Talk:Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman

Name

user:Dyolf~enwiki recently moved this page to "Anderson Rabin Wakeman" and I've moved it back. The exact form of the group's name is unclear, as far as I can tell. The most detailed account we have of it is in Wakeman's January website update where he used "Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman", the form I've used here. In his February update, he refers to "the Anderson/Rabin/Wakeman project" and also the abbreviation "ARW". Rabin and Anderson have both used "ARW" this year. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Dyolf~enwiki has re-moved this page. Dyolf~enwiki, might I suggest that WP:BRD applies: you boldly moved, I reverted, you should now discuss the matter and explain your proposal before we move forward. You've given no explanation, even in the edit summaries, for your repeat of these changes...? Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the citations we have to other sources, there's this which talks of "ANDERSON RABIN WAKEMAN SUPERGROUP" in its headline and just "“supergroup” featuring former Yes members Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin and Rick Wakeman" in its text. This has "ANDERSON RABIN WAKEMAN PROJECT" in its headline and, in the text, "supergroup featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin and Rick Wakeman". It then quotes both Rabin and Jamie Glaser (who's working with Anderson on an unrelated project) simply calling the band "ARW". And this avoids using any name for the project, but quotes Anderson using "ARW". So, I don't see anything clear hear that says the band name's official form is "Anderson Rabin Wakeman" as Dyolf~enwiki has claimed in an edit summary. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I note Dyolf~enwiki had left this hidden note in the article text: "The band name is Anderson Rabin Wakeman and has been referred to as such by Anderson and Rabin." However, I can't see any justification for that. They've both used just "ARW" of late, while earlier references don't use a band name. I have removed the note. Dyolf~enwiki: can you provide some examples? Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of further input, given the clear quote from Wakeman ("Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman (the current working name for the time being)"), I'm switching everything back to that form. Bondegezou (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Since discussion seems to have failed and move-warring has replaced it, it stays where it is. When consensus is achieved, place an edit request and a sysop will move it if necessary. Katie^talk 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been unable to engage Dyolf~enwiki in any dialogue. Indeed, as far as I can see, Dyolf~enwiki never engages with anyone on talk or project pages. Bondegezou (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Surely the new name is crystal clear? I know there's a discussion about a page merge, but in the meantime, the name should at least be accurate, which it no longer is. Is this still locked up with an unresponsive sysop? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160128004924/http://www.billbruford.com/blog.asp?DoAction=ViewArticle&EntryID=189 to http://www.billbruford.com/blog.asp?DoAction=ViewArticle&EntryID=189

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing the page to reflect the new name

I was thinking since ARW have changed their name to "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin & Rick Wakeman" It makes little sense to me that the wikipedia page doesn't reflect that. should we create a new page with the new name and move the content to the new page? or if someone has already created a redirect page with the new name, (which I have not checked as of me writing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did) should we move the information to that page and make this one a redirect?

Sovphil13 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the page should be renamed (using this page as a guide). The members of the band have made it clear that effective 10 April, they are "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin and Rick Wakeman". Several sources have reported this, and the band's official website reflects this change; the old page, http://www.arw-tour.com/, now redirects to http://www.yesfeaturingarw.com/. Bp0413 (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Does the band's name contain the word "and"?

The title of this page is "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin and Rick Wakeman". The very first sentence of the lede says, "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman are a rock band formed in 2010....".

Is the word "and" part of the band's name, or not? Even if there is conflicting information, the title of this page should match the name used in the first sentence.

If the "and" is included, then it would be great to verify whether the band prefers a spelled-out "and" or an ampersand, and whether the band prefers a comma after the word "Rabin". And whether they capitalize the "F" in "Featuring". But maybe I'm getting a bit too ambitious here. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The band do not use an "and". Their website says, "YES FEATURING JON ANDERSON, TREVOR RABIN, RICK WAKEMAN". Capitalisation of "featuring" is unclear. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple phrasing issues

The article reflects the band's history as ARW, but not as Yes. For example; "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman are a rock band formed in 2010 by singer Jon Anderson, guitarist and singer Trevor Rabin, and keyboardist Rick Wakeman, three former members of Yes." I suggest this part should not follow the traditional pattern in regular band articles, its very confusing to the reader when it reads Yes was formed in 2010. I find that the following sentence makes very little sense: "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman are a rock band formed in 2010 by [...], three former members of Yes." What you are reading is "Yes [...] is a band formed in 2010 by former members of Yes." Fekso (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I take the point. How do you suggest re-phrasing it? The issue is that the trio have a history of working together for several years, then of launching under the ARW name and only latterly becoming "Yes ft ARW". I'll see if I can make it clearer too. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Something like: Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman are a rock band featuring singer Jon Anderson, guitarist and singer Trevor Rabin, and keyboardist Rick Wakeman. The three had previously worked together in Yes for the 1991–1992 Union Tour and in ARW from 2010 to 2017. 130.237.61.15 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I would go with: Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman are a rock band formed by singer Jon Anderson, guitarist and singer Trevor Rabin, and keyboardist Rick Wakeman, who had previously worked together in Yes for the 1991–1992 Union Tour and in ARW from 2010 to 2017. The band is one of two active versions of Yes. Fekso (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I thing the phrasing that they "had previously worked together [...] in ARW from 2010 to 2017" doesn't work, because this is ARW. It's not that they worked together in ARW, ARW ended, and now they're working together in Yes Featuring. Rather, they started working together in a project with no name, that project used on name in 2016 and then slowly moved to another name over the course of the first quarter of 2017. Bondegezou (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"They worked together as ARW from 2010 to 2017 having previously worked together in Yes for the 1991–1992 Union Tour" Fekso (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Weren't they only called "ARW" for a few months in total? From 2010 through most of 2016 they were without an official name, as far as I'm aware, but it's the same group. Rather than "They worked together as ARW from 2010 to 2017" how about "Previously performing under the name ARW until early 2017, the three had originally worked together in Yes for the 1991-1992…" —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Both those wordings still, it seems to me, suggest a discontinuity where there was none. What about something like: "They worked together from 2010, using the name ARW for their inaugural tour in 2016, before adopting their current name in 2017."?? Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

When did the group disestablish?

This article used to be in "Category:Musical groups disestablished in 2020", but an IP editor has just changed that to "Category:Musical groups disestablished in 2018". The last time the band did something in public (tour, release music, etc.) was in 2018. However, they appear to have been still talking to each other about plans in 2019, as is sourced in the article, so I think it's wrong to say they disestablished in 2018. The main reporting of their ending has been in 2020, but -- although it's not that clear -- it appears they effectively stopped in 2019. Ergo, I would suggest we switch to "Category:Musical groups disestablished in 2019", although I can see an argument for "Category:Musical groups disestablished in 2020" and indeed for "Category:Musical groups disestablished in 2018". What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

From what we know, even if members have been talking afterwards, the band has had no real activity since 2018. So I think the IP edit is correct.--Gorpik (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Up until 2019 they weren't just "talking"… they were actively promoting the idea that they would return to touring, and even recording. So, I'd say 2019 is preferable.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to see more editors weigh in, but if it's currently 2:1 in favour of 2019, I'll change it to 2019 for now. Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that there's a bit of a dispute about the wording here, I feel the need to weigh in. Rabin's wording is *fairy* definitive, but because he recently suggested himself that there could have been a tour this summer if it weren't for the pandemic, it seems to me that continuing to use his actual words ("probably done") rather than definitively inferring "the group had disbanded" from those words is the most accurate course. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Rabin's recent comments about how there could have been a 2020 tour are inconsistent with prior reporting that had the band over before COVID-19 hit. I think the totality of the reporting still supports 2019 as the most accurate year of disestablishment for the categorisation.

I've simplified the text in the lead section. I've removed Wakeman's comments about things that didn't then happen: they're not appropriate for a lead section. I've changed the text to just say that the band had disbanded by 2020. It is clear that the band had disbanded by 2020 even if precisely when remains unclear. Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I *almost* want to suggest that another source would be appropriate to cite in this simplified version - if your site weren't such a consistently great resource for Yes updates - but… it is ;) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)