Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:28, 21 April 2015

Music Project	WikiProject Musicians Discussion							Music Portal
	To Do	Guidelines	1.0 Assessment	Stubs	Infobox	Navbox	Categories
	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss	Discuss

Biography: Musicians Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Primary topic issues involving Bad News Brown

You Wikifolks may be interested in a requested move discussion regarding the primary topic for Bad News Brown. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Consensus on band timeline colour schemes

A new RFC to standardize timelines may be started and advertized on the Talk pages of many of the affected articles. I recommend such an RFC include the most common scheme as well as a scheme which endeavors to produce good colorblind results. See http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ tool. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we use the colour scheme with dark blue at the top, or the colour scheme with red at the top? 4TheWynne 05:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I've been meaning to start a discussion on this for a long time now. Ultimately, I don't really care what the color scheme is, but the community needs to reach a consensus on: (A) a color scheme we can all agree on, (B) an alternative way to read the timelines so that blind/colorblind readers can still use them per WP:COLOR, (C) when a timeline is even needed (too few member changes and it doesn't seem to add much, too many and it's too difficult to comfortably navigate) (D) what albums should be included (some stick to studio albums, others have a vertical line for every single release) and (E) how many layers (if any) should be added (some band members will have multiple stacked lines for different roles). Fezmar9 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's stick with the colour schemes, though, as it is still a big issue nevertheless. Here is an example of a timeline and two ways that it can be represented (I chose the Avenged Sevenfold timeline for this instance):

Dark blue scheme

Red scheme

This is a typical example of how the timelines could be represented. I believe that the dark blue scheme should be project-wide scheme used because the colours are a lot more aesthetically pleasing/relatable (uses more of the rainbow would be another way of thinking about it), it incorporates yellow-orange as it brightest colour, which is not as bright as yellow and therefore not too bright for those with impaired vision, and there is no real similarity between the colours. 4TheWynne 05:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. A significant minority of male viewers will have at least a small degree of colorblindness. Here's this exact discussion page rendered to simulate colorblindness. In the dark blue scheme, Synyster Gates and the drummers seem to have the same color under Protan and Deutan color blindness, while the red scheme under Tritan colorblindness appears to have the same color for Zacky Vengeance and the bassists. So both of these schemes are flawed under one or another form of colorblindness. Varying the luminosity of the colors is a design factor that can help make it accessible. See http://juicystudio.com/services/luminositycontrastratio.php. The rule of thumb is to avoid textbook-perfect color complements such as red/green and blue/orange. Shifting the values one way or another helps make them distinct. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have seen orange substitute for purple in terms of the drums, and also in few instances bright green in place of green or teal. I will try this scheme and see how it accommodates colorblindness. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate red scheme

• So, for this new scheme, some of the colors in the Tritan colorblindness might be too similar, but might work for the other 2. 'Teal' could also be substituted for regular green and bright green can be kept, if that works better. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't really seem to be getting anywhere, so is it all right if we start thinking about the majority rather than the minority? It's not that I don't care about the colourblindness issue (in fact I have a couple of friends who are colourblind, so it's definitely something that I can relate to), it's just that I think it would be a little easier to reach some sort of conclusion if we think about the wider community over the "significant minority". I went to school and conducted an unbiased survey of my form class of 34 other students (I simply asked, "Which scheme do you like better?"), and the results were 28–6 in favour of the dark blue scheme. I feel as though that could be an indicator that majority of younger viewers (and Misplaced Pages is used a lot at schools) would favour the appearance of the dark blue scheme over the red scheme, for the reasons that I've tried to outline above. Alternatively, if we can't agree on any of these colour schemes, then we can use the list of colours to create a completely new scheme from scratch – one that we can all agree on, looks nice and could potentially solve the colourblindness issue. Would anyone be opposed to this idea? 4TheWynne 10:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, so I have a lot to say on this, but I have stuff to do, so I'm gonna keep it short. This was brought up on wikiproject rock music with no consensus, but leaning toward the red/green/blue/orange. Three reasons I insist that it stays that way. 1) A very kind wikipedia user once converted almost the entire site to that color scheme. It is very easy to read, and so many people are used to seeing it that way. 2) I very much like the different shades of green for guitar stuff, because it is unambiguous at first glance what you're looking at. You know that all that green stuff is guitar. The legend says whether it's lead or rhythm or acoustic or whatever, but it is absolutely clear just from looking at the picture. 3) The colors in the original scheme red/green/blue/orange stack significantly better when that need happen. The colors are just the right amount of contrast. It is my opinion - which I don't want opinions to control this argument - that there is too much contrast when you stack these very bold colors from the darkblue/green/yellow/purple/red on top of each other. Overall, I have much more to say, but in short, I think that the site should be uniformed to the way that it was a couple months ago before the new scheme ever popped up — DLManiac (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In reply to part of your comment, let me add that we're trying to approach this discussion as though there was no red scheme to begin with. I didn't start this discussion to ask, "Do we change to this one, or keep the old one?" We're treating this as though timelines never previously existed – all we're doing is choosing between two schemes (or possibly creating a new one from scratch). Therefore, "what people are used to" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. 4TheWynne 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK well half of my argument is still valid under those circumstances. And to put it bluntly, there is no doubt in my mind that the new scheme is 100% LESS aesthetically pleasing. Simple as that the overuse of purple, yellow and darkblue are really all it takes to make that much of a difference. And I am positive that the majority of people will agree with that. Remember that's how this whole thing started anyway. DLManiac (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate you coming here to talk – you're the only other person who's really put in an argument at all – that is just your opinion, and that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will agree with it (or that you are correct). And remember what you said about "not wanting opinions to control this argument". We're basically trying to restart this whole thing (as though it never existed), with the objective of reaching a consensus, and I'm just waiting for other people to see this and have their say. However, if we as a group can't agree on any of these colour schemes, would you be open to my other idea? 4TheWynne 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and just because I am the only one here doesn't say anything about other people's thoughts. I am confused though if you don't want this to be about opinions, then what exactly are you asking? I thought this was about opinions on the colors anyway? And what do you mean by other idea? Choosing one from scratch? — DLManiac (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is, to say things such "there is no doubt in my mind that the new scheme is 100% LESS aesthetically pleasing" is opinionative, not an argument for something. And yes, I mean choose one from scratch, using this. 4TheWynne 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That certainly is my opinion, and I stand by that I think it is less aesthetically pleasing. I would be open to devising a new color scheme if it weren't completely unnecessary because it had already been done before. There is absolutely no reason to go through all that work. What do you have against the current one? – DLManiac (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And yes, I realize you want to pretend like nothing existed before, and that's fine. But something DID exist before. If we were to pick new colors then I would be coming for something almost identical to what's already there. So why don't we make our lives easier by sticking with it? Besides that, I really want to know what you have against it so much? DLManiac (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the color selection should not come from the list you provided, but rather http://ploticus.sourceforge.net/doc/color.html, as it is the list of acceptable colors defined as english words that can be used in timelines. It would be even MORE work were we to need to type RGB values on every timeline. — DLManiac (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DLManiac that having two shades of green for guitar work is a good idea, as it helps group all guitars together. In that sense, the Red scheme is better. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to know I'm not alone with this. I also agree with the red scheme. Do you guys prefer the original (teal/green and purple for drums) or the alternate red scheme I displayed (brightgreen/teal and orange for drums). I would be fine with either option. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rock music/Archive 5#Standardized Timeline Colors
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rock music/Archive 5#Band member timeline standards.

