Talk:The Used/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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[1]. 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)

why not just look at their myspace and put what is on there :P i'm sure a band understands the music they play enough to know what genre it is.. but if that will cause problems, then just leave it as disputed! i definitely don't want a bunch of people b****ing and whining about the genre because of a decision i made..forgetclosure —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:41, 16 August 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)

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)

Um, just a random browser but the fact that Robert's girlfriend was pregnant with his child when she died, before the making of "In Love and Death", is not true and there is no information to back this up. If facts like this were true, they should be cited. They aren't, so I'm taking it off. -Random User from Random IP, sorry, I don't know how this editing stuff works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.123.93 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But it did happen. This is common knowledge. Never knew this would be disputed, but getting a source would be easy. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Common knowledge? Something like that is not common knowledge - it's gossip and heresay amongst fangirls in too much eyeliner. As a friend of the family, I know this piece of information to be untrue. She was not pregnant at the time of her death. To change the edit back without a citation is simply ridiculous. Leave it alone until you can prove otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.90.162 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And if someone is going to REVERT the edit I made, please leave citation to back up this "fact". Gossip does not go in an encyclopedia, unless specifically noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.90.162 (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You repeated yourself there. ;) — ^FatalError 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you are sooooo cute. check the editing page. I was directing this towards Fantasy Dragon, or whatever their (lame, personal opinion) name is. That fact is "verifiable." 98.165.123.93 (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference, and here is another of dozens out there. Whether you are a friend of the family's or not is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't about truth, it is about verifiability. As long as reliable sources report this, it belongs in the article. Also, please see WP:CIVIL before continuing. Landon1980 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this ~~~~. This will generate a signature for you. Landon1980 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, bro. I thought all the clever quips everyone made towards each other (you know, throughout this talk page) allowed me to be exempt from such "civility" issues. But what do I know - wikipedia is about verifiability. Damn me for coming here, attempting to find some truth and not 'facts' to verify. I guess if some random music blogger for some random periodical begins quoting the same (extremely poorly researched) material as if it were gospel [and you call yourselves fans... i scoff at thee], I could start quoting it for my research paper? FOUR TILDES OMG WHAT GREAT HOBBIES YOU HAVE, PEDIAGRANDMA98.165.123.93 (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bert himself has said that this happened. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Used are clearly Post-Hardcore. No questions asked. It's mainly people from the current 'emo' scene that listen to them. They sound very similar to other post-hardcore such as My Chemical Romance, Escape The Fate, or Funeral For a Friend. If these artists have clearly defined genres, why can't The Used? This 'discussion' is obviously started by some people who know nothing about this kind of music. Just plain "Rock" is NOT good enough in showing this band's genre! It HAS TO be a sub-genre of it. The plain word "Rock" is what's given to old-school bands like KISS or artists like Billy Squier, that were from the age of pure rock. This band is one that's evolved out of that, and whom were influenced by the form of music called Emotive Hardcore from the 80's from bands like Rites of Spring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.67.149 (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"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)

and u were always invloved in the trivial things which means u were invloved in more trival things too. USEDfan (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

perpaps u shud realize im one of the biggest fans and everything and im the kings of kings and im never wrong. USEDfan (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so ridiculous. I wonder if you realise just how pathetic that statement is...Nouse4aname (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You really are not helpful Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

but ^^^ a little bit up its says im always right so ha. USEDfan (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

just lets use me as a refernce, i am the best refernce about anything invloving the used, i think everything shud just be confirmed thru me, like updates, changes in the page, and all. that be best for the page. USEDfan (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, you are just being plain stupid now. Before you argue any more that you are the ultimate source on the used, please read this, it will explain exactly why you are absolutely not a reliable, verifiable source. Please cease these ridiculous, unhelpful statements that you know everything, because you clearly don't. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

stop telling me to read stuff, i hate reading and dont have time to read, if u want to to no sum1 u tell me it kid! USEDfan (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, first off, please remember to indent your responses correctly. Secondly, let's get a little more respect going on here, that means no more calling me "kid". Thirdly, the reason you are not a reliable source is because you are not a third party, peer-reviewed, well-established source. You are a 19-year old fan. There is no one that can certify what you say is correct. You are not a well established and respected information source. Thus, whatever you say cannot be verified, and so cannot be included. The way wikipedia works is that updates and changes to the page are determined by consensus, not by one person's opinion. A page is not "owned" or "run" by someone, but is collectively maintained to the required standards by a group or editors. Finally, if you want to be a good editor, then you had better start reading some of the policies and guidelines, otherwise you are only going to end up in more disputes leading to more blocks. For a start, try these WP:OWN, WP:RS and WP:Consensus. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

