Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 23 April 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article 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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Progressive Rock Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Percussion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Percussion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Percussion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PercussionWikipedia:WikiProject PercussionTemplate:WikiProject PercussionPercussion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Pop music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

Restoring what had been improved post 2 May 2014

I have restored the improvements made to the article that were, for an unknown reason, rereverted. This includes removing unverified content (as per BLP guidelines), removal of content not specifically pertinent to the article subject, and improved prose that had previously been too wordy, too stilted, and extraneous. All of the citation quotes attached to the sources that were recently added/re-added have been left alone, of course. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is it possible to collapse the quotations in the reference list? Walls of text in references are something I've never seen before; it seems like overkill to me, but could be remedied if they were collapsible. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The quotations are rather lengthy. Part of the problem seems to be the reuse of sources. If each use of a source quoted only what was necessary to support that individual citation, then it would reduce the need for walls of text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Each reference is used multiple times in the article due to different parts of each source being relevant for different sections of the article. I made sure only the sentences paraphrased from the sources are included in the citation. They aren't from one particular block of text from the sources but are rather individual sentences or strings of sentences placed in the same "|quote=" tag and separated by double quotation marks. As mentioned above, separating each sentence/string of relevant sentences from each sources with their own "|quote=" tag made them all invisible. Perhaps that would be the best method; I could get to that as soon as possible, as I know where each "|quote=" would go.

I think the greater issue is why an entire section of information with newspaper article reference was removed (see: ). It seems, after agreeing that the article should have been reverted to the 3:32, May 2, 2014 version, we now have the disputed version again but with the quotations from the text imported (see comparison: ). Vuzor (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been more explicit. What I'm saying is that instead of using refnames, you could repeatedly cite the same article and only include the relevant quote for each specific citation. This would mean that instead of <ref name=source1> ... </ref>}}, you'd use two (or three or whatever) <ref> ... </ref> citations to the same source. It would increase the number of citations, but it would make each citation more readable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, NinjaRobotPirate. I see what you mean.

The page version does still appear to be an issue, though. Based on our discussion thus far, it appears both Fuhghettaboutit and myself agree the content from the 3:32, May 2, 2014 revision should be kept. There is no legitimate reason to remove that content. The RfC above might have served that purpose. Both you and TheRedPenOfDoom appear to have suggested that we revert to that version and keep all of the removed content. Do we require consensus for this or have we already reached a conclusion? What are your thoughts? Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be an issue to anyone except you. And no, that isn't what Fuhg said. He didn't agree with you that the May 2nd version should be reinstated, he wanted the content restored that had been removed because of the locked/unavailable references. He said it in his comments to me here ("Does that mean you're going to revert your removals?") as well as in the premise of the RfC ("Should the cited content removed on the basis stated in the RFC title be returned to the article?"). No where in either of those places did he mention the May 2nd version of the article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Edit summary from Fuhghettaboutit's revision, which you promptly reverted: (see: ):

Revision as of 03:28, 17 May 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs)

(Revert to version of 03:32, May 2, 2014, which AFAICT, was last b/f large scale removal of sources began on the invalid basis that sources that are unavailable online somehow means the information is "poorly sourced" or "unverifiable")

