Template talk:R.E.M.

message: I'm slowly but surely changing all band-related infoboxes to a single, uniform style (see  for example), and have made the changes to this template. If you feel like making any changes feel free!  plattopustalk 14:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style change

message: As a random visitor here, I was wondering why the old IRS Best of REM compilation's not on the discography here. I'm aware it's not "official" or whatever, but it's been on sale a long time and lots of people own it. It seems silly to arbritarily decide what's a real compilation and what isn't; it's hardly like there's been hundreds of re-issues as is the case with many bands. 86.143.124.18 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd I have no idea why BGC would delete these; they are completely legitimate albums. I also have no idea why you would want to make the template bigger without adding any information. I find it odd that you would editorialize about our personalities on this page. If you have some kind of disagreement, quarrel, unease with my editing style or person, you can bring it up on my talk or e-mail me. I think you'll find there are users who have had some kind of issue with me in the past, and it was all resolved by constructive dialogue with me, rather than asides on template talk pages. One last thing what are these "various other REM pages?" -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The albums deleted from the list may well have come out on IRS, but they were released AFTER R.E.M. left the label, and they were obviously "cash-in" releases that the band had no input in, nor which received their approval.  "And I Feel Fine..." has.  Secondly, the breaks are meant to shift certain titles into new lines so that the overall look of the template is more balanced.  It's purely for aesthetic reasons, but if you'd rather it looks inferior, then be my guest.  Apparently you have more authority over the REM pages than others...  BGC 18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute If you want to be a sarcastic jerk, feel free to go somewhere else. Who cares if they're "cash-in" compilations? How do you get to decide which ones are official or not? What in the world does "official" even mean? Aren't all of these albums released for profit? If you want the template to be unnecessarily large, go for it. See how adorable and asinine that was? In case you weren't aware, BGC, the album titles will appear on different lines if one is using a different browser/OS/screen settings/etc., so you're only making it look right on your computer, not everyone else's; that's how the Internet works. If you stop randomly inserting line breaks, it will look better for everyone. If you want to talk like an adult human being, please do so. Otherwise, please stop editing on Wikipedia. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.... you're an arrogant one.  And insecure too.  It's only an article page dude.  Relax.  BGC 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted at Template talk:R.E.M. and User talk:BGC Don't go picking fights with people and then tell them to "relax," "dude." You clearly didn't know what you were doing, you didn't bother explaining yourself on talk or in the edit summary ("...and you don't own the REM pages...." doesn't count, either), and you're causing more discussion about the template than actual improvement to its contents. I'll direct you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, too. The template talk namespace is intended for discussion about the template itself, not your personal opinions about or psychoanalysis of me. If you want to complain about me, that's why Wikipedia has the user talk namespace. If you need more help understanding how to use these resources, I'll direct you to the help desk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your own advice.  BGC 05:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute Look, you're making the template unnecessarily large, and making it display worse on other people's computers by inserting arbitrary line breaks. Let them choose how they want it displayed in their browsers and it's better for everyone. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's "everyone"?  Quite the conceited person you are.  BGC 14:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone "Everyone" is every person, everybody. By inserting random line breaks in the middle of the template, you make it look large and spastic on most computers. You're editing the template to make it look good just on your computer, which is not a good idea, since you are editing a public resource (the Internet) with only your OS, browser, system settings, monitor, and asthetic preferences in mind. In general, that's not a good idea. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaks in Template 

message: By definition , extended play records shouldn't be classed as albums. - Dudesleeper 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I have no idea who Slaughter House Studio or Elastic Press are, but if you look at Wikipedia's page on the topic, eps are an example of albums. Why would they not be albums? They are collections of songs. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should not be used as a source. Find that in the list of guideline pages you rattle off so eloquently. - Dudesleeper 13:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow You insist on being uncivil, don't you? I honestly can't understand why you pick fights with people and get so rude. If you want a definition of album, here are several from reputable dictionaries that an ep would fit. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where were the uncivil and rude parts? - Dudesleeper 14:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And I didn't ask for a definition of an album, only an EP, which the link you provided doesn't define. - Dudesleeper 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudenesss It's rude to ignore people's questions, and you know as well as I do that you wrote "rattle off" and the bit about eloquence as sarcastic digs; don't act ignorant of you own motives. And no, you did not ask for the definition of an album. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPs 

message: By tinkering with some parameters - very slightly increasing the infobox width and very slightly reducing the font size on the supporting musicians and production staff - and rearranging the names so as to cluster current and former (but retaining alphabetical order within each cluster), I believe I have resolved the problems described above in a way that should be satisfactory to all complainants. 
Good? DS 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I like the way it looks now. BGC 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding the diff as reference pointer. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Just to let y'all know I've made some minor changes to the template to bring it in line with the uniform standard for band templates (basically just using pipes "|" instead of middots to be more accessible, and re-arranging the band members).  plattopustalk 06:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting changed 

message: The italics for the Videos section don't seem to have taken for some reason, even though the formatting seems to be correct. Hopefully someone can see something I'm clearly not. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 03:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed I used , which is the general format for these band templates, as far as I'm aware. Unfortunately, now the silver/white background is thrown off. Help anyone? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: No reason? Just like how current members of the band are bold, it only makes sense for the current accompaniment and management to be bold. Otherwise, put them in alphabetical order. It's nonsense to have two persons inexplicably out of order at the beginning of the list. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason for management and side-men to be bolded, and particularly not Jacknife Lee. Only current band members need to be bolded in band templates. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay There is a need, which I explained above (which is to say nothing of the fact that Bertis is routinely credited as a member of the band, as was Jefferson.) But even if you disagree, then put them in alphabetical order. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation doesn't hold. This is a band template, and everything else is auxiliary. It'd be like bolding the most recent album. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite Your analogy doesn't hold because an album released by a band will always have been released by that band; it is never more or less an R.E.M. album, whereas members of R.E.M. can be more or less members (i.e. they can leave.) Again, either bold or alphabetize; please don't leave them out of order inexplicably. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. Are you saying you're fine with no bolding as long as is alphabetized, or are you saying to alphabetize regardless? Because if it's the latter you could've done that. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Either bold or alphabetize

message: Are we supposed to be missing a link to the band's singles (or to :Category:R.E.M. songs) in the navbox? - Dudesleeper |  Talk 09:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles 

message: Is this only for the songs that were released as singles? If not, why are Texarkana and Country Feedback not present? 84.92.140.217 (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right There are several other R.E.M. songs, which would make the template bloated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles Bit 

message: I think it should be split into two sections, current and former. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Accompaniement

message: Would it be useful to add a producer section?  Scott Litt had a long term as producer. Jonpatterns (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Producer Section