Template talk:Rage Against the Machine

Metal Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative music Template‑class

This template is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I believe a change of color scheme is in order. Can I get a hell yeah?Jewisharific 02:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This color scheme is good, thanks. - Bagel7 04:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a classic. Ratm.com agrees with me.Skomorokh ^incite 04:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template should be black and red because those are official RATM colors, not because some "fan" thinks it does/does not look good. - Bagel7^T's 04:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't WP have a policy on template colours? Rehevkor 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but many templates have been changed recently in an attempt to standardize all Band templates. For example, the Red Hot Chili Peppers Template was recently standardized ([1]), and I discussed the issue with MiTfan3 on my talk page here and here. But I don't think we should change this one because it really works stylistically and I personally believe Rage would like it like it is now. - Bagel7^T's 23:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a <br> to the template to make sure all text is within the template. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But all the text is within the template even without the <br>. - Bagel7^T's 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On all platforms. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  12:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate, I still don't understand. - Bagel7^T's 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platforms referring to IE, firefox, netscape, safari etc. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But on IE, it isn't even with the <br>. - Bagel7^T's 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's microsofts problem. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  14:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've standardised the template properly like every other navigational box on Wikipedia. There is no reason this one should differ, and just because you say "the band will like it" or "it's a classic because Ratm.com says it is". I doubt the band have time to visit Wikipedia, let alone spend enough time on it to figure out that we have navigational templates. The template should stay the way it is, and shouldn't be changed – this format is accepted as the standard format for all navboxes on Wikipedia. ~ 

Ok, accessibility is a good thing to have, but is the template in black and red really unaccessible? Sure, blue is nice, but red and black works too. And it's not "if the band would like it" or that whole story about them visiting Wikipedia, it's about representing the band's values and ideals. For example, in articles on British topics, British spellings will be used. Although this could be argued to make the article less accessible for American users, it's left that way because of the spirit of the article. Same with the RATM template, at least in my opinion. Also, is conformity really the best option? As long as each template is accessible, wouldn't it look better if each one had its quirks and was a bit different? - Bagel7^T's 09:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is late, but I'd like to say that

Spebi 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I could argue against all of your points, but I don't think it's really worth and I'm not in the mood, so whatever. - Bagel7^T's 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, could we at least put the red star back?

talk) 02:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

do it..... - Bagel7^T's 07:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the simpsons are yellow

talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]