I thought that in both of those discussions, the color scheme that was the most favored, and that's already used in many articles, was:

• vocals – red
• guitar – green
• keyboards – purple
• bass – blue
• drums – orange

See for example Nazareth, the Rolling Stones and Def Leppard. So I would tend to favor that color scheme. But if somehow we could actually reach a consensus on a different color scheme, I'd probably support it, just to have a standard. — Mudwater 00:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support - I am in full support of this color scheme. I occasionally see the 'drums' and 'keyboards' colors swapped (drums are purple, keyboards are orange), but I have no problem with this proposition. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I ultimately don't really care what the color scheme ends up being, so long as every one agrees and Misplaced Pages uses them consistently. However, I feel there are several other issues that must be addressed. Per WP:COLOR, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." I don't really know the first thing about editing the timelines' code, but is there a way to group roles together and put the legend to the left of table? I made up the following crude table to illustrate what I'm talking about. This way, it really doesn't matter (as far as colorblindness issues are concerned) what colors everyone ends up picking, the information about what roles each member plays is still conveyed through grouping. So, is something like this possible for timelines? Again, it's very crude and I'm in no way advocating the following table be used instead, it's merely an illustration of what I'm suggesting.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fezmar9 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple things about the table: The words and more explanatory bits are already written in the article (Usually in a list right above the timeline) So we definitely aren't only using color. The timeline is more of a convenient visualization. The timelines are also generally grouped vertically by instrument anyway, so we kind of keep that taken care of. And lastly, this table would be a little too obnoxious for a band like the Rolling stones or something though. Thank you very much for joining the conversation! — DLManiac (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I currently count 4 in favor of the Red/Green/Blue/Orange/Purple scheme, 1 in favor of Darkblue/green/yellow/purple/red scheme, and 1 indifferent

• That would be for Red, we have DLManiac, Mudwater, TheSickBehemoth, and Binksternet. In addition, the other threads had support from TheUndyingAnchor and KyoufuNoDaiou (Who originally implemented this scheme.)
• In support of the Darkblue, we have 4TheWynne.
• And finally Fezmar9 seems to be indifferent.

Would that be correct? If so, that gives us a reasonable estimate of 6:1:1 in favor of the red scheme, and conservatively 4:1:1 in favor of red.
If that is the case, what is the next step? — DLManiac (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry – must have accidentally unwatched this page. In regards to your earlier comment, it's not necessarily that I have anything against the red scheme (or that I'm trying to discourage it), it's just that I prefer the colours that I implemented in the dark blue scheme, for reasons I mentioned at the start of the discussion. And Ploticus was indeed the place where I got half of the colours for the dark blue scheme from. But seeing as you guys are in favour of the red scheme, unless other people come along supporting the dark blue scheme (or my other idea, just to try something different), is there really anything else that you want me to comment on? 4TheWynne 05:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this has kind of died off, but asBinksternet has suggested, I think we should get some sort of official consensus on this. And maybe that requires some more discussion. Is there a way to get an official style guide for this? — DLManiac (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked at WP:ANI just now for uninvolved closure. Binksternet (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I just spent some time reading over all of this, and some valid points are made, but IMO there is nowhere near the appropriate participation for anyone to close this as anything as "no consensus". Should I take that as a sign that relatively few people care about it, or that they can't be bothered to read through and digest the arguments? --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The bigger question is why use these at all. Most of them are unsourced messes, attracting edit-wars and distract from the article in question. Lugnuts 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Trevor Menear for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trevor Menear is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trevor Menear until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gary Numan

I was going through Gary Numan's albums to figure out his primary instrument(s), (there's a long list in his infobox) and to my surprise I find this and this (I stopped there) I doubt he plays all these instruments on an album but, I do not know this artist well enough so I thought I'd leave a note here in hopes someone more acquainted could fix this or :P tell me it's correct. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Numan is quite a prolific musician and did record a lot by himself using any number of synths. In the 1990s he switched to guitars and a more industrial soinds. The list of instruments reflects this. Karst (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. I'd be curious if the album covers list those instrument also. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What ridiculous lists. These should really be trimmed down to something like "synthesizers" and a few others. Handclaps, really? --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Eminem

I believe Eminem's importance level should be increased to top importance from high importance.Abhinav0908 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor

At the article Meghan Trainor along with other articles related to the singer, a few editors insist on classifying her as a singer-songwriter rather than singer and songwriter (or singer, songwriter). A quick look at what a singer-songwriter actually is (see the Misplaced Pages article which is spot on ) proves that the definition does not apply. The nomenclature "describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition" as well as "musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. As opposed to contemporary pop music singers...Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano". None of this describes Trainor, a pop singer who co-writes her songs, performing them with full band backup. The same edit warriors keep returning to revert back to singer-songwriter. I feel as if I'm beating my head against a wall here. Any help and/or sensible discussion at the article talk pages of these articles (including this ) would be appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I glanced at a couple and it doesn't look like anyone has even opened a discussion. I see a discussion between two editors here but that's hardly anything you could call consensus. At any rate, personal opinions on whether she's a singer-songwriter have no bearing on the discussion. All that matters is what is stated in the preponderance of sources used in the article. We report what the sources say, not our own interpretations of whether she meets the definition. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing references up, Laser_brain - I forgot to add this to my original post here. No references attached to the nomenclature, and no reliable sources name her as such. Online, one can find singer/songwriter - but that is not the same (you will also find singer/songwriter/producer). Singer, songwriter and singer, songwriter, producer is found as well. No reliable sources to support the actual label/artistry genre singer-songwriter. As far as discussion, this issue was discussed back in January - as far as I recall, no consensus was reached, however, there were a number of editors who strongly objected to singer-songwriter in relation to Trainor based on the definition and lack of reliable sources supporting such. One more note: the article has been nominated for GA. Interestingly, the nominator claims here the singer songwriter issue was resolved "last year". This is untrue. My fear is the article will pass GA (along with Title (EP)) with the singer-songwriter label remaining. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The above user is speaking a big bald-faced lie. How the fuck can you say that there are no sources when and are all reliable sources already in the article? The above user's only problem is that I am actually improving these articles and their disruptive little streak-of-edits will be ruined if these reliably-sourced consensus-following pages are promoted to GA. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

To both of you, it's better to contain the discussion to one place (Talk:Meghan Trainor). Posting here to request advice on solving the conflict and to invite further participation is fine, but please don't let the argument spill into different venues. If you were trying to attract neutral comments, you might have the opposite effect. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• This was discussed a few months ago and consenus was clear that we can call her a singer-songwriter because many sources do. Nothing has changed since then. Just because you don't like her music (or the fans of her music) doesn't mean we can't call her a singer-songwriter. Calidum T|C 1:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Consensus can change. Even so, there was no clear consensus. The facts are that she isn't a singer-songwriter by definition and unbiased, reliable sources don't support her as a singer-songwriter. Further, don't adding bogus emotional reasoning and conclusions to my comments. I've never said, nor have I indicated, how I feel about Trainor's music. Using that as an argument is just distraction and completely unnecessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Consenus can change, but not if you can't come up with a better argument than what you've provided. In the January discussion linked above, where conensus was reached (consenus doesn't mean everyone agrees), references were provided to the NY Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic and Spin magazine, among others, who refer to her as a singer-songwriter. If you don't think those aren't reliable, I don't think you know what that word means. Calidum T|C 22:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If a reliable source refers to something scientific or medical or artistic some other specialized field of interest by incorrect nomenclature, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? For example: If a reliable source refers to someone as having melanoma when they really have carcinoma, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to a paleontological period as Cenozoic when it was really Jurassic, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to an artistic period as Renaissance when it is really Neoclassicism, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to the musical artistic classification in relation to a musical artist as a singer-songwriter when they are really a singer and a songwriter, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source?

The answer for all of these is: no. We use encyclopedic editorial reasoning along with common sense because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain facts, not incorrect content that is backed up by shoddy journalism. There is plenty of evidence via other reliable sources that Meghan Trainor is a singer and a songwriter. Those sources are correct. The sources that say she is a singer-songwriter are wrong. Bottom line. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR Calidum T|C 01:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WV, that goes against WP's core content policies. Lapadite (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it is in line with WP:COMMON SENSE, WP:EDITDISC, and WP:IAR. While not policy, each of those essays are applicable in this situation, Lapadite77. Because humans are fallible, policy isn't always applicable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please ignore the forum shopping user above. A clear consensus against their cause has now developed at Talk:Meghan Trainor. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 14:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Project-Class biography pages
• Project-Class biography (musicians) pages
• NA-importance biography (musicians) pages
• Musicians work group articles