| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member Timeline
editTimeline
edit
Discussion of the timeline
editUser:Walter_Görlitz, may I ask what the issue with the member timeline on Trenches (band) was? I checked the history of the page and it seems that there was a lot of previous edits involving such a timeline, and I also saw you removed the timeline on Chevelle and called it an "unnecessary timeline". I personally see no issue with having timelines and they are useful for people like me who understand information much better when visualizing it, such as with a timeline. Saying that the timeline was "too simple" is redundant, as other bands like Bring Me the Horizon and Twenty One Pilots have much simpler timelines. Please answer this as I would like to know where you got the reasoning / instructions to make these sorts of edits. Thomas Whitebread|✉ 18:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- If the changes in membership can be easily understood, why is a timeline necessary? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Again, refer to my examples of other bands with simpler timelines and then ask me the same question again, please. You have ignored my points entirely and I do not appreciate it. Thomas Whitebread|✉ 19:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- You mean like band articles like the Beatles or U2? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, I mean like Twenty One Pilots. Now please tell me why having a visual for the band members is not needed? I get U2 not needing one, since that one is as simple as it gets, but for the Beatles, it is so complex that it needs its own page for just a members list. I and many others understand things better with visual data, and I believe that a member timeline in the case of Trenches is more useful than not. Thomas Whitebread|✉ 18:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- You need to stop removing timelines unless you can show me your source for why you think they need to be removed, otherwise, it is just removing non-harmful additions to Wikipedia. 18:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Whitebread (talk • contribs)
- One rather obvious objection to the timeline is that it is uncited. That alone would justify its removal. @Thomas Whitebread: are you able to raise the standard of the timeline so that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia:No original research? If yes, please could you produce a compliant version on the article talk page (i.e. here). Then we can start to discuss whether there are any other valid objections to having it in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am. Thomas Whitebread|✉ — Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can see that the timeline makes it easier to follow than just the dates different people were in the band. @Walter Görlitz: I know you think that the timeline is not necessary. But is it positively harmful to have it in the article?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Placing positively and harmful next to each other creates a contradiction. Looking at the timeline below, or the one removed, how does it help the reader see how many musicians there were more than the prose and list alone? The instruments are entirely muddy. We have one musician with three roles. Can you tell? Looking at the colours alone, what three are they? I do not clearly see what they are, but it's clear from the list what they are. Long ago, I showed (and it was agreed) that the bars should be odd numbers. IN this case the smallest should be a 3, the next largest cannot be 7, it has to be 9, and the third then has to be 13, and so you have a bar that is larger than the rest. No, it's a mess and the list is much more clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I do not understand your point
that the bars should be odd numbers
. Is it possible for you to show what that means please? I assume from your comment that the timeline built by Thomas Whitebread does not comply with that. Please explain.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I do not understand your point
- As for sourcing, are you seriously trying to convince us that members both joined and left the band on January 1? Every single change of membership is on that date. That just feels like someone picking a date out of thin air. It seems that there may be an idea that the members played around that time so the creator of the timeline decided to pick that date. In other words, it is not sourced. It likely cannot be sourced and it entrenches (pun fully intended) a speculative value just so we can have an image to represent what is already a estimate in the list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a very good point.-- Toddy1 (talk)| 22:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the concern for lack of accurate dates, and I wish I could amend that, but take into consideration that most other band timelines also have the "january 1st" issue, and it's hard to tackle that. In most cases, even getting accurate dates from the band themselves can be hard, as I doubt they keep track of the exact dates of members leaving and joining, and from my own experience, just pay attention to the year. I agree that with more ambiguous member join dates, it can become an issue, and I believe that that does make sense. Although, @Walter Görlitz, if the arbitrary start and end points on the timeline are an issue, is there any reason why that's no different from the ambiguity of just having, let's say, "2008" in a member list? As for the "muddy" and "messy" timeline, that's just how it is, and even if its harder for you to understand the colors, there's still a list right there for you to read, while I happily look at the timeline. And also, thanks for the bar height standard, that can help me in the future. @Toddy1, the bar numbers are about the thickness of each bar so that you can see them stacked on-top of each other, as you can see with the bar for Joel Lauver. Thomas Whitebread|✉ 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Some good has come out of this. @Thomas Whitebread: Why not use the source you found to fix the problem that the members section does not include any references or sources.
- I understand the concern for lack of accurate dates, and I wish I could amend that, but take into consideration that most other band timelines also have the "january 1st" issue, and it's hard to tackle that. In most cases, even getting accurate dates from the band themselves can be hard, as I doubt they keep track of the exact dates of members leaving and joining, and from my own experience, just pay attention to the year. I agree that with more ambiguous member join dates, it can become an issue, and I believe that that does make sense. Although, @Walter Görlitz, if the arbitrary start and end points on the timeline are an issue, is there any reason why that's no different from the ambiguity of just having, let's say, "2008" in a member list? As for the "muddy" and "messy" timeline, that's just how it is, and even if its harder for you to understand the colors, there's still a list right there for you to read, while I happily look at the timeline. And also, thanks for the bar height standard, that can help me in the future. @Toddy1, the bar numbers are about the thickness of each bar so that you can see them stacked on-top of each other, as you can see with the bar for Joel Lauver. Thomas Whitebread|✉ 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a very good point.-- Toddy1 (talk)| 22:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Placing positively and harmful next to each other creates a contradiction. Looking at the timeline below, or the one removed, how does it help the reader see how many musicians there were more than the prose and list alone? The instruments are entirely muddy. We have one musician with three roles. Can you tell? Looking at the colours alone, what three are they? I do not clearly see what they are, but it's clear from the list what they are. Long ago, I showed (and it was agreed) that the bars should be odd numbers. IN this case the smallest should be a 3, the next largest cannot be 7, it has to be 9, and the third then has to be 13, and so you have a bar that is larger than the rest. No, it's a mess and the list is much more clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can see that the timeline makes it easier to follow than just the dates different people were in the band. @Walter Görlitz: I know you think that the timeline is not necessary. But is it positively harmful to have it in the article?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am. Thomas Whitebread|✉ — Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- One rather obvious objection to the timeline is that it is uncited. That alone would justify its removal. @Thomas Whitebread: are you able to raise the standard of the timeline so that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia:No original research? If yes, please could you produce a compliant version on the article talk page (i.e. here). Then we can start to discuss whether there are any other valid objections to having it in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- You need to stop removing timelines unless you can show me your source for why you think they need to be removed, otherwise, it is just removing non-harmful additions to Wikipedia. 18:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Whitebread (talk • contribs)
- No, I mean like Twenty One Pilots. Now please tell me why having a visual for the band members is not needed? I get U2 not needing one, since that one is as simple as it gets, but for the Beatles, it is so complex that it needs its own page for just a members list. I and many others understand things better with visual data, and I believe that a member timeline in the case of Trenches is more useful than not. Thomas Whitebread|✉ 18:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- You mean like band articles like the Beatles or U2? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Again, refer to my examples of other bands with simpler timelines and then ask me the same question again, please. You have ignored my points entirely and I do not appreciate it. Thomas Whitebread|✉ 19:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- As for the timeline, could it have the roles of the members in brackets after their names? It would make it clearer. That would not work in a case where someone's role changed over time. But that was not the case here. I do not see any harm in having the timeline in the members section.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
New Timeline
editTimeline[1]
References
- ^ "Trenches". Retrieved February 20, 2022.
Here's my (hopefully) improved timeline. Thomas Whitebread|✉ 15:29, February 20 2022 (UTC)