um, u have not earned my respect yet kid, and my point is any source that cannot be cobfirmed, can be confirmed by me, the point is i no it all about the used so that makes me the good source, ppl are just ignorant, i suggest the easy way to settle things is if u just didnt worry so much about a page that doesnt mean anything to u half-pint. USEDfan (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not how it works I'm afraid. You don't need to "earn" respect, as per WP:Civil, it is how everyone should behave. The reason that you cannot confirm anything is because you cannot prove that you are reliable, or accurate. Saying you are does not make it so, you need other people who are qualified to vouch for you. In this instance, respect and reliability are things that must be earned. And again, please indent your posts properly. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

bottom line. i am the best source. USEDfan (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on demonstrating your level of maturity. I think any further discussion here is a waste of time. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

well for sum1 ur age (that claims to be married and have a life) to be on here as much as u, ur whole life is a waste of time. USEDfan (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but if I want life advice, I won't be taking it from the "biggest fan of The Used". Perhaps if you demonstrated a little more respect and civility towards other editors you would get a lot further. I dread to think how you behave around real people. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

im a loner, most my life takes place online, i spent the entire day yesterday at busch gardens and had way more fun by myself then if i wud of been with other ppl. and when ppl give me the respect i deserve maybe they will get it back. USEDfan (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not see that your argument works both ways... If you do not respect others, then they will unlikely show you respect either. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre dispute

The Used's sound has been classified under several subgenres of rock such as pop punk, alternative rock, post-grunge, emo, screamo, hard rock, 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." 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."

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 [2], and their AbsolutePunk.net profile (run by the site, not the band) lists them as "alternative"/"rock" [3]. 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)

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)

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)

Emo/Post-harcore Emo777 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

It is such a joy to see Usedfan is making "grammer" changes again. I don't want to edit war with this guy, but I reverted one of his edits because it looked MUCH better before his changes. If anyone disagrees revert back, will not hurt my feelings. Landon1980 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

wow just wow

since 2006 i was the only one 2 edit the page, then in late 2007 and early 2008 a group of vandals have come and just destroyed the page, the add pointless info, remove great info, reword things to the point of not even understanding it, put up false info and u's have just destroyed my fav bands page that i worked so hard on for so long, thanks alot ppl. USEDfan (talk)

The title of this section speaks to how insane and convoluted your comment is. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should switch over to a Used wiki with less rules and more fanboys. Like this one for instance... Fezmar9 (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't tempt him...Nouse4aname (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

why are we adding genres again

why dont we just lsit it as disputed, no site is a good source for their genre, its just the opinion of whoever made the used page on that site. USEDfan (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You just don't learn, do you? In Wikipedia, you need RELIABLE SOURCES. NOT OPINIONS. If you don't understand that by now you shouldn't be editing. — ^FatalError 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Screamo

"what the band decide to label their music has no bearing on what genre they are listed as". Since when?. Dont you think that the people who actually make the music would have a better idea of what genre they fall under? If they dont consider themselves as screamo, then the other sources are simply a misinterpretation. --SilverOrion (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since always, the band can call themselves bluegrass and it doesn't matter what they think their genre is. Take a look at WP:SOURCE first party sources are not accepted in these situations, to source a genre you need a reliable, third-party source known for fact checking. As long as a verifiable, reliable source says they are screamo it belongs there. Landon1980 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your example only shows that there is a POSSIBILITY that a band may miscategorize their sound (just like an independent review can). It doesn’t mean that anything the band calls themselves is inherently wrong. This shows that there are flaws within the Wiki system where it automatically assumes that first party reviews can never be used as a legitimate source. --SilverOrion (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because they do not count as a verifiable, third party source, which is what is required by wikipedia standards. Self-sourcing is not reliable, which is what this would be. As there is a verifiable and reliable source that says they are screamo, then there is no reason to remove it. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I just added another reference I had for screamo since it is being challenged. I think we all can agree that the The New York Times meets the sourcing criteria, right? Landon1980 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

