Template talk:Grateful Dead

message: dude, this thing is WAY too big to be helpful - it should be more parsimonious. can this be cut down? JoeSmack Talk 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is to include all Grateful Dead related articles, for easy reference and linking.  One click will get you from any Dead related article to any other Dead related article.  Nice.  -- Mudwater 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with JoeSmack--the size is ridiculous.  I wouldn't mind seeing discography folded up into related articles and songs scuttled entirely. Seelie 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed this is way to big, a link to a discogrophy article and link to a song list article or catagory would be nice, not the entire disco and song list right in the template, I find this thing highly annoying. Russeasby 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  size 

message: What's "Grateful Dead Documentary"?  -- Mudwater 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grateful Dead Documentary 

message: Should the Grateful Dead template contain links to articles that don't exist yet?  I'd like to propose that those links be deleted, so that the template only links to existing articles.  The "non existing article" links clutter up the template, and since the articles they link to aren't there, the links are not very helpful.  I suppose they do serve to highlight articles that could or should be written, but that can be done from other articles instead.  For example, there's a link to "Kingfish (band)" in the "Bob Weir" article.   So, how about it?  Shall the links to articles that don't exist be removed from the template?  Here's one vote for removal. -- Mudwater 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Articles that Don't Exist Yet 

message: I've moved the Discography section of the template to the end.  In my opinion that makes the template easier to view and easier to use.  The Discography is by far the biggest section, taking up about half the template.  By putting it at the end, it's visually much easier to take in all the sections in the template at a glance.  I know this is kind of a big change but I decided to be bold and just do it.  Please reply here with any feedback. -- Mudwater 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved the Discography to the end 

message: I've added a new section for Songs.  It's divided into two groups, Originals (songs written by members of the Grateful Dead) and Covers (songs written by other people), with the entries in alphabetical order within each section.  In Covers, I've included only songs that appear on albums.  There are more cover songs that the Dead played in concert but that do not appear on any official CD or digital download releases, and I've left those out.  Of course, all of this refers to songs for which Wikipedia articles currently exist, in line with the concept that the template should only include links to actual articles -- see "Links to Articles that Don't Exist Yet" above.  I suggest as an informal guideline that the Grateful Dead template not be added to articles about cover songs, only to originals. -- Mudwater 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i pretty much think this is a terrible idea.  there are too many songs, written or covered, to put on this thing.  and even if youre only putting songs that have articles, youre making it seem like its ALL songs they did, and so you should put songs that dont have articles if thats what you want.  i just think its doing too much, and since there are links to the albums, thats fine.  -- Trobert 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that there shouldn't be a songs section; the important ones can maybe go in the related articles section, such as Dark Star (song), Truckin', Box of Rain, Touch of Grey. Perhaps even just a link to Grateful Dead songs. Other songs, especially "rare" and cover songs should not be included. WP:N still has bearing here, and there is even Wikipedia:Notability (songs). -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well thanks for completely destroying my three hours of hard work Moeron.  oh well.  -- Trobert 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus seems to have stabilized around the idea that there should be no songs section (which I agree with BTW), but should the template itself should be placed at the bottom of each song article? My sense is that it should, but maybe a discussion beforehand is merited. -  Tobogganoggin talk 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that ideally the template would be included in all articles that have links in the template itself, and not in any other articles.  That way the template would be used for its main purpose, which is one click navigation (two clicks including the "show") between any two Grateful Dead related articles that are considered important enough to be included in the template.  So, by that line of reasoning, I would suggest not putting the template on articles about songs, or on any articles that don't have links in the template. — Mudwater 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah, I should have thought about how navigation templates are usually placed on the pages to which they link. Don't mind me! -  Tobogganoggin talk 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Songs

message: I've changed the template so that each section is now expandable and collapsible.  I know this is a big change, but I really think that it gives the Grateful Dead template the best of both worlds.  Although one extra click is now needed to see the links in each section, this maximizes the two goals that have been expressed on this discussion page:  (1) The template contains links to all Grateful Dead related articles, thus providing a very handy way to see all the articles in one place, and to jump between the articles.  (2) The template takes up way less space than it did before.  -- Mudwater 13:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show and hide -- the best of both worlds 

message: In an edit earlier today, 69.150.235.114 added "New Riders of the Purple Sage" and "Old and In the Way" to the "Spin-off bands" section of the template, but those links were already in the "Related articles" section.  Point taken, though, because those are spin-off bands.  So, besides deleting those two links from "Related articles", I also moved four more links from "Related articles" to "Spin-off bands": "Legion of Mary", "Reconstruction", "Jerry Garcia Acoustic Band", and "Kingfish".  I also added "Missing Man Formation", and changed the order of the links somewhat. — Mudwater 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NRPS would not be a spin off band as Jerry was a member before the dead, thus its a precursor, not a spin off, I suggest leaving it in related articles.  Spin offs are bands formed by members after the formation of the dead. Nitpicking perhaps, but accurate. Russeasby 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow you about the New Riders of the Purple Sage, which formed in 1969, about four years after the Dead started.  Also, they pretty much were a spin-off, i.e. started by Garcia, Lesh, Hart, David Nelson and John Dawson, as a Dead warm-up band.  On the other hand, it could be argued that some of the other bands were not spin-offs, strictly speaking.  Reconstruction was started by John Kahn, without Garcia, and Kingfish was started by Matthew Kelly and Dave Torbert, without Weir.  Also, Old and In the Way is more of a Garcia side project than a Grateful Dead spin-off band.  I guess I was thinking that an "all inclusive" approach would avoid lengthy discussions over these distinctions, but maybe it would be better have those discussions after all. — Mudwater 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spin-off bands" vs. "Related articles" 