My comment in the threaded discussion links to various diffs from after 03:32, May 2, 2014 in which content was removed.Vuzor (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he said. THEN. What he said later by no means indicated he wanted that done again. I note you have started edit warring again, under the guise of fixing references. You have restored your preferred version. Ninja told you not to edit war -- you ignored that advice. You are disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. My hope is that User:Fuhghettaboutit will step in at this point. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The original dispute does seem to be whether offline sources are reliable in a BLP. Obviously, they are. If we've moved beyond that, which it seems we have, then the new debate seems to be whether a certain bulk copy edit is helpful or not. This edit seems to remove several sources, but for different reasons than before. I'm not 100% clear on what the reason is, and it seems that others are equally confused. Exactly what problems does this edit fix? I would beware of edit warring to reinstate this edit, as there does not seem to be consensus for it. I'm not clear on what exactly the RfC is supposed to be about, either, because it seems to be addressing the previous dispute and this dispute at the same time, possibly conflating them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the citations to reflect the latest proposal, NinjaRobotPirate. Unfortunately, this appears to bloat the reference section as well. If, in the future, the article is expanded with further newspaper citations, we could have a fairly enormous reference section. Vuzor (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Most articles don't require each citation to contain a quotation. Is it necessary to have them here? It makes editing the article much more difficult, and it serves to further verify what should already be considered entirely verifiable, reliable sources by default. The quotations have been provided as a courtesy, per Darouet's suggestion above. Vuzor (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever necessary. Some people appreciate it, though. Are any of the newspapers on Google News Archive? That would solve the problem of not having access. By the way, the IMDB and About.com generally aren't reliable sources. Normally, I'd remove them on sight, but this seems like an exception. I'd rather not inflame tensions. At this point, I think it's best that we discuss any removal of sources. There's been a bit too much unilateral action already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant newspaper issues in the Google News Archive database for this article seem to stop in the late 1980s to early 1990s. My guess is that it's a business decision involving some of these databases. Most of the newspaper sources used in this article are dated between 1999 and 2005, so they unfortunately aren't available there. The Vancouver Sun archive in that database, for instance, ends on Feb 28, 1987. The About.com source is useful as it tells us where the 2008 single "Unconditional" debuted at on the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart. The Billboard issue for September 6, 2008 (available on Google Books here: ) only lists the Top 25 that month (page 52), and the full chart for that week is locked behind Billboard's own chart subscription service at Billboard.biz. There doesn't appear to be an alternative.

The removal of sources has become a kind of common occurrence around here. I agree with your comment, NinjaRobotPirate. Also, the columns certainly help. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the about.com source seems fine in that context. Hopefully, we can find a better one to replace it. I tried checking, and I didn't see anything. You'd think there'd be better details online somewhere. I did find a better source for the IMDB citation, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As solicited above, I should make it clear I am not and never was dead set on reversion to any particular point. I chose the point I did simply because it appeared to be a good place from before the larger removal of newspaper cited content at the time when they were all out, but I did not (and have not) vetted other removals, i.e., now that the newspaper sources have been restored, I have not checked whether any other material removed should be also restored and absolutely agree we should not have poorly sourced statements in a BLP (but I hope everyone is clear when I say "poorly sourced", I'm referring to actually poorly sourced – blogs, fan forums, self-published sources, etc. and not any content cited to a source that happens to be unavailable for free online). The quotes are rather over the top, but if they function as an edit warring curb, so be it. At this point is there any content still removed that anyone feels should be returned? If I might suggest some structure, if anyone wants anything in particular returned, it might be a good idea to take each one up on a case-by-case basis: quote what content should be returned, maybe what diff it was removed in, and if not clear, what it was sourced to (with the understanding, of course, that WP:BURDEN is always at play).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, if you haven't seen it already, please read my comments in the section directly below this one re: restoration of the version Vuzor reverted in the early morning hours. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cleaner, more concise wording, etc.

Following Vuzor's edit-warring reversion to the wordier and less reader-friendly version of the article, I have restored the previous cleaner version.

The newer version has more concise wording absent of extraneous, stilted language and wordiness. Content not directly related to article subject as well as content that was fansite-like in nature has also been removed. Not one reference was touched. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Per your comment above, and since there's been such back and forth on the article, I think it would make a lot of sense that specific edits be suggested here – exactly what text should be added and where or existing text should be changed to what, or if a return of former content no longer present, again, exactly what or the diff of the removal suggested reversed – but can everyone please just comment on the merits of the particular edit, and not on each other's past conduct?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Precisely what I was hoping to happen the last time I restored the pared down content and started a discussion on it. If there are still objections to the content in the article as it now stands, it seems prudent to me that specific content be looked at in a systematic and organized manner. And, as you stated Fuhg, without commenting on contributors and past behavior. Which is as it should be. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, Winkelvi has accused me of 'edit warring' for an edit made, I believe, at 5:20, 19 May, 2014. An accusation of edit warring was posted on my talk page earlier today (see: ). Did NinjaRobotPirate not just say "At this point, I think it's best that we discuss any removal of sources. There's been a bit too much unilateral action already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)" and "This edit seems to remove several sources, but for different reasons than before. I'm not 100% clear on what the reason is, and it seems that others are equally confused. Exactly what problems does this edit fix?... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)"? I provided you with all of the quotations in good faith yesterday, but it appears you still are accusatory of others. I ask that you stop so that we may proceed civilly.

