Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Singer-songwriter vs Singer and songwriter

Something needs to be done about popular mainstream singers such as Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran and Meghan Trainor being described as singer-songwriter when they don't write their own lyrics alone or compose their own melodies alone or perform all of their instrumentation alone. They are singers and songwriters. It is misleading and incorrect to label them as something which none of them are. Very few, if any, popular mainstream singers are singer-songwriters. Mariah Carey wrote the lyrics to her first six albums by herself (that's a lot of songs) and has co-written the lyrics and melodies on every song on albums number seven through fourteen (except for a few covers) as well as co-produced, yet we do not call her a singer-songwriter on here (an editor whom I have forgotten his name told me that it was not allowed as she does not fit into the traditional folk tradition of what a singer-songwriter constitutes). Madonna also co-writes and co-producers everything but she is not called a singer-songwriter either, and both of them have released more than double the albums each than Taylor Swift has, and each released more albums than the aforementioned three in question put together. Trainor has only released one album, and she co-wrote all of it, so how can she be a singer-songwriter?  — Calvin999 21:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Singer and songwriter is the correct attribution. Singer-songwriter is not an occupation, it's a genre. We've covered that in the project before, most recently, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 7#Does being a singer and songwriter equate to being a singer-songwriter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources describe those three as singer-songwriters and the only arguments against are pure, unadulterated original research. Constantly having this discussion every few months is disruptive. Let's actually work on improving content instead of having this constant back and forth. Calidum 23:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, let's work on getting rid of all the OR that states that singer-somgwriter is a profession instead. That's much more informative and constructive. If I go to those articles and don't see the term sourced with at least three RSes, I will remove. It's not constructive to mislead readers and an entire project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. One "self-identifies" as a singer-songwriter. That's reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added three RSs to Swift's article (Rolling Stone, Slate and the Telegraph). There are more available on the talk page. Calidum 00:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I am 100% on-board for this. Unsuccessfully, I argued everything stated here: not an occupation, essentially a folk-genre, a musician being a singer and songwriter doesn't make them a singer-songwriter, and so on, several months ago in regard to Meghan Trainor. I was referred to as a music "snob" for my stand. Unfortunately, there are a number of online sources deemed reliable that inaccurately refer to these singers and songwriters as singer-songwriters. On the other side of the coin, however, there are also reliable sources correctly referring to them as singer, songwriter or singer and songwriter. When this was brought up in an RfC as well as a 3O, a group of young fan-editors along with a few editors with beefs against me (one of them being the individual edit warring over the wording correctly changed by Walter Görlitz made sure singer-songwriter stayed, regardless of the sensible arguments and evidence to the contrary and inaccuracy of the nomenclature. The RfC can be seen here.

It's been shown previously to editors such as Calidum how it's not possible for pop singers and songwriters like Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor to be classified as singer-songwriters. For whatever reason, a group of editors who know nothing about music history and what it truly means to be a singer-songwriter chose to fight a battle to keep incorrect content in an encyclopedia back in April 2015. The common theme among them was "the reliable sources say so, therefore, that's the last word". I think many of us realize there is truly more to citing sources in Wikipedia beyond quoting policy. There truly are editors who actually edit and use references that are accurate just on principle and out of an ethical framework. I'm one of them. My hope is that this time around, more editors with knowledge of music history and genre, as well as a commitment to accuracy in Wikipedia will join in on this discussion. Let us all remember what the purpose here is supposed to be: an online encyclopedia well - not easily - referenced and done so without prejudice.

If there is anything that can be done to fix this error once and for all, I will be behind it. Hopefully, this argument can be ended and the error corrected. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the fucking policy on verifiability before you continue to insult me. Calidum 00:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that modern music journalists don't have a clear understanding of the genre that reached it apex in the 1970s in that they have conflated the term with an occupation.

• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/singer-songwriter "A person who sings and writes popular songs, especially professionally."
• http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/singer-songwriter "a performer who writes his or her own songs"
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/singer-songwriter "a performer who writes his or her own songs" (looks familiar)
• http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/singer-songwriter "someone who writes songs and sings them"

It is they, not editors like Calidum who are at fault. He is simply reflecting the misunderstanding of the writers and the current usage of the term. If modern usage of a term no longer aligns with the traditional use of a term, whether out of ignorance or another reason, we must reflect that fact, not try to enforce correct usage. Perhaps the best thing to do is to bow to this new usage and create an article describing the term as an occupation and contrast it with the genre. If a common term cannot be found, then we use both with a disambugator (singer-singwriter (genre), singer-singwriter (occupation), or similar) and leave a disambiguation page in the place of the current article. We then link the articles to the correct location. On a side note, I won't be bowing to the use of "composer" to signify songwriter, which was popularized by MTV and picked-up by Apple's iTunes, any time soon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing further, I don't believe that editor opinion (read: WP:CONSENSUS) should override correct usage (read: WP:RS) and an RfC doesn't carry as much weight as RSes do in my view. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Even AllMusic can't figure it out: compare [1] with the use of the term in [2] [3] but not [4]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Walter. Calidum 04:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"It is they, not editors like Calidum who are at fault." It is the fault of editors if they have the confusion in terminology explained to them, are shown numerous sources that don't refer to artists referred to incorrectly by other sources as singer-songrwriter, and still refuse to budge because they have a dislike for an editor bringing the issue to the table. When you've got a Wikipedia editor who is less interested in accuracy than a fight, that's a problem, and it is the fault of such an editor taking the wrong side of the discussion. Beyond all that, however, I am really only interested in correcting what's wrong - not the editors who insist on keeping it wrong. However we can make that happen, I'm there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you not read the above? Walter Görlitz pointed out the numerous sources confusing the issue. It's not up to us as editors to decide which sources are right and which are wrong. That's a very dangerous slippery slope. clpo13_(talk) 06:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There are easy cases where all or almost all cases describe someone as a singer-songwriter; obviously in those cases we should go with the overwhelming weight of sources. But there are cases where some sources use the term and some don't, and in those cases editors' judgement is unavoidable. Calidum seems to think that if any source uses the term, we must use the term in the article, but I don't see the justification for that. The question we should always ask when there is a diversity in sources is what is most helpful to readers. To take a concrete example, who does it help to describe Meghan Trainor as a singer-songwriter, rather than as a singer and a songwriter? Readers who interpret "singer-songwriter" in the narrower traditional sense will be misled by calling Trainor a singer-songwriter. On the other hand, as far as I can see, no-one will be misled by describing Trainor as separately a singer and also a songwriter (alongside any other professions she may have). VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I. Calidum is being narrow-minded and bias (probably a fan). Calidum is still confused despite it definition being explained to him.  — Calvin999 08:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because it's a reliable source, doesn't mean they are being correct. I've seen publications get album release years wrong, or say a song was number-one when it wasn't. Fact is, if someone clicks on singer-songwriter they get a definition that contradicts the musician's bio (Swift, Sheeran, Trainor) that it has been used for.  — Calvin999 08:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Created new article - British composer William Busch

I've created a new article on the deceased British composer, William Busch.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:William Busch.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Created new article - Cuban-born musician Israel Kantor

I've created a new article on the Cuban-born musician Israel Kantor.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Israel Kantor.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tom Powers (musician)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Tom Powers Musician (version of 21:57, 28 October 2015).
—Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)

I have nominated the said article for Good Article status. Comments from users, particularly those who have not contributed to the article, are welcome. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Show Luo

Hi, I'm interested in making edits about Show Luo's Wikipedia page. Does anyone have any suggestions? It would be really helpful. Thisislily (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Artists Based on old thinking

The current notability guidelines for Musicians, Bands and other Musical artists seems to lean toward a few antiquated ideas.

