Pop music Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music 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.

Why? Why would you insist on an arbitrary scheme for listing the members rather than alphabetization, which is probably the most widely-used collation scheme in the world? You appeal to this not being normal, but on any template that has been widely edited, it is normal. As well, it is normal (almost universal) to format former members the way that I am, but you are reverting that as well, for some reason. Please give me some rationale for this. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not arbitrary; it's the order that is listed at The Cure. If you look at the personnel of any release by The Cure you will not find the band members listed alphabetically. Please stop putting the list in an alphabetical order until you can show there is a consensus for changing it. Until then the status quo should remain. -- JD554 ( talk) 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary still Well, why is it that way on that page? You didn't answer my question at all or provide any rationale. Furthermore, you ignored the point I made about formatting the past members; it's like you didn't even read what I wrote. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Documentation Template:Navbox Musical artist doesn't give a preference for how to do this, but shows a completely arbitrary example for Led Zeppelin, whereas Template:Infobox Musical artist does give a rationale. Looking at talk, I see no discussion on either of this topic. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You asked: "Why would you insist on an arbitrary scheme for listing the members rather than alphabetization, which is probably the most widely-used collation scheme in the world?". And I answered that. Both the examples you've provided above do not show an alphabetical list and one of them provides a perfectly reasonable rationale for the list to be in the order that's trying to be preserved here. I will ask you once again: Please do not revert to an alphabetical list until you can get a consensus here that that is the way it should be. Until then the status quo should remain in place. No other artist navbox that I can see uses the an alphabetical list. What's the point in trying to discuss this here if you insist on changing it? -- JD554 ( talk) 07:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I've invited members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music to comment on the issues. Hopefully a consensus can be built one way or the other and I'm happy to go with the majority view. Please don't change the order until a consensus is reached. -- JD554 ( talk) 07:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think I have ever seen band members' listed alphabetically, especially on Wikipedia. There are exceptions, perhaps, but for the most part these templates and members list should be ordered by their role or prominence in the band. NSR77 ^T _C 13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply