Template talk:The Rolling Stones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, is there any way that this could be made smaller? It is really too big for album articles and makes the whole bottom really cluttered. gren グレン 01:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully it's better now[1]. I seem to have accidentally edited an older version, so Taylor, Loog Oldham and Klein are back, but since I'm not sure why they were removed in the first place I'll leave them there for now. Flowerparty■ 02:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If Darryl Jones is there, why not Chuck Leavell? He's been playing with the band for 25 years. ProhibitOnions

can we add Ian McLagan to the notable sidemen, please? he belongs there more than Don Was, i feel. Lisa Fischer, Bernard Fowler and Blondie Chaplin too, for that matter. Sssoul (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albums template

I've made a template, Template:Rolling Stones albums based on the content removed from this, which we can use on album pages (where it was pretty useful) without cluttering other Stones-related pages. Have a look. ProhibitOnions 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, now that we have templates that can hide and show content, it might make sense to put everything back...  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] consensus sought on deleting Brussels from "miscellaneous albums"

i don't get why the bootleg Brussels Affair is listed as a "miscellaneous album" alongside an official release (Jamming with Edward), and i vote for removing it. to me calling it an "unreleased live album" is inaccurate; the Stones did want to release a concert album from the 72 tour, but if there's any evidence that they ever thought about releasing the bootleg circulating as Brussels Affair i've never heard/read about it. moreover, Brussels Affair is only one of many titles that concert bootleg circulates under; plus which, there are lots of other famous/widely circulating Stones bootlegs, and since they're not listed, why is this one??

is there already a wiki article on or list of Rolling Stones bootlegs? to me that would be more appropriate than mysteriously listing this one bootleg in the template. share your thoughts? Sssoul (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to have an article, in which case it made sense to include it in the template. The article was deleted yesterday, so now it no longer does. I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tours vs. Films/Videos

I think that the tours deserve placement on the template before the films/videos. The articles are more complete and there seems to be more relevance to their inclusion then a loose collection of Stones releases. Stan weller (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad the tours are back, I don't care that much about where in the order. But tour names should not be quoted or italicized; they are just regular proper nouns. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)