they said they dont want to be screamo, but they still get classified as that, i tried explaining that to u many times, try this for example: u say that ur not a vandal but in realality you are... so its the same thing, hopefully u understand it now, just because someone says they arent something, it doesnt mean that they really arent. USEDfan (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You have sockpuppets. Just because YOU say you don't, doesn't mean it's true. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL UR STILL THINKING THAT HUH, LMFAO, JUST BECAUSE OTHER USERS HAVE SAW MY GREATNESS AND UR FAILURE, IT DOESNT = A SOCK PUPPET, UR THE ONE WITH TH ESOCK PUPPETS KID. USEDfan (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're funny. And stupid. And big headed. You really need to calm down. But still, it doesn't matter what he band say it doesn't change what they actually are. Lostprophets say they're american but they're really welsh. Blessthefall have "easy listening" and "healing" music listed on their myspace genre but they're obviously not that. So it doesn't matter what they say really. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't leave out childish and delusional. Landon1980 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

" u say that ur not a vandal but in realality you are" what a compelling argument... --SilverOrion (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

that was an example to show a point that some1 of ur education level could understand. your welcome. USEDfan (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're absolutely right. With my education level, I could never comprehend your amazingly eloquent writing style--SilverOrion (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

the best thing that can happen to the page is for it to go back a year and a half to the time that i was the only editor who edited on a regular basis, since more ppl showed up the page has filled with vandalism, flase info, and butchering. i really am best suited to run the page myself. USEDfan (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This has totally gone off subject. Firstly, you argument is invalid. You weren't even here a year ago, your first edit was in march. What you say isn't going to happen, you're being big headed thinking you're the best person do edit the page. Which isn't true. You haven't exactly got the best history have you? You really need to keep cool so we can sort this shiz out. Stop snapping at people like above ^^ Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to take into account all of her sockpuppets--SilverOrion (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

i had an account since march, u dont need an account to edit wikipedia. i was here since 2006 and owned the page until these vandals messed everything up. USEDfan (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol fair enough. But still, every wiki page has vandals, you can't help that. If you can keep cool then we can continue editing constructively rather than getting in arugments which, to be honest, you seem to be starting. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yup and ur one of the vandals here and so is pwange 9, fattalerror, nouseforaname, silverorion, and i think theres another i for got the name of. USEDfan (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

HAHA i'm vandal? I haven't even edited the page since May since there was a consensus on the genres. I'm just trying to sort this mess out. I guess anyone who doesn't have the same view as you is a vandal then? wow, clever. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yes i suppose i am rather clever and smart. USEDfan (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually i was being sarcastic. Just like you are. Seriously, what is your problem? You have got to stop being big headed so we can work this out. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

my problem is ppl comin got my the used page thinking they owning and destoying it. USEDfan (talk)

You just destroyed The Used Discography with your horrible typing and I had to fix it. But I guess that makes me a vandal. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

u write like ur writing a book rather then writing so a regular person using this cud understand it. USEDfan (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be written in formal, neutral English, not the sort of style more accustomed to fan pages and blogs. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We are writing a book... --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Metal

Please stop reverting my edit to this article. It is clear that their music genre is Metal. There are also sources for that, what can be found in google. Volkov ^talk 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

prove the source, it has to be reliable. USEDfan (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Then please provide them, and make sure they comply with WP:RS. If you do not provide sources, the genres will be removed. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find a source but I hardly could find a source where it is written that their further genre is metal. How strange! I heard a music from The Used and it was clearly metal. Volkov ^talk 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you obviously don't know your music genres very well. Google is not a valid source, so if you can find one that is valid, please feel free to share. But otherwise, don't add metal again, because The Used are clearly not metal. — ^FatalError 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I actually though you were serious until I saw the edit where you put death metal and black metal in the infobox. This is obviously a joke. — ^FatalError 19:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking but I really thought that their music genre had something to do with metal. Volkov ^talk 01:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Metal? What are you talking about? The Used has not made ONE song containing ONE element of metal in it... 72.64.81.21 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, besides "Sound Effects and Overdramatics", but I agree. The Used aren't metal at all. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them metal either.Emo777 (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Rock or not

Hey, a couple of days ago I saw alternative rock in the infobox but it has since been removed, I can't say if it was sourced or not, but should it be added back up? I'm not going to change it until I hear what you guys have to say cause i'm not in the mood for a genre war to be started cause of what I said, I just want to know why it was removed that's all. Emo777 (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was unsourced. I was going to remove earlier but more sources kept getting added for the other genres, so I figured one would be found for alternative rock. Probably best not to put it back up until a source is found. — ^FatalError 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was just wandering, that's all. Emo777 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — ^FatalError 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Year formed = 2000

