I'm slowly but surely changing all band-related infoboxes to a single, uniform style (see {{Rush}} for example), and have made the changes to this template. If you feel like making any changes feel free! plattopus^talk 14:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

===>My two cents I generally like the aesthetics of your design and the idea of having a more standardized template, I do not prefer it to the one that we had previously. I'll probably amend/revert it, and if you feel strongly about it yourself, we could have a vote or somesuch. Justin (koavf) 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As a random visitor here, I was wondering why the old IRS Best of REM compilation's not on the discography here. I'm aware it's not "official" or whatever, but it's been on sale a long time and lots of people own it. It seems silly to arbritarily decide what's a real compilation and what isn't; it's hardly like there's been hundreds of re-issues as is the case with many bands. 86.143.124.18 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon arriving here, I discover that a couple users have been having a long running edit war over this, R.E.M. discography and various other REM pages. The 2 parties are users whom I've encountered elsewhere and have observed to be overly opinionated, and frankly as a result aren't users I'm too keen on interacting with, but I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here anyway.

• Breaks in templates are bad, please leave them out
• I prefer to see discographies and band templates that are overly inclusive. If an album or compilation is less "official" explain why on its page, but let other users be aware of those pages' existence
• I see no problem with linking to the 40 Watt Club on the discography

Please note that I comment not to take sides, but merely to express my own tastes. I find wikipedia disputes to be silly and counterproductive. Think how much could be done if people spent more energy on building up less developed wp areas instead of fighting over things that make marginal content difference? --Alcuin 03:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd I have no idea why BGC would delete these; they are completely legitimate albums. I also have no idea why you would want to make the template bigger without adding any information. I find it odd that you would editorialize about our personalities on this page. If you have some kind of disagreement, quarrel, unease with my editing style or person, you can bring it up on my talk or e-mail me. I think you'll find there are users who have had some kind of issue with me in the past, and it was all resolved by constructive dialogue with me, rather than asides on template talk pages. One last thing what are these "various other REM pages?" -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The albums deleted from the list may well have come out on IRS, but they were released AFTER R.E.M. left the label, and they were obviously "cash-in" releases that the band had no input in, nor which received their approval. "And I Feel Fine..." has. Secondly, the breaks are meant to shift certain titles into new lines so that the overall look of the template is more balanced. It's purely for aesthetic reasons, but if you'd rather it looks inferior, then be my guest. Apparently you have more authority over the REM pages than others... BGC 18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute If you want to be a sarcastic jerk, feel free to go somewhere else. Who cares if they're "cash-in" compilations? How do you get to decide which ones are official or not? What in the world does "official" even mean? Aren't all of these albums released for profit? If you want the template to be unnecessarily large, go for it. See how adorable and asinine that was? In case you weren't aware, BGC, the album titles will appear on different lines if one is using a different browser/OS/screen settings/etc., so you're only making it look right on your computer, not everyone else's; that's how the Internet works. If you stop randomly inserting line breaks, it will look better for everyone. If you want to talk like an adult human being, please do so. Otherwise, please stop editing on Wikipedia. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow.... you're an arrogant one. And insecure too. It's only an article page dude. Relax. BGC 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Posted at Template talk:R.E.M. and User talk:BGC Don't go picking fights with people and then tell them to "relax," "dude." You clearly didn't know what you were doing, you didn't bother explaining yourself on talk or in the edit summary ("...and you don't own the REM pages...." doesn't count, either), and you're causing more discussion about the template than actual improvement to its contents. I'll direct you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, too. The template talk namespace is intended for discussion about the template itself, not your personal opinions about or psychoanalysis of me. If you want to complain about me, that's why Wikipedia has the user talk namespace. If you need more help understanding how to use these resources, I'll direct you to the help desk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Take your own advice. BGC 05:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute Look, you're making the template unnecessarily large, and making it display worse on other people's computers by inserting arbitrary line breaks. Let them choose how they want it displayed in their browsers and it's better for everyone. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's "everyone"? Quite the conceited person you are. BGC 14:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone "Everyone" is every person, everybody. By inserting random line breaks in the middle of the template, you make it look large and spastic on most computers. You're editing the template to make it look good just on your computer, which is not a good idea, since you are editing a public resource (the Internet) with only your OS, browser, system settings, monitor, and asthetic preferences in mind. In general, that's not a good idea. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the version put forward by BGC is more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention more accurate, but if anyone has a specific problem with it, air it here. Other than that, we have, oooh, 23 hours of peace and quiet ahead of us.- Dudesleeper 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dudesleeper. At least someone's listening to reason. BGC 12:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy and asthetics The version that has been here for months is equally accurate, and if anything, BGC's is slightly less so, since it abbreviates the title of an album. Since asthetics is a matter of personal taste, we shouldn't arbitrarily format templates to please one another, but according to rules of usability. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the issue here (hardly surprising). YOU were abbreviating album titles, not me. It looks as though you've been outvoted. Live with it. BGC 02:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point While you were certainly correct about the abbreviations, you were uncivil and falsely accused me of vandalism. And, in case you hadn't noticed, there was no vote. And the real issue is web usability, which has not fundamentally changed since this morning. Inserting arbitrary line breaks in the template makes it unnecessarily larger and makes the display more jarring for users at lower screen resolutions, or who are viewing with smaller browser windows. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no vote. There you go, making stuff up again. Since you've said you're not referring to yourself regarding the template's apparent ugliness on computer screens, can we possibly have testimonials from those users that are affected? - Dudesleeper 02:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You were correct There was no vote. See these informative pages:

• Wikipedia:Straw polls
• Wikipedia:Vandalism
• Wikipedia:Civility -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if a Wikipedia page was to state that a tree isn't a tree, then it clearly cannot be a tree? Reality check, please. G'night. - Dudesleeper 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about: are you saying there was a straw poll on here somewhere? Or that you were being civil? Or that I did vandalize the page? If you stop resorting to snarky quips and write like an adult, we can have a conversation. Cutesy garbage like "reality check, please" makes you sound like a pre-teen who has neither the ability nor interest in constructive dialogue. Do you want to address the actual argument I made or not? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If I write like an adult, you get offended and run off to an admin, only to have it backfire. Too many words of mine have been wasted (the evidence (not love) is all around should I need to use it. - Dudesleeper 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay So that's a no? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

By definition , extended play records shouldn't be classed as albums. - Dudesleeper 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay I have no idea who Slaughter House Studio or Elastic Press are, but if you look at Wikipedia's page on the topic, eps are an example of albums. Why would they not be albums? They are collections of songs. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a source. Find that in the list of guideline pages you rattle off so eloquently. - Dudesleeper 13:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow You insist on being uncivil, don't you? I honestly can't understand why you pick fights with people and get so rude. If you want a definition of album, here are several from reputable dictionaries that an ep would fit. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Where were the uncivil and rude parts? - Dudesleeper 14:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And I didn't ask for a definition of an album, only an EP, which the link you provided doesn't define. - Dudesleeper 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rudenesss It's rude to ignore people's questions, and you know as well as I do that you wrote "rattle off" and the bit about eloquence as sarcastic digs; don't act ignorant of you own motives. And no, you did not ask for the definition of an album. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Truce? I'm not blindly reverting the page anymore; if you want to discuss it, we can, otherwise, we'll go to mediation or have some kind of RfC. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's pending admin action against you again, which, sadly, might limit your discussion time on the matter. Anyway, it's interesting that you call a truce when the version of the template you're happy with is currently in use. (By the way, nice work on moving the When the Light is Mine video/DVD to a new page to purposely cause redirects.) - Dudesleeper 14:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly? I don't think you are sad, since you conspired to bait me into breaking the 3RR. And, you know as well as I that I didn't move the When the Light is Mine video/DVD to a new page to purposely cause redirects, since you used the same justification in your edit summary about consistency. You're assuming bad faith, and it's unwarranted. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

By tinkering with some parameters - very slightly increasing the infobox width and very slightly reducing the font size on the supporting musicians and production staff - and rearranging the names so as to cluster current and former (but retaining alphabetical order within each cluster), I believe I have resolved the problems described above in a way that should be satisfactory to all complainants.

Good? DS 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I like the way it looks now. BGC 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just adding the diff as reference pointer. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let y'all know I've made some minor changes to the template to bring it in line with the uniform standard for band templates (basically just using pipes "|" instead of middots to be more accessible, and re-arranging the band members). plattopus^talk 06:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And why can't people bow to convention? Rather than bicker, how about being sensible? On my monitor (using Firefox), I can't see the bold that well - it is NOT clear that Berry is no longer in the band.

Bands where former members are featured on a different line to current members:

• Oasis (band)
• Depeche Mode
• Blur
• Feeder (band)
• Massive Attack
• Rolling Stones

... In fact, every band I can find that has a template and former members does it this way.