message: I added Category:Grateful Dead to the template...  now any page that uses this footer will automatically be included in the category.
It seems to be working correctly, but if anyone here is a template expert, please check it out.  Thanks.   --Parsifal Hello 05:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Grateful Dead 

message: What makes a title a box set?  Is it just the packaging, or the contents? Or both?  The WP Box set article says a box set "[covers] a broad range of the music of a given artist or genre. Artists and bands with an extremely long and successful career often have anthology or 'essential' collections of their music released as box sets. These often include rare and never-before-released tracks. Some box sets collect together previously released singles or albums by a music artist."  By that definition, The Grateful Dead Movie Soundtrack is not a box set, and neither is The Complete Fillmore West 1969, even though both have multiple disks and are packaged in cardboard slipcases that are somewhat box-like.  I would vote for considering both to be live albums rather than box sets. — Mudwater 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most box sets are indeed retrospectives of the career of a single artist, containing mostly previously released material. A box set does not necessarily have to be a career compendium of a single artist, however; for instance the Anthology of American Folk Music is a box set in its reissue form. Sometimes a box set can cover an era of time or genre of music, such as the Smithsonian's set for jazz, a compact disc continuation of its various vinyl box sets for this music. It can also be an assembly of previously unreleased material, as for Richard Thompson or Jimi Hendrix. With that in mind, the Dead's So Many Roads set belongs listed under box sets, not live albums. It is a career compendium of unreleased tracks, and although So Many Roads is mostly live, it numbers 14 studio selections out of 42 tracks total, so it's not strictly a live album. Also, like live box sets - The Complete Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965 and The Complete 1961 Village Vanguard Recordings - it has a single disc sampler associated, for those not wanting to shell out the big bucks. I have moved it into the box set section category, where it belongs. PJtP (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  Having a single disc sampler doesn't make something a box set.  And most of the tracks being live but some being studio doesn't make something a box set either.  You do bring up some interesting points, and I would say that the definition of "box set" seems to be somewhat of a gray area.  I shall ponder this further.  In the meantime, other editors are encouraged to join the discussion, as always. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of a box set 

message: I am insecure if this template also "belongs" on his page ... BNutzer 12:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes.  I think the template belongs on all the articles that it links to.  I also think it should be left off all articles that it does not link to.  The template is not just a handy list of Grateful Dead related articles, it's a way of navigating directly between the articles with one click (actually two clicks counting "show"). — Mudwater 14:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . BNutzer 19:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ned Lagin]] 

message: "Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions" has been added to the "Side Projects / Spin-off Bands" section of the template, but the link is to the article about the album by that name.  There's not currently an article for the band itself.  I would vote for removing the link until there is such an article. — Mudwater 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been three months and no one has said anything about this, so I've removed the link from the template. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions 

message: I have changed the Grateful Dead template be a musical artist navbox.  Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Navbox, "This is the standard template to be used on a musician's or musical ensemble's page. This project has specifically created this navbox to standardize the navigational box for musician-related articles."  The actual contents -- the sections with links to articles -- are the same as before, I only changed it to use this standardized format.  (Here is link to the previous version of the template.)  Because this navbox is quite large, I've chosen the option of having it start out in a collapsed state, i.e. the reader must click on "show" to display the contents.  This is similar to the previous template where each section started out collapsed. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical artist navbox 

message: should be listed in the top with the other band members, according to their (Grateful Dead's) article and his he was actually in the band as a full member not as a session musician or anything.
:Bruce Hornsby should be listed in the "related articles" section of the template, not at the top with the band members, because he was not an official member of the Grateful Dead.  This has been discussed at length on the talk page for the Grateful Dead article -- see Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1#Bruce Hornsby was NEVER a "member" of the Dead, Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1#Bruce Hornsby...Again,and Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1#Hornsby...again.  The definite consensus of those discussions was that, in the Grateful Dead article, Hornsby should not be included in the list of band members in the infobox --  but he should be listed in the Lineups table near the end of the article.  He was "sitting in" with the Dead, for many but not all shows for a year and a half, and contributed greatly to their music during that period, but not as an official member.  He's not listed as one of the band members at http://www.dead.net/band.  (Robert Hunter and John Perry Barlow are listed there, and by the consensus of other discussions, they shouldn't be listed as band members in the Grateful Dead article either.)  Also, when the Dead were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Hornsby was not included.  For further reasons that he was not an official member, see the talk page sections linked above. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one else has said anything about this.  Since the previous consensus was that Bruce Hornsby was not an official member of the Grateful Dead, I have moved his link back from the list of members to the "Related articles" section. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: bruce hornsby

message: Recently an editor changed this template to default to "collapsed".  Now when an article is displayed the navbox takes up way less space, but the reader has to click on "show" to display the contents of the navbox.  I'm starting this talk page section in case anyone wants to discuss this significant change.  I'll go first.  I'm okay either way, but I'm mildly in favor of leaving it this way, i.e. collapsed by default.  The navbox is pretty big, but I'd rather not remove any of the links, I think they're all quite useful.  It only takes one click to expand, so no biggie. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems to me that "collapsed" is somewhat better, because this template is so large, and the one extra click is not a big deal.  Other editors are encouraged to give their opinions here. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay For what it's worth (e.g.)  is longer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like  now defaults to collapsed also. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer collapsed, too. A smarter syntax may be |state = collapsed - thus, you can still uncollapse it in an article via , if wanted (see  on Steve Hillage) BNutzer (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm a bit slow in answering, but....  the template already allows state to be overridden to uncollapsed in an individual article. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsed