Template talk:Kiss

I decided to create this template because, well, I think it's about time. To answer what some people may be wondering - I decided to put Gene, Paul, Ace & Peter at the top because that is what most people consider to be the classic KISS lineup. I know there are a lot of fans of the '80s stuff, but KISS became famous for the original lineup and are most remembered that way. I didn't put Thayer & Singer at the top because while they may currently be members, they are a minor part of KISS' history. --Cholmes75 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Every band infobox has the current members on top. It doesn't matter if your opinion is that Singer and Thayer are a minor part of KISS' history, the fact is that they are current members of the band. Frehley and Criss are past members.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I debated adding Bob originally, but decided to do so now because I feel he is big enough in KISS history to warrant the link. --cholmes75 03:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few articles on the KISS singles, and I'm glad there was a way to edit the template to include them. I agree with Cholmes75 that the singles should be listed in order of date released for clarity reasons, not in alphabetical order.

Should there be a section for their songs, I could see that going in alphabetical order though, but that's if there will be enough articles. Darwin's Bulldog 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added "New York Groove" to the template, even though it's an Ace Frehley song and not a KISS song per se. KISS would perform the song live and it's generally considered a "solo" KISS song. Darwin's Bulldog 01:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must we have these singles listed on the template itself? It makes the template unnecessarily long, and thus does to the same to pages it's on, especially articles that are getting a bit long themselves. Wouldn't it make more sense to just link to this? The way the template is now, it gives a very definite and very misleading impression that this is all of KISS' singles, which it isn't, not by a long shot. wikipediatrix 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see, standard practice for templates like this is to list individual singles. There are, I'm sure, exceptions. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the first dozen major bands I checked, the templates for The Who, Rolling Stones, Beatles, Bay City Rollers, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Van Halen, Metallica, Anthrax, and Pink Floyd didn't have singles listed in their templates. (Aerosmith did, and Alice Cooper doesn't have a template at all, surprisingly.) In most cases, it seems just having a link to a list of singles is the norm, especially in the case of a band who has a lot of singles, like KISS. I dunno. Seems to me they should either all be listed, or none. Or maybe just the Top Ten hits. wikipediatrix 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Top Ten might whittle down the list too much. How about Top 40? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Rock & Roll All Nite, Shout it out Loud, Beth, Hard Luck Woman, Calling Dr. Love, Christine Sixteen, Rocket Ride, New York Groove, I Was Made For Lovin' You, and Forever. still kind of a long list, but better than the way the template is now, I suppose. wikipediatrix 20:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that list. I say let's try that for starters, and if it still looks too big we can trim later. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the list been shortened to "Primary Singles"? It's somewhat POV and goes against standard wiki practice, as other artist templates (such as Aerosmith's and Def Leppard's) include all singles. Darwin's Bulldog 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my post above, in which I name off many templates for obvious bands that do not follow this practice. I know of no Wikipolicy that mandates we list every single by every band in its template. I agree "Primary" is POV though - it should read "Top 40". wikipediatrix 02:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I chose "primary" was because I wanted to open a later discussion on whether the template should list just US Top 40 songs, or Top 40 songs in other major countries as well. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the template tried to keep track of all the different releases and hits in different countries, the template would essentially become a sort of discography article in itself, and I don't think that's the purpose of templates. Normally, I'm all about making these articles less U.S.-centric, but in this case, I would think that it's a given that we're referring to the Top 40 of the band's indigenous country. Still, we could say "U.S. Top 40" or "Billboard Top 40" so there could be no doubt. wikipediatrix 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not thrilled about cutting out many of the singles in favor of the "U.S. Top 40" choice. KISS has never been a Top 40 band, evident by their only having nine singles (including Frehley's "New York Groove") break the Top 40 in their 30+ year history. Darwin's Bulldog 07:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Family Guy be listed as related, particularly A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas and the other one where Lois dated Gene? --Evil Eccentric 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those are passing references, and nothing more. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but both episodes actually had their voices, and the Christmas one made fun of KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park. --Evil Eccentric 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to include every TV appearance KISS has ever made, the template would be enormous. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Groove is not Frehley's comet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.65.73 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an upswing in vandalism by anon users, I have semi-protected this template for 7 days. That means IP addresses and accounts less than 4 days old cannot edit the template during this period. If you are in either of these groups and wish to have an edit made, please let me know. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 23:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The semi-protection has been placed back on for 2 weeks. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 01:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the template to match the one used for Iron Maiden, which IMO is much more attractive. Plus it now includes all domestically released singles, not just ones that hit the Top 40. If anyone has any major objections to this I'd be happy to discuss here. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections I am going to add a section for tribute albums, there are 8 that I know of: Hard to Believe: Kiss Covers Compilation (1990) Kiss My Ass: Classic Kiss Regrooved (1994) A Tribute to the Creatures of the Night (2003) Kiss My Grass: A Hillbilly Tribute to Kiss (performed by Hayseed Dixie) (2003) Spin the Bottle - An All-Star Tribute to Kiss (2004) Gods Of Thunder-A Norwegian Tribute To Kiss (2005) Lick It Up - A Millennium Tribute To Kiss (2008) KISS MY ANKH: A Tribute To Vinnie Vincent (2008) J04n (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up links on the template for everthing. Even those that don't have a page to encourage them being created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevyboy666 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that prefered? I was under the impression that there shouldn't be links to nothing. J04n (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I just read Wikipedia:Red link and if the article should be written the red link should remain. J04n (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added Ron Leejack to the infobox seeing as how he was the second Wicked lester guitarist(Chevyboy666 (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've also added the page for Peter Criss' band before kiss Chelsea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevyboy666 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea is a link to a disambiguation page, I changed it to [Chelsea (American band)] which doesn't exist yet, [Chelsea (band)] refers to an English punk band. I also moved it so the list is alphabetical. J04n (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was under Chelsea (rock band). Sorry for the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevyboy666 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In '78, every band member released a single off his solo album(Criss released two). Should those singles be listed in the template as they were more of a solo single than KISS single, because if they should be listed as singles, they should be separated from Singles section and put into Kiss/Solo singles? Zrinschchuck (talk) 19:13, July 7, 2011

