Template talk:Johnny Cash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proposed versions of template

The Johnny Cash template which was created by through collaboration between me and User:Alcuin (as was the grand majority of Cash-related articles, primarily albums) has seen a few minor changes, but now a bit of an edit conflict has arisen. 155.94.62.221 restructured the template a bit, transferring section titles (Studio albums, Live albums, etc.) to the left, eliminating the title of the "Related articles" section and creating a separate section for the American Recordings series. Of course, my intention is not to start an edit war, but I think the old version should stay for several reasons, namely:

1. Size. True, the two versions do not differ greatly in this respect, but still, the difference is noticeable. The size of the font also seems a bit inappropriate (too large), considering this is a template, and a huge one at that.
2. Eliminating the Discography section with appropriate subsections seems like a bad idea to me. True, this version does give a clear distinction, but such is also the case with the previously accepted version; in fact, I'll risk stating that the older one was clearer in that it visibly separated albums of all sorts and other sections.
3. The American series. True, it was, as far as albums go, probably the most distinctive phase in Cash's long career. However, despite the fact that the majority of Cash fans might think otherwise, they were still studio albums, and anyone looking for them can find them easily in the older template. In short, creating a separate section for the American albums is POV. Plus, with that logic, At Folsom Prison and At San Quentin should also be given special treatment, considering Cash's other live albums were nowhere near as popular. By the way, Unchained was in fact titled Unchained; calling it American II is not entirely correct.
4. Minor things, like capitalizing "Albums" (ex. Studio Albums, Live Albums). But I'm not going to nitpick. However, Wiki links for all these must be included; especially "Family" linked to a page with a lot of detailed information, and adding a link makes it easier for all Wikipedians to get to that page directly.
5. Above all (yes, I know this is also POV ;), I just think the previous version was slightly more aesthetically pleasing. Despite having more or less the same content, this one seems overabundant and would look strange on Cash-related pages. Also, a stable template for an extremely well-known band was used as a basis for the Cash template designed by myself and Alcuin, and it has worked well for some time now.

I noticed that Alcuin posted a message on your Talk page, 155.94.62.221, and seems to be in agreement with me on this one. If anyone else wishes to express their views on the matter, go right ahead. I apologize for any sloppiness in my arguments. Cromag 10:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll take the liberty to revert once again. Of course, the template could be improved upon, but I don't think restructuring it is the way to go, as I mentioned. Cromag 15:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, instead of reverting to your own version numerous times, you could try to discuss the issue on this talk page, which would be easier for all involved. Cromag 09:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think either of us object to changing the template. We just don't like such sweeping changes without discussion. You might prefer a different style, but the current template was the result of discussion and collaboration (and a lot of work by Cromag). We'd appreciate your input, but there are more effective ways of influencing the way things look here. --Alcuin 14:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)