Talk:The Used discography

Previous names

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tasteofink2.jpeg

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)

Ignore the above. I fixed it. Dark jedi requiem 07:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New singel.

Is Paralyzed really the fourth singel from "Lies For The Liars" or not?

its a video single in austraillia USEDfan (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart positions of singles.

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)

stop deleting information

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)

Evidently kids with nothing better to do. The same ones are currently disrupting The Used also. If it persists much longer I will be seeking either protection or some sanctions on these users as they ignore all requests to discuss, or present illogical reasons and persist with their original stance. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i am fairly certain that users Booowooo and USEDfan are the same person under different accounts. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

you guys have nothing better to do then watch a website page and custumize it to ur liking and no tlet any1 else make chances, ur the ones violted the rules!, USEDfan (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Table format or not

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)

Request for comment

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.

• Version 1
• Version 2

Examples of other discographies

• Blink-182 discography
• Green Day discography
• My Chemical Romance discography
• The Offspring discography

Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Version 2 seems to be more consistent with the style of most discographies on wikipedia. According to WP:LOW, notes and additional information are welcome. While this means that both versions are permissible, it seems counterintuitive to actively remove relevant information from an article. 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Android 93 (talk • contribs)

• Version 2. Discographies are considered lists, and if you look under featured discographies (the best of the best), you will find that they are full of detailed information about chart positions, release dates, sale statistics and more. Use the discographies there as a model for a great discography.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC removed. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All in one or sorted into categories?

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)

actually we weren't changing the page, we were reverting it due to your relentless deleting of information and vandalizing. you still have not provided a plausible or logical reason for keeping the discography condensed Fezmar9 (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See above section for examples of what a discography can (and should) look like. It should be easy to read, clearly sub-sectioned and user friendly. Condensing all releases into one table does not acheive anything productive. There is no valid reason for doing this as far as I can see. Please explain why you think this version is better before reverting. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at bands like death cab for cutie that have the list foramt discovery and the killers theat combine them all into one table like list, it can be done either way prephas, but the list format we previously had that u changed without asking permission is ocnfusing, i endhanced the page keeping ur table format, so do not hcange it again casue all u do is make everyhting the way u like it and everytime i edit u change it, its redicolous,USEDfan (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

death cab's discography is a list because they do not have enough information to make a table out of it. the used's discography has more information that would look confusing if were in a list (and still kept the amount of information). the killers only have a simple list on their main page, exactly like the used, but their discography page does not even compare to the used's. the killers have only released two studio albums, and a b-sides album. their page makes sense because they have so few releases. the used have more releases of different types, and therefor should be categorized. those bands also have an older fan base, and most likely an older group of editors that don't have to resort to edit warring over trivial things. i am sure they very maturely come to a general consensus with like minded/open minded editors. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

th eused page wwas a list b4 u changed it without talking about it here first, so i kept the table and organized it more and made it more infomative and easier to understand an read, a neater look makes it easier to understand then ahving a bunch of tables slapped on teh page USEDfan (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

can you provide a specific reason why one table is better than individual tables? that is what this discussion is supposed to accomplish, not changing it to how you want without reason. so far nouse and i have provided plenty of reasons for why it should remain in multiple tables. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Usedfan: as you are now altering the layout of the page, it is you that must explain why this should be done. Saying it is neater is not a valid reason. Take a look at the above examples and explain how exactly your version is better than these. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

if changes have ot be disscussed first we need ot make the page the orginal list form and u need to discuss why u want them into tables and if 20 people agree then it cud be changed, but u changed it without discussion, u dont let ne1 make changes, everything u customize to what u like, stop it, its open to change and u have to accept it,- USEDfan (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is how wikipedia works. Pages are expanded, improved upon and generally evolve. If information is added to a page that you disagree with, you do not revert the page to the version before the addition of the content. You leave the page as it is and it is up to you to explain clearly why the information should not be included. Furthermore, wikipedia does not vote. The final decision is reached by consensus, not by a simply adding up of the votes. Now, if you want to explain exactly why your preferred version is the best, go ahead.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

when you made it into a list, you deleted a lot of valuable information, and that is considered vandalism. no discussion was necessary. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

New format

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)

I second that. I have seen that format in many places, however I have never liked that the entire track listing is posted. It feels pretty unnecessary. perhaps it would be better if only the single tracks were posted for each album. any thoughts? Fezmar9 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. The reason I put them in for now was just so that it is consistent with other examples. "Track listing" can be changed to "Singles" and then just list the singles after that. Feel free to change it if you like. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So I removed full track listings, but still had a few concerns:

• For worldwide sales should we research that, leave it blank, declare it unknown for the time being...?
• For other blank spaces (most notably for the new album and RIAA of demoes/eps) should we have a dash, or N/A...?
• As far as I know there are no singles for Shallow Believer, but I wasn't sure so I didn't do anything with that.
• I also removed DVD listings, because I felt it was similar to track listing, but I don't know how I feel about that one yet. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would leave it blank with the intention of trying to find the info. If it is not viable to find the info, we can remove the section. For blank spaces that either don't apply to that record, eg, if it has no RIAA rating, I would say remove the section entirely, for the new album....not sure! I guess there's no reason for a DVD track listing if we don't have the song listing there. User:USEDfan is now reverting the edits again. The point of the singles is so that you can look at the album and see what was released from it without having to look at a separate section. If you insist on removing that, then there is no point having the new format at all, and we might as well revert to the tabulated format with all the info there. I wonder when you will grow tired of disrupting things just because you can? Nouse4aname (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. So now the page is protected. It's funny how this idiot seems to be receiving so much protection. EDIT: Take that back, he's at least been blocked! Still, Wikipedia is pissing me off lately (mainly as it's distracting me from what I should be doing!). Nouse4aname (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a little extreme. The page only needs protection from User:USEDfan and his puppets, not everyone. In addition to the worldwide sales section (and with hopes the protection is lifted and page is reverted to the new format), if and when information is discovered it will probably be dated. Something should be added next to the number such as: 5,000,000 (as of April 2008). And yeah, editing wikipedia can be addicting. It used to be something to do when i was bored, now i do it whenever i can. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it somewhat frustrating that the page has been reverted to one of USEDfan's versions, which has obvious problems. Why could it not be put back to a version before any of this bickering? Nouse4aname (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple questions...