The following information relates to the edits in question. This type of content removal has happened on many occasions before: the removal of material related to the article subject on the basis of it being "not directly related to article subject" and on the basis of, as you have termed it in the past, "fansite material/fancruft." These claims are, frankly, another example of a potential misunderstanding of what is and is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. The edits you have made to this article have included the removal of the material noted here: (see: , , , , , , , and ). This content is directly related to the subject's life. This type of content removal has happened on many occasions over the past year without any solid basis. It has progressed to the point of being a form of censorship. Meanwhile, in the edits currently being discussed, you have added to the article "By January 2014, Kerzner and Nordstrom had both left the group." in your revision, which, to me, seems less about the article subject than the content you removed. Your editing of these articles seems to suggest some form of editorial bias or personal opinion of the article subject, stripping lots of relevant content. Vuzor (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like advice from some of the other editors involved in this discussion. Is an RfC required for each bit of content removed? How might we approach this in the future? This type of hostile dispute happens every time an addition is made to these pages. This is a dilemma that has plagued this article and its affiliated articles. Vuzor (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor, the only way I can see to move forward in a way that can actually result in fruitful collaboration is to do what I suggested above: make specific suggestions about specific content, noting what should go where/what should be returned and to stop commenting on who did what when. Maybe you're absolutely right, or maybe not or something in between, but I don't think the path above is likely to further the ultimate goal – that goal being making the article better. Your post above does contain two diffs and the context seems to indicate you want them returned but they're buried among something else entirely; they appear to be cited solely for the purpose proving a point about conduct, rather than article improvement. I really think the focus needs to shift. Do you think I'm wrong?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I think you're entirely correct, although I did wish to briefly mention the context of this dispute in my comment above, the point being that this scenario repeats itself quite frequently. I would like comments on the diffs posted above (re-posted here: , , , , , , , and ). On what grounds were they removed from the article? Is this content not related to the subject article and not deemed relevant to the subject's life? What is the purpose of these removals, and how does it benefit the article? Do the benefits of these removals outweigh the negatives (such as the loss of relevant information pertaining to the article subject)? I propose the return of the removed content featured in the diffs above.

Also, what is the purpose of this addition, relative to the rest of the article (see: ). The edit summary here says:

Revision as of 23:06, 19 May 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Winkelvi (talk | contribs)

(restoring cleaner, more concise wording absent of extraneous, stilted language and wordiness, removing content not directly related to article subject and/or fan-site like in nature)

Yet its only change is the addition of "By January 2014, Kerzner and Nordstrom had both left the group", which has nothing to do with the article subject himself and has no known input from him. I propose its removal as it is irrelevant and only serves to infer that the subject article was directly involved in that process. We do not have any information to support what this passage might infer in the context of being in this article (i.e. the unsupported notion that they left directly because of Collins. Other sources state it was an amicable split, and we are unclear if Kelly Nordstrom ever left the band (he wrote/recorded in-studio with them and this may be a studio-only project for him)). The Sound of Contact article already features the content in that diff in a more appropriate place. Vuzor (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The section is about Sound of Contact. Kerzner and Nordstrom leaving the band changed the dynamic of the band. Additionally, for it to happen within such a short time in the band's history, it's notable. Especially considering they were half of the band's first members. Both Kerzner and Nordstrom are mentioned prominently in the beginning of the section. For all those reasons, it should stay in. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, we are unclear if Nordstrom ever left the band. No announcement was ever made, and this post by Nordstrom on his Facebook on April 24, 2014 suggests he is still in contact with the band (). He is listed on their Facebook page as part of their studio lineup. His status with the band is vague. The passage about Kerzner and Nordstrom has little to do with Collins himself personally and more to do with the band article, where the information is already present. By placing it in this article, we infer that Collins' reaction with the two members caused them to leave, something we have no evidence of. To have happened "within such in a short time" makes no difference to its relevance to Collins unless the point is to infer that he was the reason for their departure (which we have no proof of and in fact have contrary evidence against that suggestion. Kerzner's announcement was of an amicable split so he could concentrate on his company and other projects, and Nordstrom, whose status with the band is vague, states "It was my pleasure to have spent the evening with my fellow Dimensionauts Simon Collins and Matt Dorsey last night. I love you guys and will be eternally grateful for the magic Sound of Contact" in his Facebook post dated three weeks ago). The passage has no place in this particular article. I propose its removal. Vuzor (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This, from the Sound of Contact webpage, makes it pretty clear Nordstrom is not a bandmember:

Band Members:

Simon Collins – Lead Vocals, Drums, Co-producer

Dave Kerzner – Keyboards, Acoustic Guitar, Backing Vocals, Co-producer

Matt Dorsey – Guitars, Bass, Backing Vocals

Studio Collaborators:

Kelly Nordstrom – Guitars, Bass

Hannah Stobart – Guest vocals on “Beyond Illumination”

You can see it yourself here: . Nordstrom is no more a member of the band anymore than Hannah Stobart is. We know Kerzner left the band, it's all over the internet, so his name still being listed as a band member isn't an issue. Whether Kerzner leaving was amicable or not doesn't matter as far as the content stating he left the band is concerned. There's nothing in what it says in the article about them leaving that even implies their departure was anything other than amicable. It's a very neutral statement of fact. Which is what NPOV encyclopedic content is supposed to be. Again, the section is about SOC. That two of the original four band members have left the band is notable in the history of the band and the history of Collins' association with both of them as original, founding members. Both men are mentioned prominently in the section on SOC prior to the mention of their departure. There is no undue weight ascribed to the mention of them leaving, and it's very appropriate. The content should stay. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose a compromise. The primary issue regarding that passage is that readers may take it out of context or that it may be misconstrued, as relating it to Collins as it does currently, suggests he was directly involved in their departure from the band or was a primary influence. The compromise: We expand that sentence to describe the context behind the departure of both members. On the Sound of Contact page, a passage describing the same information reads: "In early January 2014, Kerzner announced his departure from the band, expressing a desire to concentrate on his company Sonic Reality and pursue his own music projects." That sentence very clearly defines the reasons in order to avoid any misunderstanding on the part of the reader. I propose we use that sentence or a slight variation of it in place of the current passage. In addition, we may use the source you provided (the band's members page) to identify Nordstrom as remaining a studio collaborator. He certainly was identified as a band member in all reports until just recently, when his status appears to have changed to "studio collaborator." Nothing states that he actually left the band. As such, he may not in fact have even left the band and may be considered a studio collaborator. The situation appears to be unique. Revising that sentence to contextualize their departures is a reasonable compromise. Agree? Vuzor (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It's adding undue weight. I'm confused: first you wanted it completely gone, now you want to expand it? That makes no sense to me. I don't see how anyone reading the simple, matter-of-fact, concise statement that Kerzner and Nordstrom left the band means anything other than they left the band. If people want to know more, they can go to the SOC article or Kerzner's article or the SOC website. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence can be misconstrued. That is the point I am getting at. The sentence is not "In January 2014, Kerzner had left the band while Dorsey and Collins remained full-time members." The sentence is "By January 2014, Kerzner and Nordstrom had both left the group", which infers a reason related to the article subject. It is irrelevant to Collins himself because there is no evidence of his participation or influence leading to the actions of those two individuals. I gave us a second option, though, assuming your reasons to keep the sentence in have merit. If we are to include that information about Kerzner and Nordstrom in this article, it must be supplemented with a small bit of brief contextual information to prevent a misunderstanding on behalf of the reader. Both options are still open, and I ask that others comment on this as well as the diffs mentioned above in this discussion. Vuzor (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Such a sentence, with only the facts contained within and no editorializing or POV, can only be misconstrued by someone reading into it and adding what isn't there. Which is true for any content with only facts stated, no editorializing or POV. We can't predict or control what people will read into any content in Misplaced Pages even when it's written as plainly and and facts-only and unbiased as the content in question is. It's not irrelevant to Collins when it comes to the section it's in. The content is about Sound of Contact in a section specifically about Sound of Contact. I've already stated my reasons for keeping it, and I stand by that reasoning. It doesn't need anything else other than what it is, it's plain, simple, and self-explanatory, and adding anything else along the lines of what you want to add would be undue weight. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the proposed rephrasing of the sentence would be considered "undue weight" (see: WP:BALASPS). From the section on undue weight: It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. Context is the key word there. Context is as key as the fact itself; without context, we can not understand what that statement means and the very point of the policy (neutrality) is ignored. Context prevents misunderstandings. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view's summary states: "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." I would like other editors to discuss (1) whether the passage should be removed; (2) if the passage is to remain, if rephrasing of the sentence to something akin to "In January 2014, Kerzner left the band to pursue other projects" should occur to provide greater context. Mention of Nordstrom is unnecessary, as there is no actual source to confirm if he ever left the band (the safest, most reliable title for him since opting out of being a full-time member is "studio collaborator"). Vuzor (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Other editors are welcome to comment, of course. But why can't this be worked out between just us two? What if no one else comments? Then what?