In this day of digital media - and the history of recording-deals-gone-wrong - many Artists choose to self-publish (both physical and digital content). This garners them direct sales for which they receive a much greater profit, closer communication with their fans and full control over their work and identity. This applies equally to artists who are "world renowned", to those who are not well known outside their own country...case in point, Prince, who took back control of all his content from Warner Bros. Music and self published on his own Paisley Park label (among others). While he did have an agreement with major lables after that, it was strictly for distribution. The few remaining "Major Labels" have become, for the most part, simply distributors of content - and much of it is also digital.

Basing notability on "Major Awards" is rather arbitrary. Many well known/respected Musicians around the world have never been nominated for a Grammy - and likely never will. However, many of the same artists have been awarded local or regional awards by their peers and their fans - a far greater measure of "notability" than a corporate award.

The same applies to being "charted" - radio has changed. Many radio stations that still play music have become corporate carbon copies - owned by large conglomerates, they all use the same digital playlists. Personality driven radio (where new artists were often promoted because the DJ had heard them play) has largely been reserved for Morning Drive or Talk Radio stations. The internet has become the go-to space for people to hear and discover new music; whether from artist websites, content driven sites (YouTube, Soundcloud, etc.), online radio stations (many of which are independent, but including services like Pandora) and content stores like iTunes, Google Play, etc. "Campus Radio" has become one of the few places to promote new artists in an "old" radio format. With the proliferation of online connections, they now can reach a much greater audience than "the end of the parking lot".

Music used in a film or similar visual production - again, not like it used to be. Most major films (as in "blockbuster productions") use a handful of the smae studio musicians to create their music. While "songs" may get chosen, those are often based on existing licensing deals with the studio producing the film. The same also often applies to TV series as well, though many of those are reaching out to lesser known musicians in an effort to provide greater variety and connection to local artists where the production is set (or actually filmed).

I suspect the notability of Writers/Authors suffers from the same thinking.

Most of this knowledge comes from personal experience - over 40 years in and around the entertainment industry working with (or working as) Musicians, Bands, Booking Agents, Radio, DJ, National Chart/Review Publications, Producers, Programmers, Educators, etc. --Kamishiro (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but the general guideline for notability, WP:GNG, still stands--that an artist generate coverage. Selling a lot of records actually doesn't mean an artist is notable, though if an artist does they're likely to be noticed in the press and thus pass the notability requirements. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. The notability issue needs to be covered (this is discussed at Wikipedia Notability (music). And self-publishing and putting something on Bandcamp is one thing. Getting reviews and shifting units so Billboard notices is quite a different thing. I agree the awards section could do with an overhaul. The chart issue has been discussed under Notability. Feel free to chip in there. Karst (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Just a point, unless they've changed how they do things (and I would tend to doubt it), Billboard's charts are based mainly on units shipped - not to be confused with actual sales. This means that when an artist is at the top of the Pop Charts (for example) it's because their distributor acknowledged shipment of, say, one million units. What they tend to skip, is how many of those units are returned (often substantial numbers). We must assume anyone creating such charts today would at least reference electronic sales -though if that were the case, it should make for an interesting change in singles charts since anyone can purchase any "single" from an album these days - unlike when only the "chosen" single was available until it died out.Kamishiro (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Billboard does track electronic sales, and factors those into its album and song charts. I don't know how its singles charts work now, though.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Since 2005 the Billboard charts have included digital sales, digital radio and video streaming. You might want to check discussions on Wikipedia Project Discographies Wikipedia Project Charts and Wikipedia Project Albums. Karst (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Niko Congiu

The article Niko Congiu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evicence of notability, no sources at all

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gce (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed winnowing full festival lineups

(cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music)
Yesterday I created Camden Crawl, about the UK music festival. An IP editor has joined in helping to flesh out the article, but several of their edits were to add full listings of all performers for a given year, amounting to dozens of names each. I'm inclined to think this is not encyclopedic, and that highlights of the most significant names for each year would suffice. However, my initial plan, to just remove any names that either had no Wikipedia article or had only a stub article, was insufficient; the majority of the names checked by me and Gronk Oz appear to be notable. I know basically nothing about the UK indie / alternative music scene myself. Would any of you happen to have ideas for how to further pare these long lists down to a handful for each year? Thanks in advance, —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 08:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Tables could always help cleanup. See Download Festival. This would both be more organized than the current method as well as easier to read. It is my opinion that a full list really should be included if you have the sources to achieve it. –DLManiac (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I've responded in depth on the other talk page. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Input needed

As a result of this conversation (which you don't need to read) I have created a draft of a BLP in my sandbox. The notability is marginal so I'd like a second opinion before I publish it. Could someone(s) take a look and tell me if you think the new article meets WP:MUSICBIO? The article draft is here. Thanking you in advance. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I'd say it barely passes WP:MUSICBIO, but I've had articles like this speedy deleted, to you'll never know. Since he isn't apparently notable for working with one particular band or project, there's no bigger article to which such content could be merged, so I guess it's OK as it is. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 22:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll publish it and see what happens. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject 19th-century American Music invitation

Most courteous Greetings to you historical music lovers! Your participation is ardently sought in helping to establish one of Wikipedia's newest projects - 19-century American Music a collaborative venture to improve the coverage of '19th-century American Music' on the English Wikipedia. A treasure trove of adventure awaits you as we improve and expand upon the wealth, heritage, history and impact of this music genre. What is a project without participants like you? If your interest is piqued please leave your calling card and add your name to our proposed Project page. You will be kept informed of the development of this new project in the coming weeks. To leave your valuable opinions and suggestions, please contact me. With All Cordiality and The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparent COI

I've come across an apparent WP:COI set of edits at Karl-Heinz Steffens. I let the user know on their talk page: User talk:Office Karl-Heinz Steffens, but I don't really have any experience in helping resolve these. Is there someone here who can follow up on this? Thanks - 1bandsaw (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Charli XCX

You are invited to comment on a request for comment at Talk:Charli XCX#RFC: MOS:SURNAME and articles related to Charli XCX. Thank you. sst✈ 01:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Create Member Section/Timeline Standards

I Think we need to create Wikipedia Member Section/Timeline Standards. I strongly believe that there are multiple things we should address. The things I would like to discuss are

• Timeline Size
• Timelike Colors
• Touring members inclusion in timelines
• Size of timeline bars
• If a one time fill in musician is a touring member or not

If we all would take the time to state our opinions that would be great. Thanks! 75Indians75 (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure – dunno how much time I've got at the minute, but I'd love to have a chat! Thanks for the invite. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I guess I'll start by covering my personal beliefs on each issue.