1. Why should the content suffer because of a dispute with a malicious sockpuppeteer?
2. Why would anyone subdivide the template into different categories, and not the discography article?

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)

Point 2 is very good question. I look forward to User:USEDfan's response. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

the templete is suppose to be very basic and there is not enough room to had a colum like on the discograhpy table however i no u guys are gona change it so lets find a discography set up that can please us all shall we? USEDfan (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to complicate things by putting all their different releases in one table. Better for it to be more "basic" and categorize them, just as in the template. --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, this got me thinking, why don't we work together and get this page on its way to a featured discography. I have made a start here User:Nouse4aname/The_Used_discography, so if you guys wanna feel free to contribute...just have a look at this first: Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Music. Take a look at the discographies there, and try to aim for that standard and formatting. With a bit of work, there is no reason it cant look like those. When the page is unprotected we can consider moving the new version in if all agree?Nouse4aname (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

overall not too bad but the peak positions are a bit rediclous, the only peak position we need is for the US, there's soo many blanks but listing it with other countries it makes the used look like they acomplish nothing in their career. but i likie how all the talbe are the same size, u say looks dont matter but encylopedias always look pretty so they kinda do. but yeah good set up but the only peak we need is usa, also the format could prob be removed cause it doesnt seem necessacy. USEDfan (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

u also left out the demo album. USEDfan (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about other countries. I see your point but it also gives an indication of relative success in different countries, which may or may not be informative...i don't know yet. As for the demo, not sure where to put that yet. we still need a good intro to the page too (well sourced remember)... Nouse4aname (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The new one already looks so much better. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

demo and eps, thats what is usually grouped together, u get omit it, the other bands that have all the countires lsited actural charted more then 2 times in them, it just look terrible to have so many blanks for them, if they cahrted its different, but to add 7 countries to every album row to put 2 chart positions, thats not needed at all. USEDfan (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I will add the demo and also B-sides soon. However, I think the international charts should stay. Having thought about it, even a column full of "-" gives more information than not having anything at all. By not having the column it looks as though information may be missing. By including the fact that few of their albums charted internationally, we are giving an indication of the band's relative US and international success. At the end of the day, wikipedia is not there to make the band "look good or bad", it is there to present the facts. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

having the - looks more liek info is missing then not having the colum at all. USEDfan (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But below the table the "-" is defined as "did not chart" Nouse4aname (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

which makes them look bad like i previously said, and im not gona have my band look bad, im prob the biggest fan, ive seen the live 10 times, ive met bert, the used have a picture of my backpack on their myspace,,,,i stand up for my band and ur trying to put them down! USEDfan (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am simply attempting to present the facts. The fact is that they haven't performed well internationally. This is relevant information. The fact that you obviously are not taking a neutral perspective in this discussion does not help us in reaching a decision.Nouse4aname (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In no way am I trying to put them down. Simply presenting facts is what an encyclopedia is for. Removing the information does not make it any better (actually makes it worse), and certainly doesn't change the fact that they didn't chart around the world. What if someone came here looking for the chart position of say Lies for the Liars in New Zealand? Now by your standards, this would not be included, because most other releases did not chart, thus rendering the article useless in that respect. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep the international charts. It shows that The Used have sold albums outside the US, even though it might not be enough to have a significant location on any chart, they have indeed sold albums outside the US. It actually makes The Used "look good" and to anyone that has ever seen them live at least 10 times, has a picture of his/her carrying apparatus on The Used's myspace, or has met any of the band members - that is actually a positive thing. Also, all we are doing is transferring previous information without doing any research of our own. Do you actually know that Lies for the Liars has not charted in Finland? Doing some quick research just now, I found a website that provides charting information for In Love and Death in Canada and Australia that we did not previously have on our chart. Perhaps instead of deleting the blank charts on the discography page, you could first try to find information about the album sales of The Used around the world. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

if u cud acturally find the info, USEDfan (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

the bside section is terrible, a bside is suppose to be a song that didnt make the officail track list not nessacially a song that was released with a single. that needs work or needs to be removed completly. USEDfan (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Use the link for featured discographies, and go to the appropriate references tehre. Then just use the search option to find entries for the Used. As for the B-Sides section, it isn't finished yet. If you look at this one Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers_discography#B-sides, they seem to have B-sides from singles listed, so that is what I was aiming for. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:52, 22 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)

Charts

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)

I am actually inclined to agree with you here. The reason it is those charts that are listed is simply because I lifted the table from the Alice in Chains discography page, and then filled the info in for the Used. Rather than deleting the columns at the moment, we can just change the heading and fill in the info for countries where they did chart, as suggested above.Nouse4aname (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New Version (again)

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)

alright its finally up, the thing i think im gona do is orgainze the bsides into year released but also add a colum called year recorded that way if anything is released in the future we can just add it to the end, sound good? USEDfan (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fourth album

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)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS140030%2B25-Feb-2008%2BMW20080225
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130322142732/http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16771 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16771
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130322142732/http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16771 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16771

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)