Even though they were recorded as solo singles they were released as Kiss singles. If listing I would list as Kiss. J04n(talk page) 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But New York Groove is often said to be Frehley's Top-20 hit. That would mean it is also a solo single. I'm asking this because I want to change the Singles template to look clearer, like Van Halen template does, so how should I do with those five singles? Zrinschchuck (talk) 20:27, July 7, 2011

I may have spoke a bit too soon. I looked back at the Billboard singles charts from 1979, which I consider the definitive source for this type of thing, and sure enough the single was credited to Ace Frehley not Kiss.[1] [2] [3] Also "Radioactive" is credited to Gene Simmons.[4] I suppose they should be listed separately. J04n(talk page) 19:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the answer. Zrinschchuck (talk) 21:16, July 7, 2011

There have been problems with the inclusion of Alive! The Millenium Concert album on the Live Album list, most lately with member Niftey, with who I tried to continue the discussion on his talk page, but he didn't answer. He wrote that it shouldn't be included because it is only a part of a box set but it was a whole new recording already planned to be released. Since he didn't write back, and there have been many problems with it, I posted here to clear this problem out. Zrinschchuck (talk) 1:43, July 19, 2011

Not answering is a slight exageration, you posted on my talk page only 2 days ago and the proplems with the 'Alive Millenium concert' is with you because you don't seem to understand that Alive Millenium was never released as a live album in it's own right (intented or meant to be, doesn't count) it is simply one disc from the boxset "Kiss Alive 75-00".

At the moment 'Alive Millenium' is redirecting to 'Kiss Alive 75-00' because it doesn't have it's own page which is because it was never released as a album in its own right. I think it should be deleted from the template because there is no need to list "Kiss Alive 75-00" twice. This should be cleared up.Niftey (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the album was released as a unreleased recording on the box set, it shouldn't be listed and treated as a album. Why? I guess you know what a album is. A recording that has more than four tracks or lasts more than 25 minutes. And a live album is a live recording that has more than four tracks or lasts more than 25 minutes. Then why is it a problem that Millenium wasn't released on its own but rather on a box set consisting of live albums? Just because Universal refused to release the album, it should not be treated as one. And again for the redirecting, we should then remove Kiss Unplugged and Psycho Circus 3-D for the same reason. Double redirecting to the same page. Zrinschchuck (talk) 14:35, July 20, 2011

You still keep reverting while this is being discussed but then again im not that suprised because you also keep repeating yourself and ignore the obvious facts, you have no real argument - ITS NOT A ALBUM its a disc from the Kiss alive box set and we don't need the kiss alive box set listed twice which is what you are doing. If you despretley want Kiss Millenium mentioned on the the template then maybe you should create a page for Kiss millenium but you don't seen to want to do that, I wonder why ??. Also my talk page is not the place for this discussion, this should be discussed on this page Niftey (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No real arguments? How is it that The Millenium isn't a album just because it was featured on a box set only? That's a real argument? No, it isn't. A album consists of 25+ minutes recording, which The Millenium is. I'm surprised how The Millenium is the only "recording" that has its own name, or is it because it is a live album? It is a fact that The Millenium is a live album. Just because it wasn't released on its own, but rather as a part of a box set, doesn't mean it is not a album. KISS Alive 75-00 consists of four live albums, and that's a fact. If it wasn't so, then why did AllMusic list The Millenium as a live album? I will stop reverting the change as long as this discussion lasts. Zrinschchuck (talk) 15:06, July 25, 2011

Still repeating the same thing and of course your not going to revert it now, because you already have the millenium back on the template - very mature of you, I don't think this will be resolved through this discussion. IT IS NOT A ALBUM.

If the millenium wasn't released as a album in its own right but only released through a box set which you do admit that much, then it almost doesn't even matter if it's classified as a album or not, because its just not signifficant enough to have its own mention on the template anyway, if it was it would have its own page BUT IT DOESN'T. You keep using Kiss unplugged as a example but its a very poor example for your argument because the difference is kiss unplugged the album and the dvd were both released on there own and Millenium never was. People can see the millenium details on the boxset page and thats enough. Why don't we also have all the discs from the Ikons box set on the template because according to you if they have there own names they must all be albumsNiftey (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, I'm sick of this discussion. I stand by my opinions, you stand by yours, and it's leading nowhere. I don't want to argue about it anymore because I thought we would solve this in a short time, but we haven't progressed at all. If you really want to exclude the album from the list, then do it. I am not gonna revert it. I apologize for being annoying and bossy and hope we won't have any problems in the future. Zrinschchuck (talk) 18:51, July 27, 2011

I knew it wasn't going to be solved in a short time and i agree that this discussion is leading nowwhere. I am sick of it aswell and don't even care about it anymore, i'm not going to revert it because it sounds alot more important to you then it is to me, i don't think its worthy of being on the template in its own right but you do and intially you did act like you owned the page but maybe your just trying to do what you believe is right, even if its a little off sometimes.

I just realised that the discussion has now been resolved in a weird way.Niftey (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The singles are making the template too big and there is already a template for the band's singles, so if everyone's okay with it, I would delete the singles section and also edit the template. Zrinschchuck (Zrinschchuck) 17:08, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead with it, as the singles template exists, and it's certainly not necessary for them here. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. :) Zrinschchuck (Zrinschchuck) 19:44, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Kiss|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Kiss|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.