Template talk:The Used

Dispute
Why was my edits ading Chadam (The Used's new mascot) and Alex Pardee removed? If no one cares, or have a valid arguement it should go back. Bare in mind that MCR only has Reprise Records in "Related articles" (along with The Offsping, and Rancid), and often times (Linkin Park, AFI, Green Day, The Clash, and Red Hot Chili Peppers) don't even name it. Dark jedi requiem 05:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone explain what the issue is here, please? Xotheusedguyox has left a note on my page saying he's trying to fix inaccuracies and is being prevented, and I'm not in a position to judge. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

-right now the way the page is listed it says there are 7 members in the used (it needs to be seperated into the previous and present members) there were also 2 digital singles removed from the singles list. singles are also part of the discovery so they should not have their own titled. the record company should also be listed serpate from the related links -xotheusedguyox

(copied from SV talk) the user who got me banned, is making the templete the way way they only like it, they r missing two singles and have the memebrs listed wrong they are the ones that need to be ban, so u shud unprotect the page so i can fix it proper and ban them cause they are deleting true information that has been listed there 4 a while and they didnt ask if it was ok to change on the discussion page (now it looks like the previous member are still in the band, and they delted two digital singles so unprotect the page so i can fix it please) — Preceding unsigned comment added by xotheusedguyox (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks, xo. By the way, if you type four tildes after your posts, that will automatically insert the time, the date, and your user name. Like this ~ &mdash; top lefthand key on the keyboard.


 * Can whoever is opposing xo's edits say what the problem is from their perspective? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

why is this page is protected, i cant fix it if its like that Xotheusedguyox 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's give the others a chance to put their side of things. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

why are u sided with them? u locked it on the way they want it, thats b/s, i explained why the messed it up just ban them and end it Xotheusedguyox 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I explained my addition of links at the top of the page. I'm not the only one (Jamdav86 being the other), that likes it the way it is now. As I've seen the situation, Xotherusedguyox seems to be unaware of, or in direct violation of Wikipedia policy WP:OWN. I'm trying to help here, instead of edit warring, but if you (Xotheusedguyox) feel my edits are not in Wikipedia's best interest, you may by all means report me to which ever editor you please. Dark jedi requiem 06:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not disputing the addition of digital singles. However, on this page and others (notably Under Pressure) Xotheusedguyox is repeatedly ignoring the style guide by removing the quotes around the songs, adn is going against the format of similar templates by adding an unneccesary "Members" field at the top. When reverting these changes, we lose the digital singles, but these can be added in later.

Additionally, I want to make it clear to Xotheusedguyox that when there is a dispute, the page is locked at the state the locker finds it. The state at which it is locked is not necessarily the state it should be. I would advise Xotheusedguyox to familiarise himself with the various help documentation. --Jamdav86 09:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be better to fix specific stylistic errors rather than reverting wholesale, because that causes content to go missing too. Xo, when the page is unlocked, would you be willing to add back the missing content, but without altering the stylistic fixes? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To be quite honest, I missed the single additions. I saw the members bar added, the quotes removed and I immediately thoought "Not again!" and just reverted it, without even noticing the single additions. --Jamdav86 11:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

we realli need this page unprotected already so it can be fixed, they just admitted to not even reading it and just changing everything cause htey didnt like the way it looks Xotheusedguyox 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

plus the members bar is very nessacy because right now it says the used have 7 members, i dont care what any other looks like, they made it so it says the used have 7 memebers so unprotet the page already! Xotheusedguyox 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't show 7 current members, it shows four, just like the Beatles template shows both Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe. Current members are bold, previous ones are not. Even if you look at Template:NOFX it doesn't make a distinction between new and old members, apart from being bolded. Besides, adding PREVIOUS, and CURRENT just clutters the template even more. You don't need to be redundant and show distinction by both bolding and adding previous/current. And Xo, it's nothing to be upset about or insist the page be immediatly unlocked. It will be a small bit before any conclusions are made. Take a breath, assume good faith. Dark jedi requiem 18:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

it will be seperated into curent and previous, and i wish u the best of luck since u obvious have no life if all u do is care about the way a templete looks, singles are part of the discovery so they dont need their own title, 2 singles need to be added, and members need to be serperated, im the biggest used fan ever prob and i shud have the bigger say here since ive pretty much made the used wiki look the way it deos today, ive done just about every edit to it to make it the best and u ruined it Xotheusedguyox 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which material does everyone agree is missing, and where is it missing from? I can add it so at least that issue is taken care of. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

if its not unpreotected hten it can never be updated when new stuff is released... this is how it should look


 * Okay, thanks. I've added the missing singles. Xo, are you willing to accept the current version? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

the members still need to be seperated into present and previous as shown in the pic above and the singles dont need their own purple bar, they should be lsited under the discovery as shown above --Xotheusedguyox 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dark jedi, is there any reason the template can't have a title for members, and do the singles need their own purple bar? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I don't like singles to get there own bar, there is far too many links for it to not get one. however, I completely object to there being a record label purple bar. If I had complete control of the template, I would make it like this:


 * Dark jedi requiem 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

as it stands the used have 7 members according to your templete, the singles look weird casue take it away has one word on its own line - Xotheusedguyox 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at Template:IronMaiden, Template:Metallica, Template:My Chemical Romance - none of them have the mebers formatted the way you suggest and no-one is confused. --Jamdav86 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

i dont care about those bands, they have nothing 2 do with the used, we def need to seperate those members into present and previos...end of story

