The Rolling Stones NA‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones 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.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones articles NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

There are several ways to deal with the size: we can use collapsible sections (which is the standard approach to large navboxes), trim the content, or split this into several navboxes. The current situation, however, is unworkable. SilkTork *^YES! 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In our best guidance on the use of nav boxes - Wikipedia:Navigation templates, the Johnny Cash template - Template:Johnny Cash - is given as one example of how a large nav box can be handled. In Johnny Cash the sections are neatly hidden. Unless there is an objection, I feel we should do the same with this rather unweildy template. All the information is still there, but will be in managable and navigatable sections. We can also then bring in the singles to make the box even more useful. SilkTork *^YES! 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This layout is huge - but its seems like alot of the British templates are like this --> Template:The Beatles I had originally aggred to some additions see -->Template talk:The Beatles#Should we add a history section? but i think i got out of hand with the addition of much more then was talk about...Lets wait for User:Discographer to comment hes the best at this things !! ..I think Queen (band) has the best way dividing it up, but it seems the British templates are all being merged, !!Moxy (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went to Johnny Cash and noticed that it had been changed from a collapsable box to a standard box by WikiProject Musicians. I am now in the process of leaving them a note to let them know they should be using collapsible sections. It seems ironic that one of the templates that is used as an example of how to deal with unweildy nav boxes has been converted by them back into an unweildy one! SilkTork *^YES! 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is what the Johnny Cash template should look like. SilkTork *^YES! 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, let (re)figure this out before we make any changes. We'll work with each other before any "permanent" changes are establishly set. ... Well, let's begin! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright then, if we keep the studio albums like this, and the template being "too big", we'll elimate compilation albums and ABKCO Records and Decca Records releases also. Agree? Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have left a message for the Musicians Project as the Musicians template uses a non-collapsible nav box. The solution would be for the Musicians template to use collapsible sections. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#WikiProject_Musicians.2FNavbox. SilkTork *^YES! 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel that the contents of the template can be expanded once collapsible sections are introduced. Some templates can handles multiple collapsible sections - so you could have groups such as Albums, Singles, Tours, etc, and then when you click on Albums, that is further divided into collapsed sections on Studio, Live, Others, etc. We can move forward more progressively once we have collapsible sections. SilkTork *^YES! 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's one template I worked on which handles quite a lot of data: Template:Alcoholic beverages - and this is how it used to be. If put into collapsible sections, more data can be handled and presented in a form that the reader can digest - also pictures can be introduced as space is saved. Using collapsible we can contain all the present data, plus the singles! SilkTork *^YES! 19:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I think you want to set a new standard here. We need consensus first, to set the precedent on this, so we may begin. This will also enable others to do the same thing as we are in the future. I am remaining neutral on this, though. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I can agree on this, with full support, only if the singles template is left alone (albeit sans B-sides if we must). The singles template is to remain untouchable - excluding previous statement, for me backing you on this. This is my compromise for total support. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a way that navboxes can be collected together without taking up too much band width (allowing a page to load more quickly) -

The main The Rolling Stones template can be split into a Rolling Stones albums template (to be used on all RS albums pages) as well as a related articles template - the tours, films and related people (which would be used on related articles) - or it could be kept as one, with collapsible sections. As I say, there are various ways of dealing with the template in order to make it more user friendly, and at the same time make it more flexible, AND carry more data, such as including the singles. SilkTork *^YES! 11:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support for SilkTork's initial 8 May 2010 lay-out change edit. (Now I do!) The navbox is too big, of which you stand correct SilkTork, in that any further links added to this template will change the side-boundaries by dropping the (computer monitor-seen) borders which must be entirely visible on one's monitor without doing any side-scrolling. No templates are to be viewed with any type of side-scrolling involved; all templates are to be viewed entirely on one's computer monitor without doing any side-scrolling at the bottom of the page! Also, as I stated on your talk page, the admin, like yourself, Rodhullandemu has also mentioned manageable sub-templates in place of this. Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a simpler change. One in which the albums are put into a separate template, as with the singles. So:

We can look into other ways of doing it, but this works for the moment, and would allow some expansion of the main template. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow big change ..i do find it odd that albums are not on main template but DVDs are??Moxy (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you explain why you find it odd? Do you feel the DVDs should be on the album template? SilkTork *^YES! 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is good! Should we have to change anything, might go something as merging the DVDs and documentaries groups maybe into one group called Videography, (though it must either stay in the main template, or if SilkTork desires, maybe creating a Videography template, however he chooses I support) since Blu-rays are DVDs successor, as they may go obsolete. Other than that, good job SilkTork, amd thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put the Videography in the main template, and also created a Videography section in The Rolling Stones discography. SilkTork *^YES! 22:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now this is excellant! Thanks again SilkTork! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template is otherwise ok but it is too wide. Of what I remember these are usually wrapped so that you don't need to be scrolling vertically. But in this you have to. 85.217.22.47 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now it seems ok, though I might have different system or browser. 82.141.66.136 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to add Ollie E. Brown (percussionist on Black and Blue, Love You Live and 1975 Tour of the Americas) to the "Collaborators" section of the template. Any objections? 28bytes (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "Video releases", as there is already an entire template dedicated to their videography. 24.127.236.115 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]