Yellowxander

Your image uploads

Please just stop uploading images until you know what you're doing. You cannot upload images you find on the internet and upload them claiming to be the copyright holder, you are uploading at worst copyright violations. Яehevkor ✉ 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not claimed anything to be mine? Am trying my hardest to get the correct information Yellowxander (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You are uploading images under licences that only the copyright owner can declare. Nearly all of the images you are uploaded would be classed as non free images, these can be uploaded as long as they fall within the Non-free content criteria and have a fair use rationale. Some examples, images of living people are almost never acceptable under fair use as they are replaceable, it is plausible that free images can be available or be made available (photos taken by the general public which they can release for free). Uploading images in the way you have been doing is basically violating copyright and can leave Wikipedia at risk. You can also read Wikipedia:Image use policy for an overview and Wikipedia:Uploading images for some possible instructions. Image policies here can be complicated, personally I recommend you not upload any images unless they have been taken by you yourself until you understand the fair use guidelines. Яehevkor ✉ 16:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah think I understand now, should be using {{Non-free image data}} templates with a {{Non-free image rationale}} instead. Right, try get my head around it!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowxander (talk • contribs)

Basically yes, but make sure they pass Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria Яehevkor ✉ 16:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Aerosmith discography

That is just a guideline, not a rule. Adding a little bit more info on the albums, and highlighting the major singles adds value to the main article and it makes it more comprehensive and useful to readers. It works for this article, and as such, I will be restoring the original format. Abog (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is merely a basic "guideline" and not a set-in-stone rule that has to be followed to a tee. For the Aerosmith article, which has already been rated a "good article", we have established a discography section that is still well-organized and brief, but also includes a little bit of extra important information which enhances the section and adds value to the article. There are still plenty more details on the discography page, but this section provides readers with the basic info regarding the band's studio albums and their most successful singles. I don't see a problem with it. It still provides basic information on the albums and the most successful singles in an orderly, summarizing, and comprehensive fashion. Abog (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Mini vote

Hi, it would be good to inform about this vote in WP:CARS. -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have added entry to auto project page -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw your vote of support, and I appreciate it. If there are any alterations you'd like to suggest I welcome them as well. To help in creating a popularly acceptable proposal, could you please post (in the same format) what you would have suggested had there not been any pre-existing suggestions? I am keeping this question away from the Mini talkpage, already awash in opinions, because this is simply an effort to know what others' concerns may be so as to help in reaching a conclusion. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

I like your work on the Donnington article, but please be aware of the overall Wikipedia manual of style. Don't use bold unnecessarily. UK format dates are in the form 27 September 2012 with no "th", "nd", etc. Date ranges are separated with the ndash entered in the article as – e.g. 27–30 September 2012. Albums, films, books, publication names, DVD's, TV programmes, etc. are all presented in italics, but individual songs are presented in quotes, e.g. "Highway to Hell". Any questions just ask. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

ah that's good, shortens the content a bit! have just done the festival names in bold to make them stand out, but if not general practice then fair enough :)Yellowxander (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A Vandal

An unregistered user is vandalising a page, Tank (band), by blanking all recent content of the continued line of the band and replacing it with only recent content of a new incarnation of a band. Clearly content of both versions of the band should be included but this user, Rollingdell, keeps doing the aforementioned. I have requested a semi-protection but this was denied and referred to edit warring. I cannot issue any warnings to this user as it is not a registered account (I think, the name shows in red?) but you can see that the user has only done edits on this page, so clearly a fanatic of the newer version of the band and against the continued version of the band - but of course the page should read neutral regarding both parties, which this user is not. The simplest option would seem to semi protect it as then the unregistered user would not be able to make edits, but this was denied, any ideas? :/ Yellowxander (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the other user, Rollingdell, isn't unregistered; only the user page doesn't exist. Secondly, although this issue has been ongoing since May, you have left a note on the talk page only yesterday. I'm reluctant to call someone a vandal when they may be acting in good faith and no attempt at communication (beyond a template message on the user's talk page) has taken place. Thirdly, I agree with you on the issues and will leave messages to that effect at both the article's and the user's talk page. Huon (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh! OK! Thanks :DYellowxander (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Timeline edits

A couple things: One: thank you for width shortening all the timelines. They definitely need it. However, please don't do it blindly (it can result in chopping off the legend, so please take the time to fix the legend if you want to cut the width (However, some really busy timelines cannot be read at 800 px, so keep that in mind.) Two: I noticed that you've been using the Purple Drums / Orange Keyboards scheme. I agree that the scheme needs to be consistent, but it was definitely the case the far majority of the timelines were already following the Orange Drums / Purple Keyboards scheme. There are a couple reasons that I personally believe that we should retain the latter scheme. First is that it (at least a month ago) was much more common (That means less things to fix). Second is that orange clashes the most with everything. And drum roles are most often only drum roles as opposed to multi-instrumentalists (There are obviously exceptions). But common combinations like Singer/Keyboardists and Guitarist/keyboardists are very hard to read when orange is used as a keyboard color. I am however open to discussion. Secondly, please put the color changes in your edit summaries. Timeline colors cause a lot of edit wars, and when you do a width correction & color change but only put "width correction" in the summary, it is both facetious and likely to start trouble. Thanks for all your handwork, and lets try to keep an open line of communication? — DLManiac (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your message! I always preview first and know what you mean about cut off (usually 'studio recordings') and I've just realised I've confused myself - thinking in a few months an extra year will be added so it will widen the page, but of course the image will still be the same width! haha silly me! Glad you agree about consistency. About 4 or so years ago myself and someone else did a big tidy through all the timelines with the four main colours being red, green, blue and purple. We'd gone for purple as it has the same darkness as the other three, where as orange stuck out more. We'd also put keys below drums but noticed last week it was quite varied as to position and colour, about 50/50. Not quite sure what you mean about the orange clashing, is this when a thinner line is used over the main colour? I think the five decent colours to use have always looked ok - the only horrible is yellow, gah! Last resort for that colour! haha. As for the edit summery, that was simply to keep it short ;) Guess I could have put 'tidy up'! Yellowxander (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes yellow is the worst by far. There has been a group of people who keep using yellow for backing vocals and it just hurts the eyes (I believe that pink should be used). As far as ordering goes, I agree that it should be Vocals, Guitar, Bass, Drums, Keyboards. By clashing, yes I mean when there is a solid line of guitar with a green line and a thin orange line of keyboards over it, the colors blend together in a quite unsightly manner. To me, this is a bigger issue than having the same darkness. I feel like if that was a big concern, we could use redorange for drums, and that should eliminate the brightness concerns. You don't even know how much I would love it if we had some consistent rules and colors around here, haha. Let me know what you think about it. — DLManiac (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Haha yes it should be banned! Fair enough, never really thought of it as an issue - although BVs has always bugged me for the timeline, think it's a waste of space/too much info. It would be nice for standardisation, I don't know wiki editing hugely in depth and tried to pass a ruling or something to make it somewhere but it didn't happen a few years ago. It would be good to get it agreed upon once and for all!Yellowxander (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I would concur that backing vocals don't need to be there. Most of the people in bands sing backing vocals, its redundant. I tried getting people to agree on a standard scheme a year ago and it was just impossible. No one would agree / The people who weren't directly involved didn't seem to find it as an issue. It would be super nice if we found anyone else that could help get something finished off. — DLManiac (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Found it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/BandTimeline though I've no idea what I was supposed to do! Yellowxander (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And the new games begin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#Create_Member_Section.2FTimeline_Standards, please feel free to come join the discussion −DLManiac (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline Discussion

Introduction

75Indians

I Think we need to create Wikipedia Member Section/Timeline Standards. I strongly believe that there are multiple things we should address. Well I guess I'll start by covering my personal beliefs on each issue. The things I would like to. If we all would take the time to state our opinions that would be great. Thanks! Anyways those are my personal opinions. I'd love to hear of of yours. Thanks. 75Indians75 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

4TheWayne

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)

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. Additionally, there are some other issues that I often come across that I thought might need to be highlighted. 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. 75Indians75 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz

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

Some other things I want to point out. Those are my opinions on a few things, I'm sure I missed a few more. DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 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. As for any of DLManiac's points that I haven't commented on, I think the exact same thing. MASHAUNIX 01:34, 9 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. Yellowxander (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sections

The data in bold is what we need to decide, everything else is either variable or non variable data.