This is Wikipedia. We strive for consistancy. We don't think "Oh man the Used are so cool, let's change the rules and guidelines for them." They have everything to do with The Used. They are a band, and are subject to the same guidelines. The Used are not special and get their own special rules. Dark jedi requiem 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

the memebrs still need to be seperated as well as the singles Xotheusedguyox 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The template is perfect as-is. End of. --Jamdav86 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

not even close, the templete is terrible as is, since when did the 3 previous members come back into the band? and since when are singles not part of the discovery so much is wrong with it, its locked the way the vandals made it, its not good at all Xotheusedguyox 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

if changes arent going to be fixed, ill prob just make a new templete Xotheusedguyox 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jam, or Dark jedi, can you show me where the guideline is for these templates, please? I've looked at the MoS and can only find that song titles should be in quotes, and album titles in italics. Other than that, I'm not seeing anything. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no official guideline (or if there is, I wouldn't know where to find it) but no other band template has it set out like Xo...ox suggests. From Template:AC/DC to Template:ZZ Top, none are set out as he wants it.

(The following is copied from SlimVirgin's talk page.)

The real problem is not the template, but the whole group of articles relating to the Used - he has introduced so many stylistic errors that it will take an age to correct them, een if he accepts our decision in this matter. Luckily, my interest extends only to the Under Pressure article at this curren time, of which the Used template is a part of.

We strive for consistency in Wikipedia, so that it isn't too problematic on pages such as Under Pressure where four such templates exist. If this change goes ahead, we will have to change every other band template, leading to legions of angry editors, to do the job "properly". It's not worth bending to this one editor in the long run, really. --Jamdav86 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

see your basing it on how u want it, let the used one stand out and be cool and unique, if changes arent done ill make a templete Xotheusedguyox 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What bollocks. Read my comments proplerly before response. I'll put them in bullet for for you.
 * It's how the whole Wikipedia community wants it, not just me.
 * Things shouldn't be changed so they "stand out and be[come] cool and unique" - they shouldb e standardised so they all look similar, if not the same.
 * Do not create a rival template. Ever. --Jamdav86 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

no, ur wrong, not 1 other person wants it like that, otherwise they would've changed it months ago when i first edited the template, ur the only 1 who has nothing else to do then worry about a template, a new one is in the process... Xotheusedguyox 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh please, don't be thick. You surely should've noticed that Dark jedi requiem agrees with me. Adn I'm not kidding - do not create a second template.--Jamdav86 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jam, no more personal attacks, please. Template:The Beatles has a header for members, just as an example. Xo, what is the single thing that most concerns you about the way the template currently looks? If you had to choose one, what would it be? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

the singles titled shudnt be in a colored bar, it should being written like the other albums are Xotheusedguyox 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PS...isnt that kinda like a threat from Jam...shouldnt they get banned for that? - Xotheusedguyox 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't like it when people ignore my comments (and what threat?). I accept the point about the Beatles, but remember that is a different style of template - it uses the sidebar system like Bob Dylan, not the titlebar system like this, or the hybrid usd by the Smashing Pumpkins.
 * The singles appear to generally vary according to how large the template is or the whim of the editor. Iron Maiden has them like this article, blink-182 has them as suggested by Xo..ox, Bob Dylan doesn't have them at all and Aerosmith have a seperate template for them! However, I would agree with Xo...ox on this matter - deleting the singles bar would reduce the height of the template, which is always good. --Jamdav86 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Xo, if the singles bar is deleted, would that be a good enough compromise for you? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

it be much better but the member thing would still seem incorrect Xotheusedguyox 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've fixed that. Is the current version one that both sides would be willing to go along with (even if it's not what you'd like ideally)? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

just fix the lines, the have like one word on the second line, plz fix that. Xotheusedguyox 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ok woll fecks dat Xodayouzdgayeox howz dat sowned sun? Kern yew reeds dis? Om tronna lern yer leighng widge.


 * Remove the misplaced break and everything shoukd be fine. Thanks for the effort, Slim. :) --Jamdav86 11:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Single
Could someone explain what the issue is with Pretty Handsome Awkward? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has been deleted (although I'm not sure why) and no sources exist on either The Used or Lies for the Liars for it being the next single. It was initally created relatively early as I believe it was the first track previewed from the album. --Jamdav86 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * i added the source, the used annouced it has the next single about a month ago but some1 delted the apge so i added a source to the single. and if jamdava needs proof tell them to go to the used myspace where video stills have been posted. Xotheusedguyox 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for concrete proof of it being a single, just like they all the editors that voted for it's deletion. I don't find Myspace a reputable source, nor do I find YouTube one either. I've heard rumors that they are making a video, but that doesn't count as a single. Liar Liar (Burn in Hell) never had a video, and I'm Not Okay (I Promise) had a low budget video before the song was ever a single. If I remember, the album "Plans" by Death Cab had videos for every song. Dark jedi requiem 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange itch and Dumb Luck
These should not be added to the discography page. As a different band, they do not belong here. A similar situation is Stutterfly and Secret and Whisper. Both band's albums are not pooled together. Dark jedi requiem 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2016

 * group2 = Live albums
 * list2 =
 * Berth
 * Live & Acoustic at the Palace

69.201.64.200 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Live & Acoustic at the Palace does not have an article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)