Timeline sizes: I personally think the width for the timelines in a member sections should be 800 (like most are already) because any smaller looks to cramp and any bigger is just unneeded. But if there is a whole page dedicated to a list of member, I think 1000 would be a better width.

Timeline Colors: I believe the colors should all be the same on every page with a few exceptions. Below are what I think the colors should be.

• Vocals: Red
• Lead Guitar:Teal
• Rhythm Guitar:Green
• Guitar:Green (if that band only has one guitar player)
• Drums:Purple or Orange (Colors may alternate between these two colors depended on what one makes the timeline easier to see, purple default for drums)
• Keyboards:Purple or Orange or Yellow (Colors may alternate between these two colors depended on what one makes the timeline easier to see. Yellow may be used in a last resort situation similar to Panic! at the Disco's who happens look best with yellow keys. Orange would be default for keys)
• Backing Vocals:Pink or Yellow (pink is default)
• Touring Member Label:Yellow or Pink (yellow is default)

Touring Members including on timeline: I think all touring members should be on the timeline as long as they are actual touring members and not a one-off show or one time fill in member (see below for that discussion).

Size of all timeline bars should be 10

And if a member filled in for 1-2 shows they are not a touring member. If you played multiple shows or a whole tour you are.

Anyways those are my personal opinions. I'd love to hear of of yours. Thanks. 75Indians75 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Timelines should not even be included unless the membership is somehow complicated.

800 is probably the maximum width, particularly when you're dealing with mobile devices, and 500 would be the best. The size of a row should not be larger than 10 pixels and 9 would be even better, and decimal widths should not be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I just checked Panic at the Disco! and it was not appropriate. Someone added the touring musicians again. They're not members and should not be on a member's timeline. Someone made it huge.

Here are two examples. Inside collapse, for purposes of maintaining flow of prose.

Extended content
Old version new, suggested version

I personally see no problem with touring members as long as their labeled as such. The more information the better. It looks clean, good and proper. And although its nice to consider mobile devices 500 just looks horrendously crushed on desktop. Walter Görlitz (talk 75Indians75 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And there you go, claiming they're "members". They're not band members. They're paid to tour with the band. Band members share in the profit (or loss). Touring musicians are guaranteed a fee for the tour. They're just like studio musicians. They get paid to perform on the album, but get not royalties (if the album has any to offer) or profit or loss on the album. Touring musicians are not members so don't call them members and don't list them on a timeline that lists band members . Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between who is a member and who is a touring member may not be clear. Trey Gunn was a member of King Crimson, but on his last tour with the band, he had changed his contractual status and was being paid as a touring member. No-one knew this at the time: the band presented him in the same way he had previously. Likewise, Oliver Wakeman was always paid as a touring member in Yes, but promo material described him as a full band member.

There simply isn't a clear distinction between "full" and "touring" member. Bands usually do not tell the outside world what their financial arrangements are. The only thing we can reliably tell is whether someone is on stage or not. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure there is: look at their liner notes. If the members are listed in the band section, they're band members. If they're not listed in the band section, they're not in the band. That's what we call a reliable source. What you offered is WP:OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Your latest comment is not consistent with your earlier comment: which is it? Are "full" and "touring" members determined by how they are listed in liner notes, or by how they are paid?

I suggest bands are not consistent in how they list members in liner notes. And what happens when a person isn't on a recording? The idea that there is a clear, readily identified distinction between "full" and "touring" member is original research. Some bands, some of the time, the difference is clear. Sometimes it isn't. Instead of setting up a system that will lead to endless arguments over whether someone meets an imposed/OR definition of "full" vs. "touring", why don't we set up guidelines that are agnostic on the issue? Bondegezou (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't see the consistency. The earlier statement was emblematic while the latter allows us to use reliable sources. They both reflect the same reality: most editors don't use reliable sources and simply use word-of-mouth or experiential information to form opinions. "I see Jo X on stage therefore he must be a band member." or "Let me introduce the players. On theremin, Jo X." Or linking to Facebook pictures with people in a room and the caption "On tour with Jo X, ...". It's all suspect and cannot be used. Full members are generally paid differently than touring or session members, but it would virtually impossible to source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur that, if you are to make the distinction, then that distinction needs to be operationalised. My concern is that liner notes are not necessarily clear in this regard, and that what we're capturing is then only some decision about liner notes, which may or may not correlate with underlying issues like contractual relationships. In some cases, a band will list people all together in the liner notes while contractually one is full member and the other, just paid on a session basis. In other cases, they will list them separately. In still other cases, the liner notes will not have any clear indication.

And the problem here is not with liner notes, it's with the idea that "full" vs. "touring" is a simple and meaningful distinction. It isn't. Reality is more complicated than that. There is a continuum of band relationships; each relationship is unique. Trying to impose an ontology on this will lead to endless argument. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It really isn't as much of a problem as everyone thinks it is touring members are already separated in the members list for almost every band. If it's really up in the air whether they're a full member or not, just include them. Otherwise don't. Very simple. - DLManiac (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to stop calling them "members" unless there's a source to support that. They're just "musicians" unless it's supported. That makes excluding them from a member's timeline a simpler task. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree completely. There are three types of people that belong in the section: band members, touring musicians and session musicians. And only band members should be in the timeline. - DLManiac (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

But why? None of you have presented any disadvantages of including long-term touring/session musicians that are appropriately indicated as such on the timeline. See my argument on this below; if this doesn't make the timeline overly complicated, then it is helpful to the reader and has no downside.--MASHAUNIX 18:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The mess and inconsistency. If members are going to be marked as touring by an overlain bar, that is confusing. All of the bars in the timeline represent instruments except for one? It's confusing. Also, how do you define long term? One whole tour? More than that? Where do we draw the line on when to include touring musicians. I wouldn't make sense to include one touring musician but not the rest. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily include touring musicians on some timelines but not others. The whole point of this discussion is to come up with standards and create uniformity across articles. Also, touring and session musicians are completely different things. But they often get lumped into one category on the timeline. Timelines should be about who is IN the band, not who played with the band. – DLManiac (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of the touring musicians are unsourced as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If they are unsourced, then remove them entirely. And I know touring and studio musicians are different things, though often one musician both tours and records with an ensemble. Anyway, the overlaying bars are not confusing to me, and I have never heard anyone complaining before. Are they confusing to you? Yes, we want standardisation, but whatever we decide on should be the most beneficial to readers. Treating something on a case-to-case basis is a widespread practice around Wikipedia, even on issues that have set standards. This is simply because local consensus is capable of producing solution that are ideal in a specific case. And there are many cases where including touring and/or studio musicians on a timeline would absolutely not be confusing, in fact having no practical downsides and serving to inform the reader; we should not set a standard that limits this.--MASHAUNIX 09:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Either way, where do we draw the line on long term? If we really do insist on there inclusion, I propose that we do a touring:11 wide, and instrument 5 wide. This way the touring designation is on the outside of the bar instead of inside, and It should be a little cleaner. I believe this also gives the proper idea that it is a secondary role, and the instrument bar is smaller. Please see below –DLManiac (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Looks good.--MASHAUNIX 18:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

4TheWynne

Hey there! Sorry, I was waiting to see if I had to work, and was called in. Anyway, now that I'm back, here's my take on the issue:

Timeline size: I believe timelines should always have a length of 1000, because I've always been of the belief that even 800 is too small.

Timeline colours: I've used a different scheme in the past, as I thought that it looked a bit better than what is coined the "more commonly used scheme".

• Vocals – dark blue
• Guitar – green
• Bass – purple
• Drums – red
• Lead/rhythm guitar – green and yellow orange, depending on what other roles there are in the band (I've always been against having the two being too similar)
• Keyboard/piano – yellow orange (default), if not, red orange

If seventh/eighth/ninth roles are included, then other colours I'd use would be ocean blue, teal or bright green. Otherwise, any other roles/colours are open to interpretation.

Touring members: Touring members should be mentioned in the members section, but not in the timeline, as they are not full-time members. If a touring member later becomes a full-time member (or vice versa), then their involvement as such doesn't need to be included in the timeline. End of story.

Size of timeline bars: 10. Additionally, I think that only one bar should be placed inside another, as having two or more inside the larger bar (as detailed above) appears too complicated. The size of the smaller bar should be 2.5, which would make more sense to me.

One-time fill-in a touring member? No.

Additionally, here are some other issues that I often come across that I thought might need to be highlighted:

Timeline's own section? Yes. Why not? Timeline-specific edits should not have to read "Band members". Common sense.

Bar increments: <10 members, have it at 30. 10-14 members, have it at 25. 15+ members, have it at 20.

Major year scales: <20 years, should just be 1. 20-29 years, should be 2. 30+ years, should be 3.

Order of band members: (Lead) vocals, guitar(s), bass, keyboard/piano, other role(s), drums.

Legend: Should be horizontal (not vertical and in columns), and as much as information should be included in each bar as possible so that only two bars maximum are required for each member (e.g. if one role in a band often incorporates backing vocals, such as "guitar, backing vocals", then that should be one bar).

Here are the timelines for DragonForce and Linkin Park, as examples:

Extended content
DragonForce Linkin Park

If you don't like my opinion, that's fine, but you asked for it. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks For Sharing your opinion! Although I only disagree with three things. Touring member are still a valued part of the band and if they are labeled as such on the timeline I see no harm. Then I don't Agree with your colors. I know my colors are the most common on Wikipedia and yours seem to be a close second. I feel like we should bring in some other users and take a color poll. And I am in favor in having grey bars in the background. It makes things look cleaner. Your thoughts? 75Indians75 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Touring members: Touring are just musicians and should not be in the timeline unless there is actual proof that they are members.

One-time fill-in a touring musician? No.

Size of timeline bars: 10 or smaller. Agree that only one bar should be placed inside another.

Timeline's own section? No unless the members section is large. It goes against the idea that headings are to separate short sections.

Grey background bars? Yes. If the timeline is complicated, it's a visual guide to see where they come in and out and who the section is associated with. Zebra striping, if possible, would be best, but it's not possible.

Bar increments: Always the same: 14 or 16.

Major year scales: 2 for a small number of years. 5 for more than fifteen.

Legend: Vertical and in columns so that the whole timeline can be narrow.

I will point out that those making comments who don't even know the basics of formatting should be discounted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DLManiac's opinion

• Timeline Size; 800 for bands that are more than a few years old. If the band is relatively new, and there is not a lot going on, I think that less is ok. I also think that 1000 can sometimes be ok on certain "band member pages" if the complexity of the timeline warrants it.
• Timeline Colors:
  • Vocals Red
    • Backing vocals pink if they must be included, but it is my opinion that they should not be included
  • Guitar Green
    • teal for lead
    • green for rhythm
  • Bass Blue
  • Drums Orange
  • Keyboards Purple
• Touring members inclusion in timelines: No if they were never part of the band, then it doesn't matter if they toured with them. Timelines are for band members, not people they played with.
• Size of timeline bars
  • 11 for regular bars
    • This is for the overlain bars. When the big bars are 10, with overlain bars as 3, the overlain bars nearly always show up off centered. This problem would never occur with big bars of size 11.
  • 3 for overlain bars
• If a one time fill in musician is a touring member or not - Of course not! That is a substitute musician, this happens all the time for some bands when a member gets a tiny injury.
• Grey bars: sometimes they are necessary and other times not. I think that to be consistent, you would have to include them on every page as opposed to not including them on any. But this is something that I think is less important to be standardized across every timeline, because sometimes it is just unnecessary and actually more confusing than helpful.
• Bar increments depend on the number of members that appear in a timeline and sometimes need to be changed to increase legibility
• Major year scales: these should be dependent on the time length of the timeline. If a band has only been together for 5 years, then each year should appear as a major scale. I think a good rule of thumb is that there should be at least 4 characters worth of whitespace in between the listed years along the bottom.
• Legend: I don't think this should be standardized because often, a horizontal listing fits perfectly and thus saves vertical space. Else, I think it should be listed vertically in columns. But I don't think every timeline should be listed in columns for no reason.

Some other things I want to point out:

• Remove backing vocals. Often, the whole band sings backing vocals, they don't need to all be represented on the timeline, it's messy.
• The order of timelines should be Vocals, Guitar, Bass, Drums, Keyboards.
• The order of members listed in current/past/touring member sections should be primarily in order of who joined the band first (As there is documentation somewhere that states this) and secondarily in alphabetical order.
• Band member pages: If there exists a special "List of (insert band name here) band members", then the timeline should be listed at that page only, and not on the band's main page
• Current end date: Any band that is currently active should have and end date of "Today". Not arbitrarily the end of the current year, or the end of some random month. This can be done by using the syntax listed here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline#Using_the_current_date

Those are my opinions on a few things, I'm sure I missed a few more — DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Timeline Subsection?: YES this makes the editing SO MUCH EASIER. −DLManiac (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Mashaunix

I agree with DLManiac completely on almost all of his points, so I'll only list those I have further comments on. In general, I want to make the point that we shouldn't set standards that are different from those that the majority of articles currently follow unless it is necessary, and that some issues should be treated on a case-to-case basis.

• Colours: The colour scheme suggested by DLManiac is simple and, at the same time, currently by far the most common from what I've seen. I haven't seen that suggested by 4TheWynne anywhere near as much and don't think it has advantages that would justify changing timelines to match it.

• Inclusion of touring/studio musicians: I am generally in favour of including them. If the musicians had worked with the band over a period of time, are listed in the members section and are appropriately marked as what they are (rather than actual members) on the timeline, what is the downside of including them? In some cases, I think it can actually be very helpful to the reader. To illustrate, here is an old version of the timeline for Escape the Fate which I edited:

Extended content

In this case, including touring musicians clearly shows the reader who played rhythm guitar at the band's performances from 2007 to 2012 and who replaced Max Green on bass after he left the band in 2014. In the current revision, those periods for those instruments are left blank, and I don't see what the upside is. However, I think this issue should be treated in a case-to-case bases; if there has been a lot of members/musicians in the band and including touring/studio musicians would make the timeline harder to read, then I would oppose it. It should be done when it is helpful to the reader, and not done when it is not; the decision should be left to local consensus.

• Bar increments: I like 20 when there's only a few members and 15 when there's more. I think it should be a goal to make the timeline concise.

• Inclusion of backing vocals: Again, should not be included if it would make the timeline too complicated, but if not (e.g. only one member does them), I don't see a downside. This is related to the fact that I agree with 4TheWynne that the legend should group instruments (e.g. "Bass guitar, backing vocals") when needed to avoid more than one bar being placed inside another bar; this can prevent backing vocals from swamping the timeline while still including them.

• Order of instruments: Vocals, (lead guitar, rhythm) guitar, bass guitar, keyboards/piano, any other instruments, drums (meaning I agree with 4TheWynne)

• Separate section: Yes! The timeline is a significant part of the article and it is very helpful to be able to edit it separately. The only one I've ever seen opposing this is Walter Görlitz, and I disagree with him completely on this.

As for any of DLManiac's points that I haven't commented on, I think the exact same thing. My argument on the inclusion of touring/studio musicians on timelines is pretty much my only major point; the others just express agreement with certain other editors, with additional comments.--MASHAUNIX 01:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: You haven't seen my suggested colours much because DLManiac wiped it all out. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I won't deny it (but I don't want to get into that here), I just want to point out that it wasn't a prominent scheme before you began implementing it all over the place. I was just trying to stay consistent. Anyway, enough of that, hopefully we'll all come out of this with a consensus that leaves 90% of us 90% happy, haha! —DLManiac (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for telling me. In that case I don't take sides; the scheme should be standardised, but I don't really care for what the actual colours are.--MASHAUNIX 13:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And the only reason I am the only one disagreeing with it is because I'm the only one who actually knows the other guidelines and policies. Your reasons is "it's more convenient for me". It's not that readers want to see the timeline. If that were the case, I would need to see statistics. The fact is simple: it's about membership. Most band articles don't use them (so they're clearly not as helpful as the editors here seem to think they are). They're popular in a few genres, as popular as the bullets created by flatlists are in other genres. They're too large and obtrusive as it is, and the headings would simply accentuate that. Clearly we don't know image guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't deny you base your argument in guidelines, but I still disagree with you. To me, timeline headings seem to only have advantages; how do they accentuate the timeline being large? I myself consider timelines helpful because they allow me to quickly get an idea of who replaced who on what instruments over the course of the band's career, showing me things such what line-up created a specific album and what line-up I saw at a show I went to; therefore, I think they should be included whenever membership is too complicated for a reader to be able to quickly imagine a "mental timeline" to answer such questions.--MASHAUNIX 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yellowxander

Hi there, great there's a formal discussion happening! I did major work to the timelines about 4/5 years ago as so may were so different and so I set about standardising. My views:

• Width: Should always be 800 as stated as the standard on the table page guidelines. Whilst a larger size may be nice, it is not standard that everyone has a large screen and will always fall off the page.
• Barincrement: Usually 20, 30 if not so many members.
• Period: love the use for https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline#Using_the_current_date, genius!
• Scale Major: 1 for up to 10 years. 2 for up to 20 years. 5 for longer.
• Legend: Kinda obvious really, horizontal until it doesn't fit any more.
• Colours/Order:

Red = Vocals

Green = Guitars/Lead Guitar

Teal = Rhythm Guitar

Blue = Bass

Purple = Drums

Orange = Keys

Yellow = never!!! Haha, or last resort but plenty of others that can be used.

Bars = I hate! I do no think they should be included.

• I do no believe backing vocals need be applied. If another musician has significant input with sining then they can have a smaller bar of red. By stating red as 'Lead Vocals' when there are BVs implies that there are other vocals present, it is generally assumed that other members of a band will contribute to BVs and this is purely a timeline of membership, not of duties.
• Touring = I am interested as to when someone was working with the band and when but I can see the point of them not being a member. Though the timeline isn't for stating official members, it's for showing who and when.
• Bar width: standard = 10. Secondary colour = 2.5.

Yellowxander (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I also prefer green for lead guitar and teal for rhythm guitar, but currently the majority of timelines I've encountered do this the other way around. Do you think it's worth it to try to change that?--MASHAUNIX 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have seen it either way which hasn't really bothered me, but if we were to set a standard I would agree for it, simply because it is slightly brighter and lead guitarists are more 'popular' in perception, much in the same way vocalists draw the dominant focus and red being the most dominant colour.Yellowxander (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Decision

Okay so I took all of our ideas and compiled them into one. Should we gather more people and get their opinions so we can try to set a standard? DLManiac (talk) 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)}

Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 75Indians75^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind – it's really up to you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Is there a place I can go to get more people to share their opinion? This is 75Indians75 BTW. Changed my username to something that relates to me. DLManiac (talk) 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)}

Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment For the record, 75Indians75 (talk · contribs) has had his account renamed to Teddy2Gloves (talk · contribs) and the move was finalized by Euphydryas (talk · contribs). I would not like other editors to be confused by this. It should be noted that when someone calls you (75Indians75/Teddy2Gloves) out for doing something wrong on a talk page, like attempting to force a vote, when that's not done, you don't "fix" your work and remove the comment left by the other editor. What you do is strike your comment and add a corrected comment. Your ignorance of basic Wikipedia talk page guidelines just goes along with your basic lack of understand of image guidelines that brought this discussion to the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not know that Walter Görlitz (talk) , but I think we still need more people so that we can come to a agreement. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspected that you didn't know that you're not allowed to edit the comments left by others, that's why I added a warning template to your user page, so you can read it and the other guidelines and polices around talk page editing.

We will get other editors here. This discussion hasn't even been ongoing for 24 hours at this point. Not all of the project's editors have seen it yet. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was Wikipedia. This discussion will likely wind down in about a week, at which point, if no clear consensus has been reached, we can take it to a larger group audience: either the image project or the Town Pump. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet

• I don't have any strong opinion about color or size. A one-time musician is not a touring member. A significant touring member should be in the timeline. My very strong opinion is that a timeline should appear in only one place; if there's a band member article, then that's where the timeline goes, not the band article. And a timeline is completely unnecessary for uncomplicated bands.` Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72

• I also don't have a strong opinion about colour or size, but would like to suggest that the standard should include colours for additional, non-specific, instruments; outside the usual vocals, guitar, bass, drums. e.g. a colour for "other instrument 1" could be used for Clarence Clemons (Sax), for Anna Murphy (Hurdy Gurdy) or Spider Stacy (Tin whistle). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay so here's what I'm seeing.

• Timeline Size 800
• Timelike Colors: Vocals:Red, Lead Guitar:Teal, Rhythm Guitar:Green, Bass:Blue, Drums:Purple, Keys/Synths: Orange
• Touring members inclusion in timelines: Still Undecided
• Size of timeline bars: 10?
• If a one time fill in musician is a touring member or not: No

That was everyone else is seeing to be most popular? Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I still want to reiterate my point about the 11 width. I never used to do it that way, but I think that we gain so much by having the overlain bars centered, and don't really lose anything by having 11 instead of ten. I won't demand that it be implemented, but I want it to be considered. — DLManiac (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

All looks good to me! When it comes to the orange and purple issue, when it's just the four instruments I think purple looks better. Maybe it's the artist side of me that sees how they work better together compared to using orange (plus I'm a drummer and purple is more appealing than orange :p hehe) But I'm more happy to have an agreed colour! In terms of centring you mentioned about 11 and 3, how does it look with 10 and 2.5? Yellowxander (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone its me, ICommandeth, I'm sure most of you already know me as that one guy who tweaks timelines, but I was invited her and now I want to show my opinion. For the most part the post above is pretty much my entire opinion, with the exception that orange is drums and purple is keys. I feel like orange better fits drums than purple. It annoys me every time I see purple drums or orange keys. So yeah, something like this as an example:

Timeline

I've just thought we ought to look at what we have in terms of positions and colours (to cover any eventuality). At the most we would have three positions in the percussion section and four in the Keys section. Whilst orange and purple both have three shades, a shade of yellow can be used with the oranges meaning purple would only fit the percussion section. Whilst there are spare blues they aren't similar enough in colour to use with purple but there is a spare yellow which is similar enough to use with the oranges allowing them to be placed with the keys section. Does that make sense? Yellowxander (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

On 11,3 vs 10,2.5: The 10, 2.5 method works about 70% of the time I'd say, where as the 11,3 method works one hundred percent of the time. This is because all of these widths are measured in pixels: and you cannot display a half of a pixel on a screen so easytimeline tries to make it work the best it can, but it is by no means foolproof. Thus, I strongly support the 11,3 method.

On Orange vs Purple I REALLY prefer the orange for drums and purple for keys, but I will take the other way if necessary as long as everything is the same (uniformity is my priority). Here are some reasons:

• Orange and green clash terribly! When orange is used for keys and there is a guitar player who has an orange bar overlain on the green bar, it is terribly difficult to read (And this happens quite often as there are so many guitarists that play keys.) I see a similar problem when there are vocalists that play keys. Orange and red does not look as good as purple and red. It's fairly common for drummers to not play much besides drums, so if orange is used for drums then clashing is basically nonexistent. That stuff really bugs me.
• I'm with the opinion that we don't need the live members color, but if so I would agree that we should use "light color" for whatever the color is, or something along those lines.
• Every band has a drummer. And when Orange is seen on the timeline, it's never ambiguous that it is orange and different from everything else. However, purple looks close to blue, and thus life is less confusing if we use purple for keys because it will be used less often.
• In response to your number of colors reasoning, I have always used the following scheme:

— DLManiac (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough for all points!Yellowxander (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sections to agree upon

So here is a full list of what would be good to agree for a standard. The data in bold is what we need to decide, everything else is either variable or non variable data. I've assigned instruments to colours as a starting point, as well as agreeing to a listing order. Once we have agreed then the bold can be removed so we can see where we are up to! Start at the top?

 {{#tag:timeline|

ImageSize

 width:800
 height:auto
 barincrememnt:20
 (20 (<20 lines), 18 (20-30 lines), 16 (30-45 lines), 14 (>45 lines)

My opinion is the following because more than 20 width is just excessive. and 20 makes the text spacing look the nicest. We go smaller when we need to. —DLManiac (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually think 20 is best all round too, may as well all be the same size! Not seen more than 20 lines though!Yellowxander (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkout Whitesnake#Timeline It's crazy, haha. – DLManiac (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Insane! haha Yellowxander (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

PlotArea

 top:0
 right:15
 bottom:60 (horizontal)
       :80 (Vertical two down)
       :95 (vertical three down
 left:variable

55 is too low, 60 is min. If we want to keep everything aligned, then we should start at 60 and add 17 pixels for every new row of legend items. i.e: 60, 77, 94, 111, 128. 17 is a weird number, so that is less likely to be adopted, but I think 60,80,95,110, 130 works pretty well—DLManiac (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree Yellowxander (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Alignbars = late

I have discovered that "justify" often results in the final bar being cut off by one pixel. For this reason, I believe that the use of "late" is a better solution. Cons: It leaves space between the bottom of the last bar and the axis, but if barincrement is no bigger than 20, then it is a reasonable space. — DLManiac (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to meYellowxander (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Period

 from:variable 
 till:21/11/2024

 DateFormat = variable

TimeAxis

 orientation:horizontal
 format:yyyy

ScaleMajor

 increment:1 (<10 years)
          :2 (<20 years)
          :5 (20<)
 start:variable

Discussion points: For 5 year increments, do we go on intervals of 5? i.e. 1980, 1985.... vs 1978, 1983, 1988... depending on start date? Also similarly for by 2's: 1980, 1982, 1984.... vs 1979, 1981, 1983.? —DLManiac (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. Whilst in multiples of 5 (1980/1985) does look better, this can leave a gap at the beginning of the scale, also not signify the starting year. would that be acceptable? Yellowxander (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that having the starting year is necessary (In fact it is often inaccurate because if the page says the band was formed in 1987, and the timeline starts at 01/01/1987, but they really didn't form until June 1987, then its not right. The biggest problem I see is definitely the band that starts in 1986, but the first mark isn't made until 1990. That definitely looks awkward. Personally, I don't see a problem with using increments of three. And I think if we aren't going to make our 5 increments necessarily go on the multiples of 5, then there is really no disadvantage to using an increment of 3. — DLManiac (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ScaleMinor

 increment:1
 start:variable

Legend

 orientation:horizontal (until it no longer fits) then vertical
 position:bottom
 columns: variable (only with vertical)

Please see my comment below "On Legend Usage". I believe that there it might be useful to always employ a single vertical column and use the bottom margin to control the number of columns: —DLManiac (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Consider the following three examples. It represents three ways to organize 9 legend elements in different ways.

Extended content
Vertical one column restricted Horizontal 3 columns Horizontal 4 columns

The first uses

Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:1
PlotArea = left:120 bottom:80 top:0 right:10

The second uses

Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:3
PlotArea = left:120 bottom:90 top:0 right:10

The third uses

Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:4
PlotArea = left:120 bottom:90 top:0 right:10

The first provides the only method whereby we can actually fit everything in 2 rows instead of 3. It does this because EasyTimeline doesn't allow us to use more than 4 columns. The one thing this does is that instead of making the apparent column widths equal, it makes the apparent column margins equal, and the PlotArea Bottom height is what controls how many rows there are. I don't like this method because It is a little unorthodox (We use the "bottom" attribute to control the columns) but I think it looks way better and saves us some space. Again, I don't feel strongly either way, but I think there is something in considering the three methods. — DLManiac (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

AH, I didn't see the collapsed content, makes much more sense now. Which option are you saying you think is best? My choice would be the firstYellowxander (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the first is definitely better. It's sort of "cheating" or tricking the template which is the only part I don't like –DLManiac (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So would the graph always be written as 'orientation:vertical, position:bottom, columns:1'? Yellowxander (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It should not. It should reflect the number of instruments. If there are more than four, or the labels, are wide, it has to be multiple columns. Also, the labels are wrong. A vertical line only represents a single album, so marking it "albums" is incorrect, but can be understood. And we don't usually list when a live album was recorded, we list when it was released. The labels should be "Studio album", "Compilation album", "Live album". Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. We are using the "Columns:1" text, but actually creating multiple columns. Which can often keep everything tighter. It allows us to create 5 columns buy restricting the height. Also, the reason live albums are listed when they were recorded is so that we know who appears on them. Since the timeline is about membership, if Whitesnake releases a live album in 2013 that was recorded in 1984, it is completely unhelpful to see the line in 2013 because those members are not on the album. I agree with the "album" vs "albums" thing though. – DLManiac (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeh live albums is tricky, but i think as long as its stated as 'recording of live album' that should remove confusion, I'd say it would be more important to position in the correct lineup (and then this shows the date of recording) rather than the date of release. Yellowxander (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Colors

 Vocal Section
 Red: Vocals/Lead Vocals
 Coral: Backing Vocals
 Pink: Live/Session Vocals
 Magenta: Guest Vocals
 
 Guitar Section
 Green: Guitars/Lead Guitar
 Teal:Rhythm Guitar
 Yellowgreen: Live/Session Guitar
 Drabgreen: Guest Guitar
 Kelleygreen: Acoustic Guitar
 Brightgreen: Slide/Lap Guitar
 Limegreen: Banjo
 
 Bass Section
 Blue: Bass
 Skyblue: Live Session Bass
 Oceanblue:
 Bringhtblue:
 Powderblue:
 Powderblue2:
 
 Percussion Section
 Orange: Drums
 Lightorange: Percussion
 Redorange: Live/Session Drums
 Dullyellow: 
 
 Keys Section
 Opurple: Piano/Keyboard/Accordion
 Lightpurple: Live/Session Keys
 Lavender: Synth/Samples
 Claret: Decks/DJ/Scrath
 
 Brass/Woodwind/String Section
 Yellow:Trombone
 Yellow2: Trumpet
 Yelloworange: Sax
 Tan1: Flute
 Tan2: Violin
 
 Black: Albums
 Grey: Other Releases/Compilations
 White:

LineData

 at:variable
 color:variable
 layer:back

To standardize this, we could clean up significantly. For instance, use a single line with "layer:back" to define the default, and NOT include it on every line. We could do similarly with "color". Also, Most timelines have a bad habit of using

Colors=
 ...
id:lines value:black legend: Studio
id:lines2 value:gray(x) legend: EP
...
LineData =
at:25/05/1983 color:black layer:back
at:13/07/1984 color:black layer:back
...
at:25/10/1993 color:lines2 layer:back
at:15/10/1996 color:lines2 layer:back
...

I believe they should use

Colors=
 ...
id:studio value:black legend: Studio
id:EP value:gray(x) legend EP
...
LineData =
layer:back color:studio
at:25/05/1983 color:black 
at:13/07/1984 color:black 
...
color:EP
at:25/10/1993 
at:15/10/1996 
...

I think this would greatly cleanup all the timelines and make editing them way easier and more organized. —DLManiac (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I would need to see it in context to work out exactly what you mean. Yellowxander (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

See List of Def Leppard band members#Timeline. The output si obviously no different, it is just cleaner and less text. – DLManiac (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow thats loads simpler!! Yellowxander (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

PlotData

 width:11 (standard)
      :3 (second colour)
      :7 (third colour)
 textcolor:black
   bar: from: till: color:

Discussion

Has everyone given up on this? It would be really great if we had enough people to come to a consensus. – DLManiac (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't. I actually had an example on my talk page as to why decimal point row heights are not appropriate. I'll copy it here.

If you look closely at the fractional heights, they don't match top-to-bottom. In this case, mobile platforms usually have the advantage over desktop ones (except Apple's retina displays and similar) because they actually use higher resolution images that correct this error. So 2.5 is a non-starter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, and this is why I support the 3 on 11 because even on odd doesn't work either. Odd on Odd or even on Even is the only way to go. 4 on 10 makes the middle too big, and 3 on 9 makes the outer bar too hard to see in my opinion. So I definitely support 3 on 11. BTW, I see that your example currently has width 12 where you intended width 10. —DLManiac (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good!Yellowxander (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I Agree to that was well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddy2Gloves (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay so let get this straight, we agreed on colors, I believe we agreed on touring members being okay for the timeline (only if they're labeled as such), we have the bar size, am I missing anything else?Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No we didn't agree on touring members. Colors was never decided between orange and purple. Bar size is not quite there. We have yet to talk about including more than one inner bar and how we should (It's absolutely bound to happen). We have yet to discuss bar increments. (I think everything should be 20 unless there are several members i.e. Whitesnake, greater is so unnecessary) We still need to talk about total size. I want to discuss Justify, the bar widths and more. There is much more discussion to be had, and then maybe a call for RfC. Patience is key to getting this problem solved. – DLManiac (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for standardized colors, and I agree with DLManiac's scheme the most. However, there are contrast issues with overlain bars, such as red with claret and teal with green. So I think we should discuss that as well. — Confession0791 ^talk 13:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this for real?

