Alternative music Template‑class | |||||||
|
I'm slowly but surely changing all band-related infoboxes to a single, uniform style (see {{ Rush}} for example), and have made the changes to this template. If you feel like making any changes feel free! plattopus talk 14:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
===>My two cents I generally like the aesthetics of your design and the idea of having a more standardized template, I do not prefer it to the one that we had previously. I'll probably amend/revert it, and if you feel strongly about it yourself, we could have a vote or somesuch. Justin (koavf) 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
As a random visitor here, I was wondering why the old IRS Best of REM compilation's not on the discography here. I'm aware it's not "official" or whatever, but it's been on sale a long time and lots of people own it. It seems silly to arbritarily decide what's a real compilation and what isn't; it's hardly like there's been hundreds of re-issues as is the case with many bands. 86.143.124.18 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Upon arriving here, I discover that a couple users have been having a long running edit war over this, R.E.M. discography and various other REM pages. The 2 parties are users whom I've encountered elsewhere and have observed to be overly opinionated, and frankly as a result aren't users I'm too keen on interacting with, but I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here anyway.
Please note that I comment not to take sides, but merely to express my own tastes. I find wikipedia disputes to be silly and counterproductive. Think how much could be done if people spent more energy on building up less developed wp areas instead of fighting over things that make marginal content difference? -- Alcuin 03:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I do believe the version put forward by BGC is more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention more accurate, but if anyone has a specific problem with it, air it here. Other than that, we have, oooh, 23 hours of peace and quiet ahead of us.- Dudesleeper 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
By definition [2] [3], extended play records shouldn't be classed as albums. - Dudesleeper 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Truce? I'm not blindly reverting the page anymore; if you want to discuss it, we can, otherwise, we'll go to mediation or have some kind of RfC. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Usability If someone uses HTML to forcibly break lines at arbitrary places in text, it will create a staggered and uneven appearance in a web browser, causing some lines to be long and short with no rhyme or reason to the structure of the document except for looking nice on one individual's computer, based on his browser, layout engine, operating system, monitor, system settings, and capricious sense of aesthetics. By not inserting arbitrary line breaks, you allow the user agent (e.g. the web browser) to define for the end user (e.g. the Wikipedian actually viewing the page) how it is to be displayed, which is the entire function of a web browser. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I found this through AN/I and do not care to get in the middle of your personal issues, but please leave the line breaks out, its creating extremely short formatting on my resolution 1280x1024. I agree that adding them is personalizing the site to meet your formatting and is not considering people with higher resolutions 1280x1024 1600x1280 etc. or even widescreen resolutions for that matter. -- NuclearUmpf 14:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
By tinkering with some parameters - very slightly increasing the infobox width and very slightly reducing the font size on the supporting musicians and production staff - and rearranging the names so as to cluster current and former (but retaining alphabetical order within each cluster), I believe I have resolved the problems described above in a way that should be satisfactory to all complainants.
Good? DS 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to let y'all know I've made some minor changes to the template to bring it in line with the uniform standard for band templates (basically just using pipes "|" instead of middots to be more accessible, and re-arranging the band members). plattopus talk 06:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
And why can't people bow to convention? Rather than bicker, how about being sensible? On my monitor (using Firefox), I can't see the bold that well - it is NOT clear that Berry is no longer in the band.
Bands where former members are featured on a different line to current members:
... In fact, every band I can find that has a template and former members does it this way.