My bet is that there are editors/administrators watching this and are waiting to see what happens. They may even have popcorn and a soft-drink by their side as they watching this unfold, intentionally not commenting in order to see if something positive can come of interactions between you and I. That's my bet, but that's just me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? We have nowhere else to go with this discussion because we've both given our opinions and we both stand firmly behind our beliefs (although I proposed a compromise; I suppose that was my shot at working this out between us independently; we have a third option now). I don't think we can go any further between just the two of us. There isn't much room to negotiate because we only have a limited number of possible options. I recommend that we wait to hear their comments before we continue this discussion. Vuzor (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine then. We will wait for others to comment. As long as you realize that what's disputed and being discussed can't be reverted or changed while the dispute/discussion is still occurring. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is true. Hopefully we both understand this. The process should be as follows: we wait for outside comments, an agreement is reached, then we make the required alterations to conform to the conclusion. Vuzor (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Outside view

Well, I see a few outstanding issues here. The biggest one seems to be whether it's proper to discuss the history of the band in Collins' bio. I don't think that's especially important. Unless these events directly tie in to Collins himself, I don't really see how it's important whether founding members are in the band or out. For example, if Collins was directly responsible for their departure, then I'd say that it should be included. Otherwise, it's best covered in more appropriate articles.

After I saw the LGBT banner above, I went to the article to search for why it was added. I didn't see any mention of sexual orientation in the article except for an unsourced claim of bisexuality in the categories. This needs to be fixed. Labeling people without a source is quite contentious. I did a cursory search myself, but I didn't see anything obvious in the first few pages of Google results. Normally, I'd do a more extensive search, but I really don't think it should be my job to locate sources for unsourced claims in a BLP.

Somewhat unrelated to the above debate, I think the quotations could be trimmed down substantially. An ellipsis can be used to indicate missing text. For example, instead of writing, "Collins, who moved here from London, England with his mother when he was eight, has been far more influenced by the punk revival and the grunge explosion than by his father's solo music.", you might write, "Collins has been far more influenced by the punk revival and the grunge explosion than by his father's solo music."

And I think one of the biggest reasons why nobody else is posting is because every time a discussion begins on this talk page, it quickly spirals into back-and-forth accusations and insults. We're all quite aware of how you both feel. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

All good points, NRP. First, I also did a search for a reliable source that mentions Collins' sexuality. Nothing. Because this is a BLP, and nothing definitive exists that is readily available to support such a label, it needs to go immediately. I will be removing the LGBT banner right after I'm done with commenting here. Obviously, if a reliable source is ever found, it can be added back in the article with suitable and appropriate content to match.

Next, I TOTALLY agree about the quotations. Personally, I hate them and as they are, the references list is horribly cluttered and unreadable. Who would want to read that wall of text?

Last, as far as the SOC section, I have no problem with it being cut down considerably. Like you, I'm a minimalist in articles. That's a big part of the reason why I have been diligent about cutting out extraneous language, content, and the like that just isn't necessary in this article (and the others associated with Collins). I recall a line from the film Amadeus that I've always loved (as spoken by Jeffrey Jones who was portraying the emperor of Austria): "And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect". In the case of this article, there have been too many words. And too many words is not (usually) a good thing. My suggestion for trimming the section down is this:

"In late 2009, Collins, Kerzner, bassist Matt Dorsey, and guitarist Kelly Nordstrom decided to form a new band, Sound of Contact. The band's first album, Dimensionaut, was released in May 2013."

Simple, to the point. Nothing about the history other than when they started and with whom. As pertinent events occur to SOC, it can be added later if appropriate.

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully comment, NinjaRobotPirate. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The LGBT information, I believe, was added a really long time ago when the article was in its very early stages (several years ago?). I recall seeing a source confirming it, but I suppose it had been removed at some point. A quick Google search for "simon collins bisexual" brings up this page as its first result: . It appears to be an article about Collins in an online newspaper catered to an LGBT demographic called Xtra. I recall seeing it around here, but it must have disappeared for whatever reason. One quotation from it reads: "Collins, who is bisexual, hinted at his sexual identity on his single, "Pride," on his debut album All of Who You Are, released five years ago." Another reads, ""I've always been pretty open about my sexuality. I have a girlfriend right now. Before that, I had a boyfriend," he adds." I think that's a worthwhile source to legitimate the existence of the LGBT banner.

Bebb Studios, a Vancouver wedding photography company, has a video slideshow on their official YouTube page detailing Collins' marriage to a woman named Britta Dansereau (see: ). If there is a section about his recent personal life, his sexual orientation and marriage information may be relevant.

The quotations in the references list don't appear to be necessary, as some editors have expressed. They were added as a courtesy for those wanting confirmation about their reliability, at the suggestion of another editor, but if the consensus is that they are excessive, feel free to remove them.

In terms of the Sound of Contact section, I think any of the major events Collins was directly involved in with the band are relevant to the article: the band's formation, Collins' contributions to the band, what Collins was doing at the time of the band's existence, the chronological events involving him. Without that, we erase about five years of Collins' life from the article (and presumably more, since it looks like Collins will be a member of the band for a while). I think the basic chronological events involving Simon require mention in the article; i.e. a concise summary of the contents in the main articles for Sound of Contact and Dimensionaut. Information about Kerzner leaving doesn't have anything to do with Collins directly. I thought the previous version of the section was sufficient. If we trim the section down to two sentences, it isn't much of a section at all. Feel free to comment. Vuzor (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, not only are we discussing the addition of that sentence and what content to include/remove from the Sound of Contact section. The diffs regarding other areas of the article are also available above. Comments are requested for those as well. Vuzor (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality: The LGBT newspaper you provided a link to seems to be a reliable source, so something can be said about Collins' sexuality and the LGBT project page banner can be left on this page.

Quotations: No one said they weren't necessary, it was suggested to pare them down. Which is a great idea.

SOC section: My feeling is that either the SOC section should be pared down as NRP suggested (and I provided an example of) or leave it as it is now. But definitely NOT adding to it.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotations: In my previous comment in the discussion above at 05:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC), I asked if quotations in the newspaper references were necessary. NinjaRobotPirate stated, "I don't think it's ever necessary. Some people appreciate it, though... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)". If the consensus is to pare them down, though, that's a possible option as well.

SOC section: The SOC section should include all content involving Collins (including his involvement with the band, events he participates in during this time, contributions to the band, etc). I think the only content that should be removed is the information about Kerzner leaving the band, as it is not relevant to Collins himself and has no verifiable connection to him (there is no evidence that he was responsible for Kerzner's departure; in fact, we have evidence of the contrary). NRP's comment specifically states, "Unless these events directly tie in to Collins himself, I don't really see how it's important whether founding members are in the band or out. For example, if Collins was directly responsible for their departure, then I'd say that it should be included... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)" The comment was directed specifically at the scope of information that should be included in the article. I believe information pertaining to Collins should be kept (the section as it is now sans the last sentence about Kerzner's departure). Vuzor (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's really quite unnecessary for you to keep copying and pasting other people's comments. Unnecessary and a waste of bandwidth. I note you are taking what NRP said and suggesting he agrees with you, as if there is now a consensus. Wikilawyering can be fun, but it's really a waste of time. And a waster of more bandwidth. How about we just worry about what each of us thinks individually rather than taking the words of others and trying to make them fit an agenda?

• NRP said that the section is heavy on what's pertinent to others rather than what's pertinent to Collins. I agree with that and provided a new version of that section as a proposal for changing it to what NRP suggested.
• If that isn't to your liking, I propose we keep the section as it is and not add to the content on Kerzner and Nordstrom leaving the band. Considering the points NRP brought up about the section, adding to it as it is would be a digression and not an improvement. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? You stated nobody has said in our discussion that 'quotations in the references were unnecessary.' I posted the quotation in case you missed that, as it was indeed mentioned. That's just stating a fact. Considering it appears we interpret NinjaRobotPirate's comments differently, quotations help. I'm surprised you take offense to it. I don't think a miniscule amount of bandwidth is of concern to anybody when we factor in all of the other discussions happening on Misplaced Pages on a constant basis. The quotations are meant to clarify any confusion and make the relevant points in our discussion more accessible. It's offensive to accuse someone of "trying to make them fit an agenda" and of "Wikilawyering." This discussion should not be hostile, yet you appear to be trying to provoke a reaction. That is Misplaced Pages:Assume bad faith.

