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
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
The template should be black and red because those are official RATM colors, not because some "fan" thinks it does/does not look good. - Bagel7T's04:00, 28 August 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. - Bagel7T's23:03, 21 October 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. ~ Sebi07:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? - Bagel7T's09:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this is late, but I'd like to say that Wikipedia:Accessibility is not something we should ignore for the sake of fans of the band. We are an encyclopedia, and making a navigational template (which means that it should be accessible to all who wish to navigate through the encyclopedia's coverage of the band) the colours that a group of fans want is absolutely ridiculous. Using different colours and using a different dialect of English aren't the same things. An article relating to America does not have to be written in American English – all that is asked for is that whatever is used is used throughout the whole article, and not switching between the two. It's not really about "the spirit of the article", as such, and this template should not be "representing the band's values and ideals", as it is a box to help readers find topics related to RATM. You have to think of the people with low resolution monitors, too. Not everyone who reads Wikipedia has high-tech monitors and large screens to be able to see such a template covered in red and black. The cons of using red and black outweigh the pros, here. Spebi04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
