go ask random people on the street, and use their opinions as sources. -- FatalError 01:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
we all agreed to the way it is includig u and now a week later ur changeing everyhting and making a mess, jus tleave it as is, who cares what the source is, the point is to show the wide genre range, since the used havne tsaid their gerne no source is good except them. USEDfan (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see such an agreement. If you can point to a diff, it would be much appreciated. As for the source, a good source is always preferred over your original research. I can't even understand the text in the latter part of your reply. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article blocked AGAIN? The genre dispute section is becoming quite ridiculous, as half the sources arent even credible. Plus the Sputnik page was written by a user, not an official reviewer. Metal? Indie? Give me a break!--SilverOrion (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

so u want to remove even more genres, iat this rate we shud remove the enitre paragraph and just lsit them as rock. USEDfan (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you should just list the genres with reliable sources. You should take a look at WP:SOURCE and familiarize yourself with it. I don't see why the article is locked though. You seem to be the problem here, looks like your block should just be reinstated. you have proven you will never stop being disruptive. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:3RR You seem to have a poor understanding of the 3RR. Landon1980 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, no your "grammer" and "soursces" were not fine. I'm not trying to be rude; I'm just saying when you can't even spell the word grammar or source you may want to at least entertain the opinion(s) of others. You are clearly in the wrong here. Landon1980 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
lmfao u dont no anything, the problem here is that once we reach a agreement a week alter some1 who was par tof the agreement starts changing everything to what thye like instead of what we agreed on, nouse4name and silverorion are two of the biggest vandals and problems on wikipedia and so is fatalerror, they go against what we agreed on and mess up the page, thats what th eproblem is, not me at all, i just correct it to the agreement. USEDfan (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
FatelError and Silverorion are far from vandals. I don't agree with them all the time, but they are FAR from vandals. You honestly need to take the time to familiarize yourself with several things. FatalError was removing unreliable sources and fixing grammatical errors. That is not vandalism, it's called making things more encyclopedic. I silently watched the discussion on this page. The only thing related to consensus was the paragraph itself. No one said you could use unreliable sources or butcher the English language within the article. You are going to have to learn to cooperate with others in the project. I'm going to try and say this in the most civil way possible. When you write a paragraph for example it is FULL of grammatical and spelling errors, others fix your mistakes to try and better the article. No one is trying to edit war with you, or bother you in any way. You can't just accept your version or no version. We all have to be open to compromise. Landon1980 (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
We agreed on the paragraph itself, not the individual sources. And it doesn't matter if we agreed or not, just because we agreed once doesn't mean we can't improve it later. -- FatalError 17:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
removing the reasons we made th eparagraph isnt improving it. USEDfan (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
yaeh n liek i cant tyep or nythin buh i wann t disrpt dis disucion--SilverOrion (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the disputed genres on the basis that the sources included were not reliable. In fact, I could not ascertain the genres from several of the sources; having it merely "filed" under a general category is not enough. The sources must also be verifiable, and failing that, I removed them. There is also consensus towards removing the disputed genres, and I will uphold the consensus on this.

Furthermore, any further edit warring will result in an immediate block. seicer | talk | contribs 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. For further discussion, please see below. Thanks. -- FatalError 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


USEDFan, you have been disruptive throughout the entire discussion process. Perhaps you should understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site--QuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Genre dispute

The Used's sound has been classified under several subgenres of rock such as pop punk,[1] alternative rock, post-grunge,[2] emo,[3][4][5][6] screamo,[7] hard rock,[4] and even metal. Their genre has always been a subject of debate and the band refuses to make any comments about what genre they are. McCracken has stated in Kerrang! magazine that The Used "doesn't care what genre they are as long as they make good music."[citation needed] However, in an interview with MTV News, Bert McCracken stated that he doesn't consider the band to be screamo, stating, "We wanted to say [no] to the genre of music that's eating us all alive right now — emotional screamo."[8]

  1. ^ http://www.bmxultra.com/reviews/lifestyle/theused.htm
  2. ^ http://www.rhapsody.com/theused
  3. ^ The Michigan Daily - The Used take emo to new levels on 'Death'
  4. ^ a b http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/theused/articles/story/5936494/the_useds_true_west
  5. ^ http://www.cinemablend.com/music/CD-Review-The-Used-s-Lies-For-The-Liars-4355.html
  6. ^ http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/used/liesfortheliars
  7. ^ http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,543090,00.html
  8. ^ http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/the_used_say_no_to_screamo.html

[edit] Moved paragraph to talk page

I moved the genre dispute paragraph from the article to here to avoid more edit warring and having the article closed again. Please do not add it back until a consensus has been reached. USEDfan, don't do anything stupid, or I will report you and you will be blocked. Also, please do not reply in the above section, make any replies here, to avoid confusion. The above section is solely for the paragraph.

