Template talk:Iron Maiden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Metal (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Too cluttered![edit]

The EPs and Singles section of the template is too large and should either be removed or redone. I think maybe just include EPs and have a seperate "List of Iron Maiden Songs/Singles" category and link to it in the "see also" section of the article.

I'm not any good at this kind of editing so would someone else do it? Thanks!

Well, in my opinion I think it's fine the way it is. What do you have in mind when you say "redone"? — Prodigenous Zee - 02:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought along the lines of maybe moving all the singles to an entirely different section titled "List of Iron Maiden Singles" while keeping EPs there. Maybe keep the important singles (like "Number of the Beast" and "2 minutes to Midnight" for example) and removing the lesser known ones. At least the red links should be gotten rid of since they're against what the template is for.
Would something like this please you? — Prodigenous Zee - 04:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Maiden Japan left off of every discography? It was a live EP really, but bootlegs were pressed of the entire set. Even if they didn't want it as an official release in full length form it should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springfinger (talkcontribs) .

Huh? What are you talking about? It's mentioned in both the template and in the discography... — Prodigenous Zee - 03:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added 2 line breaks to the template to avoid it to be wider than standard pages. I think we could use the 10 first years pack as a "group of singles" so the singles list is not so long... --Metalpotato 11:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean something like this:

Or maybe the first 20 albums (first ten years) as a single link to the compilation article, since they are linked from it (I prefer what I posted). --Metalpotato 11:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Videos/DVD's[edit]

How come the templates for bands generally don't include these?

Eddie[edit]

Eddie is not a band member, agreed, but he should be somewhere on the template... where? --PopUpPirate 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps under the current members, where former or temporary members are placed? --RockMaster 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On song pages?[edit]

Should this be used on normal song pages (not singles)? About half do and half don't, so some consistency is needed. One thing - a large template like this looks a bit odd on small song stubs. --Mark (Talk) 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Related Articles[edit]

Some of the related articles don't appear to be worthy of being in this section. Mainly: Howie Weinberg, Denis O'Regan, Mark Wilkinson and Simon Drake. A quick look of these articles shows just a cursory mention of Maiden, if mentioned at all. None of them are mentioned in the main Maiden article. I think they should be removed. KingStrato (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

NWOBHM[edit]

Iron Maiden was part of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and I thought of adding this to there genre on the Iron Maiden page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.236.10 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NWOBHM is an era/term. It isn't a genre. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Singles and related bands[edit]

this template is too big[edit]

this template is HUGE.i think it should be shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talkcontribs) 09:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Included the singles[edit]

Included the singles to the template but different as before, it can be expanded or hidden, whatever the reader may like, looks really proffesional. Also the template shouldn't be shortened as the other guy seggested-- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

==This template is waaay too long, I'll remove some unnecessary "related persons", see if it works.

About changing the band members position[edit]

I think the alphabetical order is not the right way to place the position of current and former band members links, the importance of the musician for the history of the band should be the gauge. Also can be in a way to make easier the recognition of who's the singer and who's the drummer, for instance: singer-guitarists-bassist-drummer. --O7VS (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The importance of individual band members is extremely subjective and shouldn't be used. If people want to identify which band member plays what they have a direct link to their article. In any case, Iron Maiden are unusual in that they have three guitarists- what will stop people being confused as to what each member plays in this case? --Nerdtrap (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)