It is listed as January 2001, but it is acturally late 2000, according to an interview with the band on love line in Febuary they formed in 2000, also is this recent interview http://www.roxwel.com/player/theuseduncut.html bert says they formed 8 years ago, which is 2000, and my other proof for this is a pic of part of a t-shirt that was in their web store back in 2003/2004, I only found a poor pic of it here https://secure.feamerch.com/shop/images/large/TheUsed_theram_01_LRG.jpg but it is still enough to support that the date up is wrong. This and 2 other shirts that I couldn't find had "est 2000" written on them so we can assure it is correct. Thanks. Less than you (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised to focus more on the Used

I'm updating the page to focus more on the used in the formation section, each member played in about 4 or 5 bands before the Used, I don't feel we should talk about Strange Itch and Dumb Luck since that was just 2 of the previous bands. Whereas I've heard each member mention a few other bands they played in but it be so pointless to list such minor bands as assoicated acts. I made it more generally and just listed it as 'each member played in a few previous bands' and I added more info in about the used formation, put more details, and removed so info not about the used since those other bands were NOT the used under a different name, I think it is definitly an improvement. Less than you (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I got lots of the info from the Maybe Memories dvd. Less than you (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to go through all those edits right now, but for the most part you are adding unsourced speculation, and original research. At least you are using the talk page now, more than you did with all your other sock accounts. Landon1980 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Strange Itch should be mentioned as it contained Jeph and Branden on their studio album and soon after the cd release Quinn replaced Matt Brown on guitar. 3 out of 4 band members makes it pretty significant. Jmowney (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

Just out of curiosity, what's with all the vandalism on this today? Are they in the news or something? --fvw* 08:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this was vandalism, or just ignorance, but there is a line followed by citation 19 that says on may 6, 2008, they released thier self-titled album. There were NO Used CD releases in 2008. Suggest this be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.33.178 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fansite

About the fansite being added and removed, see here: Wikipedia:FANSITE#Links_normally_to_be_avoided (point 11) and here Wikipedia:NOTLINK#LINK (point 1).

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid: /--/ Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)"

"Wikipedia articles are not: /--/ Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate."

So, this is debatable. I've removed the fansite before but now I'm not sure. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it provide any useful or additional insightful information that this wiki page does not? If it's merely a collection of photos and a forum, I would say it should be left off. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if the people who keep adding it joined a discussion here, so next time it happens, invite them to discuss it. If they don't want to, ping me and I will lock the page if it gets out of hand. – B.hotep •talk• 22:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget that, I locked it. Anyone that determined to disrupt is beyond civilised discussion. – B.hotep •talk• 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That site, as I recall, requires membership for access to any feature, and doesn't say how you become a member. Very strange. I don't even know why some would want it added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems like a normal, functioning site. In fact, it's quite well built and could be mistaken for the official one – but the official one does exist nonetheless. However, the fact remains that discussion needs to commence upon its merits. If someone was to add it after a consensus here, then that would be a different matter and perhaps end this attempted enforcement of a link that, otherwise, nobody wants! – B.hotep •talk• 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.60.80.54, 11 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

"The band was founded in 2001 and signed to Reprise Records the same year, they rose to fame in June 2002 after releasing their self-titled debut album." should read: The band was founded in 2001 and signed to Reprise Records the same year. They rose to fame in June 2002 after releasing their self-titled debut album.

173.60.80.54 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Implemented.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Genres?

Um, seriously i would call The Used partually Alternative Rock when it comes to their third album, and the Emo part is a little harsh i mean to call the used emo is just like calling even old bands before Emo existed Emo because of some depressing lyrics which most non-Heavy Metal bands have.

So please someone lose the Emo or just call it Emotional Rock, and add in Alternative Rock to the section =].

Btw, love all you The Used fans =].

Maffew xox.