Now, we have a dilemma: we either need to find reliable, credible sources (and lots of them), or remove the paragraph and go back to the drawing board. I'd rather find sources than throw away everything we worked on and argued about, but I think that's going to be harder than it sounds. Thoughts? Sources? -- FatalError 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

wow good job, the page looks great as is, why put up gernes if we dont no they are right, obviously they are rock so thats there gerne, u single handlely settle it, *claps for u*, USEDfan (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been talking about "gernes" for weeks now. You should know the correct term is genre if you are going to make edits related to the term. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you realize wikipedia is in several languages, right? What is your primary language and I can tell you if it is one of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.246.124 (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
An article on RollingStone.com lists them as "hard rock" in the title and a "melodic metal-emo hybrid" in the body [20], and their AbsolutePunk.net profile (run by the site, not the band) lists them as "alternative"/"rock" [21]. In my experiences, AbsolutePunk has been a very reliable resource (excluding the forums). Fezmar9 (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add the first one. But the problem with the AbsolutePunk one is it's just a listing. That's the reason the paragraph got removed in the first place, because we had a bunch of genre listings as sources. Those aren't verifiable. We need things like news articles and interviews that specifically say the genre in the body, like the Rolling Stone link you just gave me. Thanks. -- FatalError 02:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to throw away the paragraph. We can't find enough sources to make it of any use. It's not a dispute if we can only find sources for 4-5 genres. I think we should just make the genre alternative rock and have a sentence in the first paragraph listing the other genres they have been labeled as. Kind of like before, but without having 50 genres in the infobox, to reduce edit warring over the genre. -- FatalError 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There were four genres in the infobox, and edit warring won't be a problem if the genres are sourced. Example: The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I know, but it'll look bad. The infobox page for RJA looks really messy with all those references stuck in there everywhere. I think they should be in the actual article rather than the paragraph. Then it'll be more clear that The Used have been labeled with those genres, but it's not like they necessarily belong to them. That's my two cents. But are we agreed on the fact that the paragraph needs to go? -- FatalError 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Like you said before, it'll be a shame if we throw away all that work we did. I think we should do the same thing as in the My Chemical Romance article, with a "Musical style and influences" paragraph. This would focus less on the dispute side of things, and be more encyclopedic. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that would work. I don't want to throw it away, but on the other hand we don't have enough information for a dispute paragraph. Anyone want to take a stab at changing it? I have homework to do. I don't even know why I'm on. -- FatalError 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what was wrong with the genre paragraph?Inhumer (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not enough reliable sources. And it seems kind of pointless to have just 5 genres up there because that's not really a dispute. -- FatalError 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we actually decide which ones are reliable and which ones arent. This would speed up the process.--SilverOrion (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, SilverOrion thinks that in the meantime we should just have "Rock" in the infobox, but the only reason it used to be that way is the dispute paragraph, which isn't there anymore. He believes that it's "more neutral" to have just "Rock" and nothing else, whereas I think that more views are represented with more genres, making the article more neutral, and also more descriptive. The genres up there now are the least contentious, and before the dispute paragraph, were subject to little edit warring, if any. However, he believes that since the genres are "subject to debate" we shouldn't have them up there. Since when does Wikipedia not allow content that could potentially be controversial? Furthermore, there is no indication that there will be any conflict at all, as the only one who's been making a big stink about this is SilverOrion. This appears to be just like that time he didn't want screamo to be in the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Before we reach an actual consensus it is best to leave it as rock. Rock IS more neutral, everyone agrees that it is rock!FatalError has previously stated that he disagrees with the "emo/screamo" label. What is the point of changing it to a subjective view when its just going to be stated as "rock" once this discussion is over?--SilverOrion (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't know what it'll be changed to when the discussion is over. The consensus before the dispute paragraph was for the genres that are there now. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Pwnage8 here. The fact that I (and others) disagree with the emo/screamo label has nothing to do with whether it should appear on Wikipedia. There is no need to be neutral. Although I do think that "emo" and "screamo" should be cited because they are likely to be challenged, and Wikipedia requires the citing of such sources. But that shouldn't be a problem, just take one from the above paragraph, there's a ton. -- FatalError 03:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: Pwnage8, may I ask what your problem with Twinkle is? You seemed to have blamed my edit on TW, so I'm just curious. -- FatalError 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in particular that I have a problem with. It's just that sometimes these reverting scripts make bad changes. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great so now we're going to have to discuss the genre dispute AND try and justify our own opinions on the main article. This is ridiculous.--SilverOrion (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous? This...is...Wikipedia! (Sorry, I had to.) — FatalError 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4th album page

its gona be out within 5 months, shud we start the page for it yet, we know a lot of about it to make the page, we jsut dont have a tracklist or official producer. but other then that i think the page should be made. USEDfan (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have it on my to-do list. Should be getting to that within a week. I have a strong feeling that if you start the page it would get deleted. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
To save anyone losing their work, why not start it as a sub-page of your user page (as we did with the discography when locked), that way it can be checked before being put to the mainspace. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have two sandboxes already, but they have to be cleared before I can start. I'll let everyone know when that happens so we can work on it together. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
where are they? USEDfan (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If you were talking to me, this stuff can be found on my userpage. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That why you wait until its confirmed.Inhumer (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't start one until the tracklisting is confirmed and released.Inhumer (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

last time we started it when we knew posiible track names, waiting wud bo too long, we no enough about it to start it, the only thing we wont have is an official track list USEDfan (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What's up with the double comments, Inhumer? --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was supposed to be under USEDfans last comment, sorry.Inhumer (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre Poll

Just out of interest, if you could use two genres to describe their style of music, what would it be? (use sub-genres rather than general umbrella terms).--SilverOrion (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Emo/Alternative rock. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Alternative rock/post-hardcore. If I were to choose two genres that they definitely are not, they would be emo/screamo. :) -- FatalError 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
we have them lsited as rock and on that page it lists all the types of rock they have been classified as. USEDfan (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Alt Rock, with a paragraph in the article explainng everything they've been called.Inhumer (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure SilverOrion was talking about what genre we personally think they are, not what we should include in the article. -- FatalError 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
10 points for FatalError...--SilverOrion (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Alt. Rock then.Inhumer (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

I have re-inserted the lead section per Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. Please don't remove it, because it needs to be there. If you have issues with how it's written, you're welcome to make changes to it, but don't remove it. When in doubt, discuss here on the talk page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)