Timeline Own Section - Agreed

Yes. Why not? Timeline-specific edits should not have to read "Band members". Common sense. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No unless the members section is large. It goes against the idea that headings are to separate short sections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

YES this makes the editing SO MUCH EASIER. 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 DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)DLManiac (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. MASHAUNIX 01:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

4>1 YES

 {{#tag:timeline|

ImageSize

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

Discussion: Width - Undecided

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. 75Indians75 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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 believe timelines should always have a length of 1000, because I've always been of the belief that even 800 is too small. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

4>1 800

Discussion: Increment - Agreed

<10 members, have it at 30. 10-14 members, have it at 25. 15+ members, have it at 20. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Always the same: 14 or 16. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the number of members that appear in a timeline and sometimes need to be changed to increase legibility. DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. MASHAUNIX 01:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Usually 20, 30 if not so many members. Yellowxander (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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 - Agreed

 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 - Agreed

 from:variable 
 till:29/04/2024

 DateFormat = variable

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: DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC) https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline#Using_the_current_date

Love the use for this, genius! Yellowxander (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

TimeAxis - Agreed

 orientation:horizontal
 format:yyyy

ScaleMajor - Undecided

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

<20 years, should just be 1. 20-29 years, should be 2. 30+ years, should be 3. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

2 for a small number of years. 5 for more than fifteen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

1 for up to 10 years. 2 for up to 20 years. 5 for longer. Yellowxander (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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 - Agreed

 increment:1
 start:variable

Legend - Agreed

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

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). 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Vertical and in columns so that the whole timeline can be narrow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kinda obvious really, horizontal until it doesn't fit any more. Yellowxander (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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/Members - Agreed

 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
 Purple: 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:

Discussion: Colours - Agreed

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)

75Indians75 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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". 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.

• 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

4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 

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. 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.

• 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

DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. 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)

• 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.

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)

I don't have any strong opinion about color or size. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Discussion: Touring Members - Agreed

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

Extended content

75Indians75 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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. One-time fill-in a touring member? No. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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). 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. 75Indians75 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 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. 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. 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. DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A one-time musician is not a touring member. A significant touring member should be in the timeline. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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. MASHAUNIX 01:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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. Yellowxander (talk) 12:50, 9 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)

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)

Discussion: Backing Vocals - Agreed

Remove backing vocals. Often, the whole band sings backing vocals, they don't need to all be represented on the timeline, it's messy. DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. Yellowxander (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

LineData - Agreed

 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 - Agreed

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

Size of all timeline bars should be 10 75Indians75 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

10 or smaller. Agree that only one bar should be placed inside another. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Bar width: standard = 10. Secondary colour = 2.5. Yellowxander (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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. DLManiac (talk) 18:59, 8 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)

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

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)

Conclusions

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)

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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 16 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)

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)

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)

thank you

128.95.41.196 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you so much for your contributions to wiki via the timelines!

i am an artist based in Seattle and was inspired to begin archiving timelines for bands after wondering what happened to Yellowcard (band)- i started a blog documenting these (your) efforts-

i have you listed as a contributor and creator @ http://bandwidthlife.tumblr.com/ty

do you know any other timeline makers i ought to contact? also, would you be interested in participating in an online interview? i would like to create a zine about timeline makers featuring the standardized aesthetic. i can be contacted via email at bluemonk@uw.edu

hope you find all of this well.

warmth,

m.l.

128.95.41.196 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why not!Yellowxander (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Aerosmith - steel box.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Aerosmith - steel box.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aerosmith - steel box.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aerosmith - steel box.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aerosmith - steel box.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aerosmith - steel box.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Yellowxander, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Dale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Dale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Dale (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —S Marshall T/C 01:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New TotalRock logo.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New TotalRock logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)