I don't believe your interpretation of NinjaRobotPirate's comment is what was actually said. NRP commented on the type of content that should be included in the SOC section (in no place above does NinjaRobotPirate discuss or even mention the overall balance of the content in the section). I think NRP should speak about this and clarify, since it appears one of us does not understand. Vuzor (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He said history of the band in an article on Collins isn't "especially important". I take that as him saying he would get rid of it. He said that Kerzner and Nordstrom's departure isn't necessary as it isn't directly related to Collins. I take that as him saying he would get rid of that, too. Without those elements, what's left is what I proposed. If anyone wants to read/know more about SoC, they can easily click on the internal link and read the SoC article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Unless these events directly tie in to Collins himself, I don't really see how it's important whether founding members are in the band or out. For example, if Collins was directly responsible for their departure, then I'd say that it should be included... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)". Any information about the band pertaining to Collins should be kept (including (but not limited to): the band's formation (to provide the section context), the development of the project (of which he was involved and an active participant in), the events he participated in (tours, performances), recognition and awards he (along with the band) may receive). Any noteworthy chronological event (with the band) involving Collins documents what he was doing at that time; that is relevant information. For example, if he was on tour with the band, that is a part of his life. If he (along with the band) released an album, that is a part of his life. The information about Kerzner's departure is not directly related to Collins (i.e. Kerzner could have hypothetically packed up and left without ever saying a word to Collins and without influence from Collins) -- so why keep it in the article? Vuzor (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at the article on the band Spock's Beard. Comparable to SoC musically. Then look at the articles on each of the band's members. Do you see anything as overwritten as the Simon Collins article is at the articles on those band members? Do you see anything at those articles that has anything more than a few words regarding Spock's Beard? I sure don't. Quod erat demonstratum. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Suddenly, the conversation has shifted to being about an allegedly "overdeveloped" section of the article? You've cited the Spock's Beard band member articles, which are severely underdeveloped (for example, the Dave Meros article uses bullet points. The Ryo Okumoto article is a stub). I don't see the point in comparing this article to poorly-developed ones when the objective is to develop it into a more complete article. A top-importance musician biography, Bono, features a significant section on U2. An FA-class article, Roger Waters, features a large section on Pink Floyd. Carlos Santana features a large section on his band, Santana (band). FA-class article Paul McCartney has large sections on The Beatles and Wings (band). These articles contain all relevant information about the musicians' band projects. A minimalistic approach would have stripped away a lot of the material required to make Roger Waters and Paul McCartney FA-class articles; if the content pertains to Collins or involves him, it should stay. You are introducing a completely new issue to this discussion by discussing levels of development. We are deviating from the original point of this discussion: the diffs. Levels of development and types of appropriate content, however, are some of the overarching themes of our disputes. Vuzor (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeesh, you two need to take a break for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussions like this have gone on for over a year about a lot of different content. There is a complete lack of progress. I wish a break would help, but breaks have been tried in the past also. Everything is disputed on these articles. I've discussed this already in this and previous discussions; this isn't something a break can fix. Vuzor (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you're comparing Simon Collins and SoC with the HUGE names and ICONIC bands of classic rock you listed. Thanks for the laugh. It's clear you totally missed the point of why I chose Spock's Beard and its musicians to compare to Collins and SoC. It's because the band's music is in the same genre and all musicians similar in their newness and their lack of significant history. Hence, my "overwritten" comment.

NRP, I have no problem taking a break from this. I am leaving tomorrow to travel across the country to be with family and attend my mother-in-law's funeral. I may make an appearance or two here if I have time, but will definitely have no time for this "discussion" or wading through Vuzor's walls of text and Wikilawyering until some time next week. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 09:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Such descriptions of the discussion (i.e. "walls of text") are only meant to provoke. If you are unwilling to hear the justifications from the explanations I have provided, it will be difficult to proceed. There is no basis for choosing the Spock's Beard articles unless you are suggesting new articles have a content limit and need to be underdeveloped. The Dave Meros article has multiple flags; surely that is not your ideal example of what "new" articles should look like, is it? If it is, then "minimalistic" must mean to reduce to nothing, which is what you have attempted to do on many occasions. The Spock's Beard article itself says that band was formed in 1992, so your point about newness is invalid. You are simply comparing this article with some very poorly-developed ones to justify that it should be more similar to them. That is laughable. We are trying to improve the article, not worsen it. Are you an extreme minimalist? FA-articles demonstrate the qualities of a good article. They show all of the important building blocks of a good article. We should be moving in that direction, not in the direction of the Dave Meros, Ryo Okumoto, and Jimmy Keegan articles. I'm seriously starting to think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes a good biographical article. Vuzor (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

