![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Strange Itch and Dumb Luck were two bands that didn't contain all the members of the original Used line-up, were they not? Surely if the page is going to state that these are previous names, and that they are previous releases, then it should be noted on the page somewhere? Wasn't Jeph the vocalist for Strange Itch? As Bert wasn't in either bands, they're pretty much seperate bands. I think it should be cleared up on the page, or just remove the references to the releases, because they aren't releases by The Used, so it seems a bit odd putting them on their discography page. -- RichardOB1234 ( talk) 17:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Do you think I've sufficiently cleared it up? -- Pwnage8 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Tasteofink2.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Is Paralyzed really the fourth singel from "Lies For The Liars" or not?
Ths is an encyclopedia where people look up information. Chart positions of singles are information people look up. Every other band has chart positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.40.170 ( talk) 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
can anyone give a logical reason we are repeatedly deleting release dates, record label information, billboard peaks on both albums and singles, and album certification information? all of which rightfully belongs on this page. Fezmar9 ( talk) 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please explain Usedfan and Booowooo, why you oppose the tabulated format of the page? It is consistent with all other good quality discographies, and you provide no valid reason for reverting such edits. Nouse4aname ( talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Current dispute as to which version of the page to use. One version consists of a list of links to albums/songs, the other in tabulated format with additional info including record label and RIAA rating.
Examples of other discographies
Regards Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
RfC removed. Nouse4aname ( talk) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
it looks like USEDfan is at it again - single handedly revolutionizing everything wiki has to offer regarding the used. i am going to change it back to the way it was until a conclusion is drawn.
i think conglomerating every release into one "uber table" looks too busy, and could be confusing for people to interpret. after all, wikipedia is not for editors it's for everybody, and a confusing table is not something the general public would want to see. keeping with the idea that this page is for the general public and anyone interested in reading about the used, i believe most people generally only care about main studio full length albums. most people could really care less about live albums or compilations or eps, therefor the discography should be categorized to suit the needs of all viewers.
additionally, several other band discographies don't join all releases.
examples:
Green Day discography,
The Smashing Pumpkins discography,
AFI discography,
Deftones discography
Fezmar9 (
talk)
03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
you and nouseforaname are sock puppets, and u say im single handlely changing it, thats what u did, the page was a list and then u single handlely put it into tables changed it without discussion first so i updated ur tables, so be happ, USEDfan ( talk) 04:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, so I have now reformatted the discography to be consistent with the examples I presented above. This is a tried, tested and accepted style of formatting, and one that should not be reverted. Let's stop with the edit warring and put this all behind us? Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So I removed full track listings, but still had a few concerns:
When these are considered, in addition to the points made above by Fezmar9 and Nouse4aname, it becomes clear that the page should be reverted back to the way it was. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The new one already looks so much better. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
we arent gona completely copy another page, the rhcp page is wrong and we arent gona make the used page like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by USEDfan ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There are MANY international charts that are omitted. Should we add them as well? Of course not, it'll just look cluttered and silly. I think that only including the charts where they've charted at least once is the best way to go. Delete the blank charts. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so while the page was protected, we all worked together here User:Nouse4aname/The Used discography to get a version we can all agree on. From the discussions it seems that this is now an accepted version by all User talk:Nouse4aname/The Used discography. Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Removed because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unless there is tangable, sourced information giving detailed information regarding the album, including name, then it should remain off. seicer | talk | contribs 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Used discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Strange Itch and Dumb Luck were two bands that didn't contain all the members of the original Used line-up, were they not? Surely if the page is going to state that these are previous names, and that they are previous releases, then it should be noted on the page somewhere? Wasn't Jeph the vocalist for Strange Itch? As Bert wasn't in either bands, they're pretty much seperate bands. I think it should be cleared up on the page, or just remove the references to the releases, because they aren't releases by The Used, so it seems a bit odd putting them on their discography page. -- RichardOB1234 ( talk) 17:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Do you think I've sufficiently cleared it up? -- Pwnage8 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Tasteofink2.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Is Paralyzed really the fourth singel from "Lies For The Liars" or not?
Ths is an encyclopedia where people look up information. Chart positions of singles are information people look up. Every other band has chart positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.40.170 ( talk) 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
can anyone give a logical reason we are repeatedly deleting release dates, record label information, billboard peaks on both albums and singles, and album certification information? all of which rightfully belongs on this page. Fezmar9 ( talk) 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please explain Usedfan and Booowooo, why you oppose the tabulated format of the page? It is consistent with all other good quality discographies, and you provide no valid reason for reverting such edits. Nouse4aname ( talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Current dispute as to which version of the page to use. One version consists of a list of links to albums/songs, the other in tabulated format with additional info including record label and RIAA rating.
Examples of other discographies
Regards Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
RfC removed. Nouse4aname ( talk) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
it looks like USEDfan is at it again - single handedly revolutionizing everything wiki has to offer regarding the used. i am going to change it back to the way it was until a conclusion is drawn.
i think conglomerating every release into one "uber table" looks too busy, and could be confusing for people to interpret. after all, wikipedia is not for editors it's for everybody, and a confusing table is not something the general public would want to see. keeping with the idea that this page is for the general public and anyone interested in reading about the used, i believe most people generally only care about main studio full length albums. most people could really care less about live albums or compilations or eps, therefor the discography should be categorized to suit the needs of all viewers.
additionally, several other band discographies don't join all releases.
examples:
Green Day discography,
The Smashing Pumpkins discography,
AFI discography,
Deftones discography
Fezmar9 (
talk)
03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
you and nouseforaname are sock puppets, and u say im single handlely changing it, thats what u did, the page was a list and then u single handlely put it into tables changed it without discussion first so i updated ur tables, so be happ, USEDfan ( talk) 04:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, so I have now reformatted the discography to be consistent with the examples I presented above. This is a tried, tested and accepted style of formatting, and one that should not be reverted. Let's stop with the edit warring and put this all behind us? Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So I removed full track listings, but still had a few concerns:
When these are considered, in addition to the points made above by Fezmar9 and Nouse4aname, it becomes clear that the page should be reverted back to the way it was. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The new one already looks so much better. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
we arent gona completely copy another page, the rhcp page is wrong and we arent gona make the used page like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by USEDfan ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There are MANY international charts that are omitted. Should we add them as well? Of course not, it'll just look cluttered and silly. I think that only including the charts where they've charted at least once is the best way to go. Delete the blank charts. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so while the page was protected, we all worked together here User:Nouse4aname/The Used discography to get a version we can all agree on. From the discussions it seems that this is now an accepted version by all User talk:Nouse4aname/The Used discography. Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Removed because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unless there is tangable, sourced information giving detailed information regarding the album, including name, then it should remain off. seicer | talk | contribs 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Used discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)