Template talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i deleted the cover art because it has been confirmed by the official board that the posted picture was not actually the real single cover. the cover will be from the official hump de bump video.

Contents

[edit] Color of Background

I believe that a dark red is not only appropriate for their name, it is also aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and would function fine as the color of the background for the title. Comments? - Bagel7What ya say, what ya say, what ya say, what??? 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I highly agree. Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, the red I kept reverting was hideous. Kamryn Matika 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's keep it like this. - Bagel7What ya say, what ya say, what ya say, what??? 03:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

. . . Wait. I thought we all agreed on this. I see your point, but cant we make it some type of red, so I have an ounce of self-esteem in my edits left? Haha, but seriously, I think it would be appropriate to make it some type of red. - Bagel7T's,C's,A's 01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I know - sorry, I should have discussed it here first. However, the red makes it really hard to see the blue. I think practical accessibility is more important than personal aesthetic here. If you're really keen on it being red then sure, go ahead, but please find a colour that makes it possible to see the links? Thanks. Kamryn Matika 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, no, I don't want to restore the red that makes the links hard to see, I'll try to find a better one. - Bagel7T's,C's,A's 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singles section

I think the Singles section makes the template too large. A navigational template is just that; it should help users navigate the articles easily. The Singles section makes it awkwardly large, for example taking up half of the Jungle Man. There is no guideline available on how large these templates should be, but {{Smashing Pumpkins}} is far too large. As an artist releases more work, it appears to be common practice to simply link to higher-level articles. As an example, see the solution for {{Madonna}}. ShadowHalo 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was a bit big myself - I don't really mind the loss and the single articles aren't at a very good standard anyway. The individual album articles link to their respective singles which I think is probably enough. Having all the years linked is a bit messy too - I've fixed that. Kamryn Matika
Also, I wonder if the links to the 'related articles' and the minor band members are really necessary too. They're not hugely relevant and if they are they're linked within the prose. The template should really be a navigational tool that simply links only the most important and relevant articles. Kamryn Matika 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Lone years aren't supposed to be linked anyway, so I've delinked them. ShadowHalo 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Woah, woah, wait a second, the singles section is a very important part of the Red Hot Chili Pepper's work, in my opinion. If you think it's too long, just hide it in the future. - Bagel7T's,C's,A's 03:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They are an important part of RHCP's work. But the purpose of a navigational template is to help people navigate through the articles. Having all of their singles makes it much harder to search through the template and gets in the way of this template's being useful. ShadowHalo 06:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
They're important, yes, but there are simply too many of them and it makes the template huge and unwieldy and isn't nice for people on slow connections. Calling our edits 'vandalism' was pretty rude, BTW. Kamryn Matika 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, no I see what you guys are saying, go ahead and delete the singles I guess, it just makes me sad.... I think I was in a bad mood when I said that stuff earlier, sorry... - Bagel7T's,C's,A's 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, it's okay :) It's not like the singles articles are gone, we just don't have a huge list of them plastered over every page. Kamryn Matika 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's my general belief that the singles should be re-added, as I constantly find myself wishing to find a Singles article, and am thus forced to go to the coinciding album article to navigate into the single article. It's tedious and cumbersome at best. NSR77 TC 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Two links is not far. Having forty links to articles that are essentially subtopics of the albums is excessive, and it ends up taking up a huge amount of space (most of my screen, and half of some articles like Me & My Friends). 17Drew 05:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Addition of Slane Castle Video

OK, I understand your point about how it shouldn't be in that section. But I still feel it should be on the template. Where do you think it would fit under? - Bagel7T's 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organic Soundball

OK, even if it's a bootleg, shouldn't it be somewhere in the template? Like maybe in other? - Bagel7T's 08:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)