Template talk:John Mayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fair use images removed

Fair use images such as album covers aren't allowed in templates. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria point nine says, "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." (Emphasis mine.) Extraordinary Machine 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance of the template

Doesn't anyone else think this template looks a bit... childish? The layout of the template itself is fine, but the colors and fonts used, to me, don't immediately smack of being "encyclopedic." -- Kicking222 17:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I don't mind dressing things up a little bit, but the font in particular does not fit into the Wikipedia aesthetic. -Big Smooth 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the template to address these concerns. The color should be #CCCCFF; WP:NAV recommends against anything else unless Mayer has some special connection to #008686. Album and EPs should be italicized, and singles need to be in quotation marks. The articles about his record labels provide little to no information about Mayer, so there's no reason to include them, and external links aren't Wikipedia articles and therefore don't belong in navigational templates. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. ShadowHalo 09:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit again. There's no consensus here and until one may be reached, the template should remain in the format it has been in since created (which is for some time now). Undiscussed large edits cause edit wars, so to remain civil, I suggest we put it to a vote. It's widely accepted across Wikipedia for Navigational templates to be a little bit more colourful. There is a standard setup and wikitables canbe set up, but if we had to do so, we wouldn't have the ability to change and customise them as we can. As to the selection of the colours, this colour is Mayer's favourite colour (as is noted earlier in the page) so I deemed it appropriate when I originally designed it. I'm well aware that this is an Encyclopedia and not Myspace (or whatever) but being an encyclopedia doesn't prohibit a page from being able to be somewhat appealing to the eye. In fact, if you refer to Brittanica or Encarta's computer based counterparts, both have turned to thrive on visual content as well as information content. Wikipedia is nowhere near the accuracy of either and should not consider itself greater than either, and in fact should seek to become similar in the ways that have proven successful for each. Wikipedia is simply more popular due to immediacy in access and editability, but nowhere near reliable in as an extent resource.
--lincalinca 09:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course there hadn't been discussion before I made the changes; it'd be ridiculous for me to try and have a discussion on the "Template talk" page before making changes. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Regardless, there is already consensus that using colors other than #CCCCFF is discouraged since "multiple navigational templates on one page with different titlebar colors will probably look unpleasant." Mayer's favourite color is not a very good reason; other colors are generally used in, say {{The Simpsons}} or {{SpongeBob SquarePants}} where the articles are actually associated with the colors. ShadowHalo 10:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's alright with you, I'd like to as for a third opinion. A vote would be unlikely to do anything because very few people visit the Template talk namespace. ShadowHalo 10:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
On the note of what has been displayed, the very colour selected is the thematic colour of the cover of Heavier Things. Does that satisfy? As to a third opinion, that should be fine.
--lincalinca 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:3o10:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Analysis:

  • Some users want to make the template "appealing to the eye" and make it "fit the artist's style"
  • Other users want to make the template a simple Wikipedia-style template.

I would like to introduce a compromise. Changing fonts on Wikipedia is generally a bad idea, and even worse when it's a font that is not available to every common web browser - I'm on a Linux system using Firefox now, and I couldn't see any of the fonts in any of the versions in template history. So, please don't do the fonts - there also isn't any connection between the font and the artist. The colours are alright as the artist apparently has a connection to them - and the colours are not awful (if the template was bright red with yellow borders, my opinion would differ). Wikipedia uses several shades of blue for stylistic purposes (project namespace background, links, visited links, page background, some templates), so this one should be alright. --User:Krator (t c) 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion I am probably not a good judge of how it looks -- style is not my strong area, but other than being a bit dark, it looks ok. But if there is a dispute, I would recommend using wikipedia standards rather than individual standards. This gives wikipedia a more unified look and avoids the "explosion in a Disney Factory" appearance that could occur if everyone did their own thing. Also, it removes the issue from being a personal matter to being an objective one. --Blue Tie 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So, to clarify: Krator deems it suitable and has referenced other cases where colour is used throughout Wikipedia. Meanwhile, Blue Tie deems it a bit dark, but ok, but considers that in case of dispute, fall back on the standard colourings and wants to avoid having WP look like an overly colourised environment. To this comment, I do agree heartily and believe that colour is a subjective matter. My intention when designing this was to have it look sleek and inoffensive, in toned-down colours. I suppose this spawned the issue of it seeming a little dark. With relation to that, I can colourise the links in a contrasting colour so as to make the text more visible (in this case, I'd use either white or a very pale cream).
Based on the third and fourth opinions received, I believe the consensus is to make some slight adjustments, but generally, the overall design is accepted.
Am I right in this assumption?
--lincalinca 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on these suggestions: how's this for the color scheme? Use the default for the header. For the template space itself, I wouldn't oppose using colors, but they should preferably be some lightened version of #CCF (like #EEF) or light shades of grey to stay neutral. This way, the template would not clash with any other templates. I don't think anyone has commented yet on the appropriateness of including the record labels or external links though. ShadowHalo 12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the template so that the heading is the default #CCF for easy readability (and the font color to black to default so it's readable) and the template space itself to alternating default background and #EEE to illustrate what I mean. Feel free to revert if you don't find this acceptable, and we can continue discussing. ShadowHalo 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly a step in the right direction for a consensus. I still think the inclusion of Mayer's colour is an idea. I'll change something up and let me know what you think. Give me a few mins.
--lincalinca 12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. It's much more toned down from before, but still includes the colour. Does this give us a consensus?
--lincalinca 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Any reason why EPs are listed before major studio albums?
  2. Lowercase for non-proper nouns: Studio Albums -> Studio albums
  3. Left text should be bold; consider right-aligning
  4. The title is too large and the titlebar takes up too much vertical space (we want to reduce vertical space as navigational templates should not detract from the article, so I'm also suggesting eliminating some other material below)
  5. Overlaps with {{John Mayer Trio}}; why not merge that into this as anyone at a John Mayer Trio article should be interested in John Mayer articles?
  6. Are record labels directly relevant? The first 2 do not mention Mayer, and the last only has a trivial mention. Would readers really want to navigate to these?
  7. Placing external links in a template is questionable (are they directly relevant to every transcluding article?)
  8. It appears Category and Discography are italicized for purely aesthetic reasons, which is not good enough
  9. Consider using {{·}} to separate items instead of | (advantages listed at {{·}})
  10. You mention that this is supposed to look appealing but I find it less so than the average template that doesn't try to look appealing

For related attempts at standardizing band/musical artist templates, see Category:Band templates and Template:Navbox musical artist. Please comment on the associated Talk pages if anyone is interested. –Pomte 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the suggestions. And I have to say, whoever thought of {{·}} does very good work. ShadowHalo 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Since there don't seem to be any objections, I've made the changes, except {{John Mayer Trio}} will need to be replaced with this template. Also, I've removed John Mayer Trio from the John Mayer Trio section and simply linked the one in the left column. ShadowHalo 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I had no idea so much discussion was going on. I read through the discussion here after the fact, but was relieved to know that my changes didn't conflict with much of the discussion here, except for the change in colors. I based the color and font scheme on what is used at John Mayer's website (like someone mentioned the yellow scheme for the Simpsons nav bar). If there are any major disagreements, I will follow the objections here.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)