Template talk:Phish

Festivals

Do we just want their festivals on here? Just wondering if we should add H.O.R.D.E. or Farm Aid 1998.--Moeron 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We'd have to include Bonnaroo, too. I'm not sold on their inclusion, that template is already kind of big. We could probably do it like Holdsworth and Daubs, make them 70%. —  MusicMaker 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think they preformed at Bonnaroo or either of the 1990 Woodstocks or even Lallapoloza (I screwed that up bad). I could be very wrong.--Moeron 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they didn't perform Bonnaroo, but it's sort of the rightful heir of the Phish festival. Eh, leave 'em all off. HORDE is really a Blues Traveler thing and Farm Aid was everybody who was anybody. They're wikilinked in the article; that's good enough. —  MusicMaker 03:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Moeron 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

New width

Gotta be honest, I hate it. It's... long. It takes up the entire screen, lengthwise. And I really don't like the way the lines are broken up, it's a little confusing on the eyes. (At least, it is for my eyes [which suck].)
Maybe we should make it wider than it was originally -- it would make it shorter, taking up less room on the screen. Now, it seems gargantuan.
—  MusicMaker 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Length is the same as it was before . --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's about two inches longer. I'm not saying you added anything to it; its "volume" remained the same, but making it thinner made it longer. Taller. However you want to look at it. —  MusicMaker 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, length wasn' changed, it is the same, only width changed. It all depends on how you are viewing Wikipedia (which browser, screen settings, ect.)--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can the template box be justified to the left of the screen? I need to scroll to the right to see it. Something is wrong here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milchama (talk • contribs)

I don't think it can. All of the template tags, {{phish}} included, center themselves automatically. I could justify the text within the box, but I don't think that would help. —  MusicMaker 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Collapse-ability

I have spotted on one or two other templates that they have a "hide" function. I may look and see about utlizing this with our Phish template. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen that, but your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. —  MusicMaker 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Simpsons reference. BabuBhatt 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

<bows> —  MusicMaker 23:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wohoo! I got it to work. Let me know if there are any problems. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lookin' good here. Did you justify it left, too? It's hanging out on the left side of my screen. —  MusicMaker 00:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. I changed the margins from auto (center) to numbers while I was fiddling around. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you change the font sixe? If so, great. If not, hmmm..... —  MusicMaker 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Navbar

I added a navbar at the bottom of the template. I can get rid of it if anyone objects. —  MusicMaker 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me; I had to change it from Pink Floyd to Phish though, so I hope you don't object to that ... *smirk*. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 06:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh. Yeah. That's cool.... —  MusicMaker 06:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Giant Country Horns

The Giant Country Horns should be moved to the first section, right after The Dude of Life. OR, the Dude should be moved to the Related Content section. Neither were part of the band, but they had similar relationships to Phish. Brainscar 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, GCH is more of a related act. I would say that they weren't AS integral as the Dude. My reasoning, which might be faulty, is thus: Dude brought creative inspiration, as opposed to GCH which, to some extent, reinterpreted existing material. Does that make sense? —  MusicMaker5376 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I do see what you're saying, but GCH also served (albeit temporarily) as Phish's horn section, thereby becoming part of the band if only for a limited run. They never existed as a group outside of Phish, while the Dude did perform solo many times, and has released at least one, maybe two, albums under his own name. I see the Dude as more of a "friend" of the band who certainly had some influence (see "Skippy the Wonder Mouse") but no more than other guest performers. The Giant Country Horns have never released anything of which I'm aware, and that, in my mind, puts them in more of the role of backing band, and not guest performers, almost like backup singers. Does that make sense? I think this could probably be argued either way. And at first I thought that GCH should be added alongside the Dude of Life, but now (after typing it "out loud") I actually believe that the Dude should be lowered in stature, and moved down next the the Horns. He was not part of the band, and should not be represented as such...in my opinion...but whatever. I won't lose sleep over it. Brainscar 13:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of the "Related Content" section, I would say that GCH sort of sticks out like a sore thumb. I (and I'm sure many phans would) object to moving Dude down; he was a collaborator. He definitely had more influence than other guest performers. He wrote songs! But I'm rethinking my objection to moving GCH up. You're right -- being considered "related content" doesn't do them justice. I'm just wondering if they belong on that third line -- Kuroda, Languodoc, Dude, and Marshall were sort of the "core support" for the band. Maybe they should be on the line with Daubs and Holdsworth as former members of the band? Should they have their own line? (I, personally, would prefer them not to have their own line as it would make the template that much bigger....) Let me think about this for a little bit, and I'm going to see if I can get some other opinions in the mix.... —  MusicMaker5376 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The guys to whom I would normally look for comment don't seem to be currently editing. I left a message on the talk of the main article; lets see if any other thoughts show up. —  MusicMaker5376 19:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting up Live Phish

I'm not sure if that's a great idea. This box is already HUGE, and that just adds two lines. —  MusicMaker5376 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

new template

Made a new one. Feedback welcome. —  MusicMaker5376 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New template proposal

I don't think the collapsable template structure is appropriate for this template. Trying to find links is unnecessarily tricky, and all of the information can be condensed reasonably. Here is my proposal for a new template design:

Sure, it's a bit on the large side, but it's still smaller than the Grateful Dead template. Xnux the Echidna 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you think the collapsable structure is appropriate? What makes finding links "tricky"? — MusicMaker5376 03:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For one, you have to click at least two [show] buttons everytime you want to find the link you're looking for. Secondly, the information need not be split up into three sections; the information can all be reasonably "packed" together. The template will collapse anyway if there's another navbox present, so there's no need to worry about too much information being displayed all at once. Xnux the Echidna 13:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this should collapse regardless of the existance of another navbox. Both are just too large to have open on a page -- either navbox is larger than some of the stubs!

I'm on IE5 (I think -- it's something ancient) here at work, and it doesn't collapse at all, so it's hard for me to really think about it. I'm going to leave a message on the main Phish page -- I don't know if anyone watches the template but me -- and, since I don't really have an opinion, I'd like to see what others think. — MusicMaker5376 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current template - it is easy to use and easy to use to find things. I especially like about the current template that the live phish series is in its own collapsible section, whereas here it is front and center and makes it cluttered. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Addionne (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Live Phish series should have its own template? If a band template has to be autocollapsed, then there's too much information in it. -Xnux the Echidna 18:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the autocollapse function a product of templates that have too much information?

Also, the Live Phish and LivePhish.com downloads are conflated in this template. Theoretically, they're two separate things. Having a separate template for them would basically accomplish what the current template already does.

I think I'm leaning toward keeping the current template. — MusicMaker5376 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is, it doesn't have too much information. See Template:Jimi Hendrix, Template:Elvis Presley, Template:Johnny Cash, Template:GratefulDead and Template:The Rolling Stones. All of these are as long or longer than the Phish template, and they aren't subcategorized like this template. -Xnux the Echidna 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be. — MusicMaker5376 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Templete Edits

Hey all!

I've made some edits to the Phish template. I've tried to reduced redundancies overall. Made the template more in line with other band templates. Please let me know if there are overt issues with this. I'm somewhat using Xnux the Echidna's edits as my guide post and slightly reverting it back to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryneweir01 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)