![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
True. I didn't think about that. My bad. -- Fatal Error 01:24, 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. -- Fatal Error 03:45, 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. -- Fatal Error 18:44, 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)
But it's the subgenres of rock that are disputed, not just rock. The last half of that sentence didn't make any sense. -- Fatal Error 21:18, 18 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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok fair enough that works for me lol Riverpeopleinvasion ( talk) 20:11, 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. -- Fatal Error 02:24, 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Fatal Error 20:47, 26 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)
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)
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)
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]
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? -- Fatal Error 23:29, 28 May 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. -- Fatal Error 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So, what was wrong with the genre paragraph? Inhumer ( talk) 23:03, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
That was supposed to be under USEDfans last comment, sorry. Inhumer ( talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
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/Post-harcore Emo777 ( talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
" u say that ur not a vandal but in realality you are" what a compelling argument... --
SilverOrion (
talk)
07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
True. I didn't think about that. My bad. -- Fatal Error 01:24, 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. -- Fatal Error 03:45, 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. -- Fatal Error 18:44, 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)
But it's the subgenres of rock that are disputed, not just rock. The last half of that sentence didn't make any sense. -- Fatal Error 21:18, 18 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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok fair enough that works for me lol Riverpeopleinvasion ( talk) 20:11, 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. -- Fatal Error 02:24, 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Fatal Error 20:47, 26 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)
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)
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)
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]
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? -- Fatal Error 23:29, 28 May 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. -- Fatal Error 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So, what was wrong with the genre paragraph? Inhumer ( talk) 23:03, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
That was supposed to be under USEDfans last comment, sorry. Inhumer ( talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
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/Post-harcore Emo777 ( talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
" u say that ur not a vandal but in realality you are" what a compelling argument... --
SilverOrion (
talk)
07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)