So, who votes for being sensible? - Famico666 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't you guys add R.E.M.: In the Attic to the info box to make it easier for people like me to find. I realise it's unofficial, but you could add it under an "Unofficial Albums" category or something.-- 24.229.120.27 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The italics for the Videos section don't seem to have taken for some reason, even though the formatting seems to be correct. Hopefully someone can see something I'm clearly not. - Dudesleeper · Talk 03:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No reason? Just like how current members of the band are bold, it only makes sense for the current accompaniment and management to be bold. Otherwise, put them in alphabetical order. It's nonsense to have two persons inexplicably out of order at the beginning of the list. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we supposed to be missing a link to the band's singles (or to Category:R.E.M. songs) in the navbox? - Dudesleeper | Talk 09:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this only for the songs that were released as singles? If not, why are Texarkana and Country Feedback not present? 84.92.140.217 ( talk) 15:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be split into two sections, current and former. 84.92.140.217 ( talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Would it be useful to add a producer section? Scott Litt had a long term as producer. Jonpatterns ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Alternative music Template‑class | |||||||
|
I'm slowly but surely changing all band-related infoboxes to a single, uniform style (see {{ Rush}} for example), and have made the changes to this template. If you feel like making any changes feel free! plattopus talk 14:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
===>My two cents I generally like the aesthetics of your design and the idea of having a more standardized template, I do not prefer it to the one that we had previously. I'll probably amend/revert it, and if you feel strongly about it yourself, we could have a vote or somesuch. Justin (koavf) 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
As a random visitor here, I was wondering why the old IRS Best of REM compilation's not on the discography here. I'm aware it's not "official" or whatever, but it's been on sale a long time and lots of people own it. It seems silly to arbritarily decide what's a real compilation and what isn't; it's hardly like there's been hundreds of re-issues as is the case with many bands. 86.143.124.18 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Upon arriving here, I discover that a couple users have been having a long running edit war over this, R.E.M. discography and various other REM pages. The 2 parties are users whom I've encountered elsewhere and have observed to be overly opinionated, and frankly as a result aren't users I'm too keen on interacting with, but I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here anyway.
Please note that I comment not to take sides, but merely to express my own tastes. I find wikipedia disputes to be silly and counterproductive. Think how much could be done if people spent more energy on building up less developed wp areas instead of fighting over things that make marginal content difference? -- Alcuin 03:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I do believe the version put forward by BGC is more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention more accurate, but if anyone has a specific problem with it, air it here. Other than that, we have, oooh, 23 hours of peace and quiet ahead of us.- Dudesleeper 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
By definition [2] [3], extended play records shouldn't be classed as albums. - Dudesleeper 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Truce? I'm not blindly reverting the page anymore; if you want to discuss it, we can, otherwise, we'll go to mediation or have some kind of RfC. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Usability If someone uses HTML to forcibly break lines at arbitrary places in text, it will create a staggered and uneven appearance in a web browser, causing some lines to be long and short with no rhyme or reason to the structure of the document except for looking nice on one individual's computer, based on his browser, layout engine, operating system, monitor, system settings, and capricious sense of aesthetics. By not inserting arbitrary line breaks, you allow the user agent (e.g. the web browser) to define for the end user (e.g. the Wikipedian actually viewing the page) how it is to be displayed, which is the entire function of a web browser. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I found this through AN/I and do not care to get in the middle of your personal issues, but please leave the line breaks out, its creating extremely short formatting on my resolution 1280x1024. I agree that adding them is personalizing the site to meet your formatting and is not considering people with higher resolutions 1280x1024 1600x1280 etc. or even widescreen resolutions for that matter. -- NuclearUmpf 14:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
By tinkering with some parameters - very slightly increasing the infobox width and very slightly reducing the font size on the supporting musicians and production staff - and rearranging the names so as to cluster current and former (but retaining alphabetical order within each cluster), I believe I have resolved the problems described above in a way that should be satisfactory to all complainants.
Good? DS 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to let y'all know I've made some minor changes to the template to bring it in line with the uniform standard for band templates (basically just using pipes "|" instead of middots to be more accessible, and re-arranging the band members). plattopus talk 06:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
And why can't people bow to convention? Rather than bicker, how about being sensible? On my monitor (using Firefox), I can't see the bold that well - it is NOT clear that Berry is no longer in the band.
Bands where former members are featured on a different line to current members:
... In fact, every band I can find that has a template and former members does it this way.
So, who votes for being sensible? - Famico666 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't you guys add R.E.M.: In the Attic to the info box to make it easier for people like me to find. I realise it's unofficial, but you could add it under an "Unofficial Albums" category or something.-- 24.229.120.27 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The italics for the Videos section don't seem to have taken for some reason, even though the formatting seems to be correct. Hopefully someone can see something I'm clearly not. - Dudesleeper · Talk 03:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No reason? Just like how current members of the band are bold, it only makes sense for the current accompaniment and management to be bold. Otherwise, put them in alphabetical order. It's nonsense to have two persons inexplicably out of order at the beginning of the list. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we supposed to be missing a link to the band's singles (or to Category:R.E.M. songs) in the navbox? - Dudesleeper | Talk 09:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this only for the songs that were released as singles? If not, why are Texarkana and Country Feedback not present? 84.92.140.217 ( talk) 15:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be split into two sections, current and former. 84.92.140.217 ( talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Would it be useful to add a producer section? Scott Litt had a long term as producer. Jonpatterns ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)