I appreciate that you guys are into this, but really? If a given page were to violate your color standards, would it matter? Would _readers_ somehow suffer as a result? Recommend that this discussion be closed with no action taken. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole point is for Wikipedia to be uniform. Readers like it better when Wikipedia is uniform. It's also convenient for readers if they don't have to specifically read the legend every time. If they go from one page to another then the same colors should be used because that's what they would expect. —DLManiac (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, DLManiac is correct. It looks so more professional when they are all the same. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Every publication has a style guide as part of its manual of style. When a publication has uniformity, it looks more professional. As for "would it matter", no it wouldn't because the content would still be there. The readers would still have the information presented to them either way. As for closing, we're not recommending action be taken anyhow, but we would like consistency if not uniformity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The exact reason that led me to be for this was the fact that every page was different, it made no sense and was confusing! It doesn't harm anyone and the end result is a small improvement to standards and presentation.Yellowxander (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Touring Members on Timelines

So have we come to any sort of agreement on whether touring members should be on timelines? Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to think that Walter Görlitz and I have made fair enough points that they should not be included. For one thing, it just adds another thing in the legend, and more overlain bars on the timeline that are just so unnecessary. If I look at a timeline, I wanna see who was the bassist in 1997 or something, not all of the different people that played keyboards on different tours and the 3 people who have played session drums on 3 albums. If there is no bassist listed in 1997, then it is clear to me that there is no bassist, so either they weren't touring, or the hired a temp substitute. – DLManiac (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well looking back at what people said it appears to me we have 4 votes for each opinion. So no decision can be made yet. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We're not voting. Policy-based opinions should be given weight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's tricky. I can agree that studio musicians aren't important enough to be included unless they are a significant continual member of the band, see Finntroll, but then again take the case of Mike Portney in Avenged Sevenfold. He was never a member, just a guest, but recorded and toured for a few months.Yellowxander (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In general, I would say don't include touring/session musicians. There may be exceptions to this on a case-by-case basis, but that's how those should be treated - special cases, not the standard.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeh I think I'm inclined to say it should be a case by case basis. Yellowxander (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Backing vocals

I am starting to grow extremely tired of the inclusion of backing vocals in the timelines. They create extra overlain bars and legend elements that I don't really find important. SO many band members sing backing vocals that I feel it is just redundant and messy to include them. I am curious to see what everyone else thinks about this. DLManiac (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, unless its an actual 'backing singer' i don't think its a necessity, it just makes things look messy. Yellowxander (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely on board with this. Sometimes the backing singers contribute a unique aspect to the band, like Ole Børud's often soaring, gospel-style vocals he did for Extol. But this example might be what Yellowxander calls a "backing singer."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Actually, in the case of Extol, in the timeline I made I credited Børud as "vocals," even though he exclusively sang while Peter usually screamed or growled. And I completely left out the "backing vocals" that Husvik etc. were sometimes credited with. So, I guess I'm in agreement here. Unless the backing vocals are significant, and can mostly be credited to a certain member, I wouldn't include them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions?

Well this seems to have died prematurely, and I unfortunately believe that it will be again swept under the rug. Any continued interest or final comments? — DLManiac (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not prematurely. I think we have agreed on colours, line width of 11, 7 and 3. No touring musicians unless they can be supported with multiple secondary sources.

I don't think we've settled on width of the chart, or bar height when auto. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. I believe a good minimal rule of thumb should be that touring musicians not be included in the timeline if they're not included in the prose. This accounts for the fact that if they're important enough to be mentioned in the prose, then that might be when they belong in the timeline. — DLManiac (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Tudor Music Editathon, 5 February 2016

In about four weeks' time, Oxford University will be hosting a Wikipedia editathon on the theme of Tudor Music. The venue for the event, on the afternoon of Friday 5 February, is in Oxford's IT Services and the event is supported by the Faculty of Music and the Bodleian Libraries. Dr. Katherine Butler, an academic in the Faculty of Music, has kindly suggested a list of articles for creation or for improvement (see the above link). Many of these are composer biographies, but partbooks are another theme: Dr. Butler is impressed with the Drexel 4180–4185 article and we hope to create articles about other well-documented partbooks. I will be leading the training in my capacity as Wikimedian In Residence at the Bodleian. Feel free to improve the event page or to participate in any other way. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Scott Alan

Hello all, anyone want to take a stab at establishing Scott Alan's notability? The article at this point was a bit too promotional and focused mostly on people he's worked with or written songs for—notability by association. "Alan has written songs for Grammy Award Winners Pentatonix" and such. The article was previously deleted for being promotional, so I'm concerned that that's the aim again. The author of the last deleted version of this article, ScottAlan212, focused mostly on Playbill articles, which is also being done in the most recent version, so there's a possible COI. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reassessment of will.i.am

Hi! I was wondering if an experienced editor could please give an article class reassessment of will.i.am. Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Members may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Bias against notability of artists from early recordings. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Swmrs

I feel that this edit is problematic. It uses primary sources, unreliable sources, removes maintenance templates (for SoundCloud source). The article itself needs some critical eyes and since I have taken issue with the editors, I don't think I'm the one to do it. Any volunteers? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dale Bozzio

An IP editor has repeatedly inserted an unreferenced, clearly non-neutral passage here, here and here.

"Bozzio stormed onto the scene with her unique vocalization and performance style that set her apart from most artists. She pioneered many of the performance traits seen as standards today in popular music. She created and refined her unique sense of fashion and poetry along the way. "

I am now on three reverts but I'm pretty sure I'm in the right in removing this passage, which is clearly WP:PUFFERY and sounds like it was written by her PR team. Perhaps another editor could back me on this? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

*repeat repeat‎‎

There's an article about a band, *repeat repeat‎‎, curated by a new editor, Bball606‎ (talk · contribs), who is from what I can see an WP:SPA. I am coming into conflict with the editor over the article, primarily of the simple fact that because one of the members of the band has been in two other bands, he believes that's an association, while {{infobox musical artist}} does not support that. There is another artist who apparently co-writes the music for this band, and that musician does not have an article, so the editor feels it's appropriate to list this person's band as an association (see Bball606‎'s talk page for the discussion). The problem is, there's no support for any of this. Since the article is very short on references, I'm starting to think that the editor may not be able to dig up RSes to support his claims. I nominated the article for deletion yesterday, so I'm not sure where to land on this whole thing. I'm not sure if anyone wants to comment on Bball606‎'s talk page, or at the AfD, or if they just want to try to improve the article to support Bball606‎'s claims. I'm up for any assistance that other editors may be able to offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no conflict, other than you clearly have no idea what "associated acts" stands for. For example the band Alkaline Trio has Blink 182 listed as an associate act, as their singer also performs in Blink 182. If Andy Herrin is in both Cavo and *repeat repeat, how is that not the same and acceptable? bball606

There is a conflict because you keep adding associated acts that are not. I have posted the actual guidelines to your talk page, and when I asked you to provide some proof you could not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for alerting me to the bad associated acts in that other article. I reviewed and cleaned it up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Eminem

Eminem, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)