Template talk:The Who/Archive 1

Sandom and Dawson articles are forthcoming. They are at least as important in the band's history as Jones or Palladino or Starkey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.114.180 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

All right, that's good. Just seemed a bit odd having them right up top (above even the "main four"), especially with no articles. Looking forward to those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuning Spork (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sandom/Dawson/Phillips/Carin
Well, I just added John "Rabbit" Bundrick to the template (right after writing the article about him). I'm also going to move Sandom and Dawson a bit down on the list, as the template implies that they're more important to the band than Daltrey/Entwistle/Moon/Townshend. Feel free to move them back up if there's some fascinating reason to have them on the top. Also, is it cool to put up Simon Phillips and Jon Carin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuning Spork (talk • contribs) 07:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Phillips and Carin were really just two of a couple-dozen-odd extra musicians that were used for The Who's "big band" tours (in '89 & '96). They really don't merit special mention above everybody else in the extended "big band" that they used. Monkeynutbar (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Making Entwistle and Moon more important
I hope no one minds that I put Entwistle and Moon in a new category. They just didn't seem right being small and under the living ones. I felt they needed to look more important. And, they were next to Kenney Jones, and they're certainly more important to the history of the Who than he was, fine drummer as he is. This did make me decide to move him down. If anyone takes issue with that, move him back up. I just feel the originals should be marked as such. Trogdor077 04:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tommy (musical)
There is an article for the 92 Bway production of Tommy. I'll let someone else figure out where it should be on the template. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandom, Dawson, Connolly
It think that they should be move to related articles because they were never a part of "The Who" and never appear on any album. Otherwise, I think this template is great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltreyEntwistleMoonTownshend (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

New Sections
I added a new section: soundtracks. I should probably make a seperate article for the 1975 Tommy Original Soundtrack, as it is currently smushed in with the general Tommy article. All of the albums I added are either from TheWho.com (the discography section) or from TheWhoStore.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltreyEntwistleMoonTownshend (talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Discography
Do we really need the band's entire discography listed at the bottom of every page this template's on? It's huge. Monkeynutbar (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Names
The order of names keeps changing on this template. I myself think they should be in order of how long they were (have been) in the band. i.e. :-


 * Pete (46 years), Roger (46 years), John (40 years) then Keith (14 years) all on the top row because that is the band (on all but 3 albums).
 * Then Kenney first (because he was an official member), with Rabbit (33 years total), Zak (12 years), Simon (7 years total) and Pino (6 years).

No offence meant towards Roger, but Pete should be first because he wrote most of the songs.

Possibly put Kenney after Zak because he was only in for 9 years, but he was "official" and on two albums. I don't think he should be top row, though, because that should make the main 4 names stand out.

I reckon that should be how it's set out because, to me, their relativity to the band is more important than alphabetical order.

Discuss. Monkeynutbar (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (For the record, whenever I use the word album I am referring to the studio albums)
 * I agree for the most part. Of course John, Pete, Keith and Roger on the top row.  I really don't care what order but I had them in the order of Roger, Pete (because both have been on the same number of albums and Roger is first alphabetically), John (because he is next in number of albums and finally Keith because he has the least number of albums.


 * Now, for the second row. I think the same rules apply.  Kenney played on 2 albums (Face Dances and It's Hard) so he is above anyone who is offically on one album (Zak, Rab, Pino, and Simon).  So, that puts Kenney ahead of them. Then, for those who have one album, I just put them in alphabetical order.  BUT EVERYONE HAS TO BE IN AGREEMENT AS FAR AS WHO CAN APPEAR AS A MEMBER.  I am seeing names thrown around that just don't belong (like Scot Halpin).  I think that anyone who has appeared AS A MEMBER (not just a contributor as Rabbit was on Face Dances - on every album the ACTUAL BAND is physically listed somewhere in the liner notes) ON A STUDIO ALBUM deserves to be up there.  Otherwise, they should go in the related persons section, or should not appear on the template at all.  Here is my view on the order, with number of albums appeared on


 * Roger Daltrey (11/11) | Pete Townshend (11/11) | John Entwistle (10/11) | Keith Moon (8/11)


 * Kenney Jones (2/11) | John "Rabbit Bundrick (1/11) | Pino Palladino (1/11) | Zak Starkey (1/11) | Simon Townshend (1/11)


 * DaltreyEntwistleMoonTownshend (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Added later...I am not that fluent in the workings of Wikipedia, but I think we should get a lock on the template (if we can) after the order is decided. I feel that people will juse keep on editing it until it is the way THEY PERSONALLY like it.  Everytime that I look at this template, something is changed.  I'm not sure exactly how locking stuff works because changes will eventually be made (new albums - with the possibility of new members, articles for "articleless" albums, etc.).  Maybe they could deem several individuals responsible enough to be able to edit for the above mentioned reasons.  But then again, I don't know enough about the way Wikipedia works, I just REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, like the Who.  Long Live Rock!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltreyEntwistleMoonTownshend (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now Kenney Jones is listed before Keith Moon, on the same tier. Is this right? Jthm guitarist (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Singles = collapsible
There are so many singles, I think a separate collapsible section needs to be added to the navbox. StevePrutz (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Solo albums
How many of their solo albums have Wikipedia articles? If there are enough, could we have a "Solo Albums" section? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I actually did some searching and found that there are too many solo albums with articles to make a reasonably-sized solo albums section. However, Pete Townshend does have a separate discography page. If we make ones for Roger and John as well (seeing as Keith has only one solo album and Kenney Jones doesn't have any, we shouldn't bother with them), we could put those pages into the "Solo Albums" section. Anyone up for the challenge? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made a discography page for Roger Daltrey. I might come back and do John Entwistle, but if anyone wants to jump ahead of me, go ahead. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I did it for John as well. Unless I hear from anyone soon, I will add these pages under a Solo Albums section. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no one seems to care, I went ahead and put a solo discography section. I like it the way it looks, but if anyone else wants to say anything, then you better say something soon. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Related Persons
While I'm here I'll make another suggestion: maybe a related persons section? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change. I like it the way it looks, but if anyone thinks otherwise, speak up. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)