|WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area||(Rated Template-class)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Journey template.
I changed the template's format to have all of the members on the top row in the same format that many other band templates use. However, Dave Golland has twice reverted these edits, so this time I will place a comment here on the talk page about it. To Dave Golland: like I said on your talk page, the widely accepted format for members on band templates is to put the current members on the top row in boldface, and the former members on the lower row(s) not in boldface, all in the |above parameter (examples of templates that do this include Template:The Beatles, Template:Pink Floyd, Template:Genesis, Template:Rush and Template:Godsmack among many other examples). This format is correct, so please do not revert it back. Thank you, Xnux the Echidna 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But as with Template:Genesis, if we are to follow this format for Journey (which unlike The Beatles and Rush has had copious and major personnel changes) we need to distinguish former members like Steve Perry and Steve Smith from former members like Bob Glaub and Larrie Londin.Dave Golland (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Former Members/Touring Musicians
I just undid an edit moving Soto into the "former members" category and Jackson into the "touring musicians" category. With Jackson, I think the issue is cut and dry: he wasn't just a touring member, but also recorded with the band. With Soto, I think there is room for discussion. Soto was officially announced by the band as their new lead singer in December '06, but never recorded with Journey. If we make "official announcement" or "press release/press conference" a criterion for full membership, we'll probably need sources for all the other current and former members' press releases, etc. Secondly, the band makes "official announcements" regarding a number of topics, but that doesn't necessarily make them completely true. The band's "official history" in 2003 was rife with errors. I think that to rely on the band's official pronouncement on Soto's membership is to allow the band--in particular Neal Schon, who for better or worse seems to be making the decisions nowadays--too much control over history. And we must be particularly careful to avoid confusing propaganda with history. Dave Golland (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do not believe Jackson is considered a former band member. He was a session musician that they used on tour. This does not make him a full memebr of the band, but an associated artist. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this here.
I continue to feel as I did two-and-a-half years ago (see above) about the difficulty with a workable definition of "official" member. Jackson says "I was in Journey." (American Idol Season Two, the episode when Clay Aiken sang "Open Arms"). He doesn't differentiate between being "a session musician that they used on tour" or a "full member." The definition currently in use on the Journey template is: "an official member of the band is someone who records and tours; a session musician is someone who records but does not tour; and a touring musician is someone who tours but does not record (other than live recordings)." It seems to me that it would be difficult to have a better definition which would have the objectivity to meet the standards of NPOV. So-called "official" band statements are dubious.
The definition must hold for every former member. How difficult it would be (without engaging in original research, another Wikipedia no-no) to determine exactly which members were "session musicians that they used on tour," "touring musicians that sat in on a few recording sessions," etc. Was Robert Fleischman a "touring musician who wrote a couple of songs?" Were Prairie Prince and Jeff Scott Soto full members even though they never recorded, because the band didn't record anything during their tenure?
the simplest definitions usually are the best.
The recent deletions from the template based on WP:Bidirectional appear incorrect. The problems appear to be in the linked pages, not the Journey template. Frumious Bandersnatch, for instance, is an act associated with Journey and its page includes a link to the Journey page but no template; in this case, a template should be created on that page. The Santana page, as another example, has a template which does not have a Journey link (but should, under "related articles"). More explanation is necessary as to why the Journey template should not link to other pages which are relevant to Journey. Dave Golland (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Simply, if the template isn't transcluded on the target article, then the target article shouldn't be present here. If it is appropriate to add the template to the target article, then by all means transclude the template and add the article here, but I don't think that is the case for all the articles. The purpose of a navbox is to aid navigation - this fails if the target does not have the same navbox present. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)