Talk:List of the Who band members

25th Anniversary Tour players

I don't think Simon Phillips or "Boltz" Bolton should be included in the main table. They were, after all, just another part of the big band hired on the 1989 tour. Why should they get special mention simply because of the instrument they play? Maybe replace them with "see the 25th Anniversary Tour entry" or preferably something pithier. 82.6.83.187 07:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Numbers

EITHER have the High Numbers in the list (and keep the note about the session drummer), or as the note (and list it as simply The Who, April 1964 - September 1978). To mention it in both the list and as a footnote is redundant. 82.6.83.187 03:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks way too messy to squeeze 6 lines into the table like that, so I advocate the footnote method. MightyMoose22 06:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line-Ups.

The bottom line-up table is good, but the first table is messy. It simply restates what is already said in the lower table. It is VERY hard to follow, and a freakin' eyesore. It is inaccurate, because Colin Dawson and Gabby Connoly, as stated in the lower table, were with the band before they were called "The Who", so were not real members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.206.118 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Okay...

1 - Look at the time periods listed along the top, and every name that is in line with each of them was in the band at that time. It's the standard rules for reading a chart, graph or table. I don't see what the problem is.

2 - The difference between the "real members" and the rest is outlined at the top of the table. Any name within a grey cell was not a "real member". I don't see what the problem is.

3 - The colours may be a bit garish for your tastes, but they are there for a reason. If you want to discuss maybe changing them to more subdued hues, feel free to do so.

MightyMoose22 06:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say the whole page really is overkill. No other band members page goes into this much detail, and it's really not necessary. There's not a single place on the website where you can just find the basic information about the band's line-ups listed to be easily read. I tried listing it on the band page, but it got labeled as superfluity and deleted. Something has to be done to fix this, though, it's so overdone. Can't we just abbreviate the line-up list to the basic, simple, necessary information?

--Rock Soldier (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remove the rainbow graph and just show an encyclopedic standard list. 156.34.210.254 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has a problem with it, I'll take care of it.

--Rock Soldier (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally liked the old "fully detailed" version, cuz it had lots more information than it does now. As it is now the bottom table basically repeats what the top table says. I think its better to replace the colourful table with the basic info and to have the "fully detailed" one back for people who want more info. I'm gonna do that now, see if its better or not. Monkeynutbar (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Line Up is wrong. Between "The Detours" and "The "Who" they were called "The High Numbers". The last featured the classic Who line-up (Townshend, Daltrey, Entwistle, Moon). Here's they're playing live: [1] Saemikneu (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Detailed Timeline

The "Fully Detailed Timeline" is wrong. The BPI awards ceremony was in 1988 and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony was in 1990. Clashwho 19:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. MightyMoose22 07:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quad Tour 96/97

The timeline is incorrect in stating that there was a single lineup of backing musicians throughout this time. The number of backing musicians was gradually reduced from 15 for the intial shows in London & New York, to 12 for the 96 tour, and 10 for the 97 tour. I don't have citations to back this up at the minute or a full list of names so can't really edit, but if anyone has this info it would be a good improvement to this section.

Feb-Jun 02 Lineup

The lineup listed of Townshend, Daltrey, Entwistle; plus Starkey, Bundrick, S. Townshend is correct in as much as this was the lineup that rehearsed for the 2002 tour, but it would be useful to have a note pointing out that they never played a concert in this format (S. Townshend wasn't present for the handful of shows in early 2002)

Footnotes

I've converted the footnotes to refs, as it makes them a lot easier to edit. All you have to do is add or remove a ref to the place you want it and the list at the bottom of the page will be updated automatically, so you don't have to keep track of which note is where. MightyMoose22 06:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC) haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.52.129 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current layout

The current layout is messy, unwieldy and a lot less readable than the previous one (e.g. here) for a number of reasons. A few examples: a) having all of the info at the top of the page and then again in the table is completely redundant, whereas before it was arranged in three stages of increasing detail so people who only wanted a little bit of information didn't have to read through the whole list to find it; b) having each tour lineup separated made it easy to see exactly who played when and with whom, whereas now you have to look at each section, then compare the dates, and mentally juggle the information to figure out what each lineup was; c) bold text should be used sparingly to make certain words stand out, whereas using bold text on every line of the table means that none of it stands out and it completely defeats the purpose, plus it means that there's less space around and between the letters, which actually makes it harder to read; d) why is the table centered, anyway? I could go on, but I won't. Does anyone object to a reversion? --Monkeynutbar (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than a week with no objections. I'll leave it another day or two for any last-minute comments, otherwise I'll assume it's safe to go ahead and revert to the version linked above. --Monkeynutbar (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]