So, who votes for being sensible? - Famico666 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The bolding is clear to me (also using Firefox and not wearing my glasses), so I'll be standing in the unsensible line. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And how about wiki standards? If no one else takes your side, I'm putting it back. If you want to get admin involved, they can see that this is the standard and it should apply here.Famico666 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki standards" change with the wind (see section immediately above), so I'd prefer it if the template stays one line shorter for when the standards come full circle again. Feel free to change it, but I'm used to reverting the blessed thing now. Using your line of thought, are we going to put the unbolded "Other musicians" onto their own line of "Former other musicians"? - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the distinction between whether other musicians are current or not is quite abritrary in the first place. Do you have it on good authority that Waronker isn't returning? OK, Holsapple is clearly past, but in general that section works better as "people who have worked with REM in the past" - they ALL count as past. So I'd remove the bold/unbold thing, but not bother with a 'former' section.

Even if you say it is easy to see the bold on there, there is no key and so no one can see the reasoning behind it. If standards change in future, we can change it back then. You can keep on reverting if you want, but single-handed reverting is usually called vandalism in these parts. You have no one supporting you on this battle, I at least have the support of a (present) wikipedia-wide standard.Famico666 13:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your section heading: one more. Go ahead and make your change; it's not worth the concern I appear to be giving it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a stickler for consistency. And while everyone knows Wikipedia is a work in progress, reverting improvements winds me up. Don't think I've been childish though. Famico666 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you guys add R.E.M.: In the Attic to the info box to make it easier for people like me to find. I realise it's unofficial, but you could add it under an "Unofficial Albums" category or something.--24.229.120.27 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Or you could. I agree they should be there too. Famico666 09:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added it along with some other unofficial releases.24.229.120.27 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, I corrected your spelling mistakes. :oD But I'm not happy about the description "unofficial" - I know REM don't like them being out there, but they sound like bootlegs the way they are phrased. And how is "...I Feel Fine" more official? I think they should all be listed without any "unofficial" provisos, but with an explanation on the relevant page about how they are not well regarded by the band themselves.

It's already there (at the bottom of the compilations section), the result of another discussion amongst the children. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes And I Feel Fine... The Best of the I.R.S. Years 1982-1987 more official than, say, The Best of REM? It should also be noted that, until I Feel Fine... came out, the most widely available IRS greatest hits available in the UK was The Best Of. Therefore, they should be given a little more recognition.

Jesus, Dudesleeper, I see you made quite a few enemies on the Discography talk page too. It seems to me that there was no consensus found on this issue at all. I'll put the so called 'unofficial' albums back in when I have the chance. Famico666 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Enemies plural? The only one I know of was Koavf, who is now banned, and it was him against another person, not just myself. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The italics for the Videos section don't seem to have taken for some reason, even though the formatting seems to be correct. Hopefully someone can see something I'm clearly not. - Dudesleeper · Talk 03:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed I used {{nowrap}}, which is the general format for these band templates, as far as I'm aware. Unfortunately, now the silver/white background is thrown off. Help anyone? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No reason? Just like how current members of the band are bold, it only makes sense for the current accompaniment and management to be bold. Otherwise, put them in alphabetical order. It's nonsense to have two persons inexplicably out of order at the beginning of the list. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason for management and side-men to be bolded, and particularly not Jacknife Lee. Only current band members need to be bolded in band templates. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay There is a need, which I explained above (which is to say nothing of the fact that Bertis is routinely credited as a member of the band, as was Jefferson.) But even if you disagree, then put them in alphabetical order. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The explanation doesn't hold. This is a band template, and everything else is auxiliary. It'd be like bolding the most recent album. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite Your analogy doesn't hold because an album released by a band will always have been released by that band; it is never more or less an R.E.M. album, whereas members of R.E.M. can be more or less members (i.e. they can leave.) Again, either bold or alphabetize; please don't leave them out of order inexplicably. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying you're fine with no bolding as long as is alphabetized, or are you saying to alphabetize regardless? Because if it's the latter you could've done that. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be missing a link to the band's singles (or to Category:R.E.M. songs) in the navbox? - Dudesleeper | Talk 09:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this only for the songs that were released as singles? If not, why are Texarkana and Country Feedback not present? 84.92.140.217 (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right There are several other R.E.M. songs, which would make the template bloated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be split into two sections, current and former. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be useful to add a producer section? Scott Litt had a long term as producer. Jonpatterns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)