Mathew'sChemicalRomance (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, emotional rock isn't even a genre, emo is short for emotional-hardcore. And emotional-hardcore is bands like Cap'n jazz and Rites of Spring, The Used is nothing like them, they aren't even similar to the 2nd wave and post-emo bands like Sunny Day Real Estate. And screamo, listen to City of Caterpillar

Person above is correct. The only genre that fits on the page is Post-hardcore. They are certainly not emo or screamo. 24.128.137.234 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikpedia, I hope you like the place and decide to stay. On Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say, and whatever genres can be verified via those sources are the ones we use. Landon1980 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it harsh saying they're emo? Emo is a genre of music that developed into a stereotype. There's nothing really harsh about it... I say put 'emo' as their genre. Shan (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, it is used as a derogatory term. I'd like to see several reliable sources per WP:DUE before we put emo as a genre, and then it wouldn't be the only one.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So I think emo needs to be added. Here's the full wiki code with cite that is used on List of emo artists. It's certainly a reliable source, and establishes the genre. Comments?

,<br />[[Emo]]<ref>{{cite news | title = The Used take emo to new levels on 'Death' | date = 2004-10-26 | publisher = The Michigan Daily | author = Jerry Gordinier | accessdate = 2008-06-12 }}</ref>

(end of wiki code) tedder (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I said several. And college newspapers are looked upon with a bit of disfavor. Most sources don't seem to characterize The Used as emo. As for List of emo artists, that is a list of bands that have, somewhere, attracted one person to say they are emo. Please see WP:UNDUE. With a major band such as The Used, you'd need several mainstream sources saying they are emo, even to get on their page as an alternate genre, in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that, over the course of their career, there are a number of highly reliable sources that have described The Used as "emo". I have back issues of Rolling Stone, Spin, and Alternative Press at home that all describe The Used as part of the emo resurgence of the early-mid '00s (alongside screamo bands such as Thrice, Thursday, et al.). What is really needed here is a "Style" section in the article, describing the band's musical style and its evolution throughout their career. These and other sources could then be cited, placing the band within applicable genres. Those should then be the genres that are listed in the infobox. However, experience shows that people would rather war over the genres in the infobox (possibly because of its prominent placement and bright colors) than take the extra step of writing actual prose sections, which should take priority over the infobox which in itself is just a summary of basic details. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Emo is just like any other genre, as long as you can find a reliable source it can be added. As long as at least a couple reliable sources can be found then it belongs in the infobox just like any other genre. It really doesn't matter if this differs from the opinion of a single editor, we go with the sources. Pretty sure it used to be in the infobox, along with a couple sources, not sure who or why they removed it. The idea that the genre emo is to be treated differently and must have a dozen or so sources to even be considered is ludicrous. Also, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT would probably keep emo out of the lead sentence, but certainly not out of the infobox along with the other genres. Landon1980 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Emo is hardly a genre... sure it can stay as it is sourced but it's more of a steriotype than an actual genre of music. anyway why isn't Alternative Rock listed? It's listed on ALL of their albums. So does that mean that all their albums are Alternative Rock but the band themselves are not?? Come on people lets have some common sence here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.149.98 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Used arent emo nor are they screamo. They are merely post-hardcore. I agree with whoever was saying about Rites of Spring (but i thought Cap'n Jazz was post-emo too?) is emo. Go listen and compare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.29.189 (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aonther band labeled as emo... well, here's a link to a page dedicaded to emo. In this site you can check what is emo and what is not (The Used, MCR, Alesana,Aiden,AFI,etc. aren't amo they are post-hardcore or alternative rock, but emo come on.) here's the page. http://www.emotivehardcore.com/ please check it out see whats is emo, what's screamo and wich bands ussualy tagged as emo must be taken out of the category. --Locopunkie (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Landon1980 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So why aren't they listed as Alternative Rock exactly. all there albums are. and if you need a reliable source its as simple as looking at IGN. Ducky610 (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever dumbass put one of the genres ass "Teen pop" does not know music because they are NOT teen pop. 75.85.229.105 (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody give me a good reason why this band would be considered screamo? Just because the term was misused elsewhere doesn't mean this article needs to perpetuate the mislabeling. Emceelane (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always disliked the term emo, just because it's so misused. I would classify all of their albums as post-hardcore. Some are more alternative than others, but post-hardcore seems to suit them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.179.234 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

Add this tribute album page to Related Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strung_Out_on_The_Used:_The_String_Quartet_Tribute

Gtcostello (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre.

I've noticed that The Used also are pop punk, screamo and in later records even hard rock. I don't have suorces for that, but I'm sure their style isn't just as it's written on the article, their first album alternative rock at all, it's mostly emo and pop punk, though they have some songs with strong screamo influences. That's the same with their second album, just only this time they added a mild slice of alternative rock in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somebody123223 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

i find it unusual that the only genre listed is "Rock"....can't be anything more specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.73.157 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)