TLDR -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's try to stay focused on one minor thing at a time for now like Fug suggested. If we can solve minor controversies first, then maybe we can work on the bigger ones. I picked on topic – band line-up changes – and suggested that we either tie to Collins or leave it to the band's article. If we can't tie a topic back to Collins, then it's probably not appropriate, but there's no reason to go around gutting he article. This really isn't a very large, detailed, or poorly written article. Look at Babylon 5 influences for something that needs to be gutted. I've been meaning to get around to that for a year now, but I can't bring myself to wade into that mass of original research and poor writing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. How do you suggest we proceed? Do we require any further steps before acting upon this conclusion? Vuzor (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We need a consensus. I don't see one yet. And in all fairness, the right thing to do would be to wait to make any changes until I return mid-next week from my trip to my mother in law's funeral. I am just as invested in this article as you are, Vuzor. There is no deadline and waiting for those truly invested to thoughtfully comment toward consensus will not hurt anything. It would be the deceng thing to do as well as show a cooperative editing spirit and good faith. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 09:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is an RfC required?

"Is an RfC required for each bit of content removed?" No. Just talk about it and discuss. And leave personalities and talking about editors out of it. As Fuhg already stated below. STOP talking about editors, talk about edits. Talking about edits is what improves the encyclopedia. Talking about editors does not.

Vuzor, be sure you know and understand this: Any past (or near-present) behavior of mine you bring up, anything that is a quotation from something I said previously, anything that is about me as an editor or in any other form, I will NOT respond to. It will be ignored as it has nothing to do with editing this article. Fuhg has already asked that you not engage in such, he's asked that edits and content be discussed - nothing else. I see no reason why anything else needs to be talked about other than content and edits, obviously Fuhg feels the same way. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We have tried that in the past. It ends up becoming two editors disagreeing entirely about the MOS and what type of content is appropriate. Any edit by me, as proven already, is reverted promptly by you and no conclusion can be reached. Clearly, we very much disagree and, as was the case in our discussion about unverifiable content, outside mediation was absolutely required to reach any form of civil agreement. This happens very often -- as frequently as article revisions occur on regularly-maintained articles. As mentioned, an unnecessary, unwarranted edit war notice has been posted on my talk page for a revision that, as a courtesy for you, included all of the quotations from each article reference. Vuzor (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that an echo chamber of two people (who've disagreed a lot) probably requires outside input. I will try to look at the diffs you posted above, as at least a third voice but I hope some others will also. I have an article at FAC right now, and another that I absolutely must work on because it's got some real problems and will be going to DYK soon and I must fix it (and I've not been able to be online consistently the last few days which is going to continue for a while).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Since this page was getting quite long and discussions went back to over a year ago, I have created an article talk page archive named Talk:Simon Collins/Archive 1. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not trivia but how astronomy affected themes in Collin's Music

"Collins enjoys astronomy and has an interest in social issues. These themes have found their way into his music. "He was born in London but moved to Vancouver when he was eight with his sister, Gemini-winning actress Joely, and mother Andrea, his father's first wife. It was there that Collins developed a passion for astronomy and social issues – themes that dominate his website, lyrics and liner notes for Time For Truth.""

This quoted section from the article is not "trivia about a hobby" but an explanation about how things he enjoyed in his early life have affected the themes that are now found in his music.

" These themes have found their way into his music."

The following quote and cited inline citation give referral to the source.

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The content doesn't belong in the early life section, yet you are edit warring over inappropriately placed content and disruptively revert it back in? Why? Cited or not, it's in the wrong place. Continuing to put it back in is plainly disruptive and does nothing to improve the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Progressive rock articles
• Low-importance Progressive rock articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Start-Class Percussion articles
• