Talk:The Used

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)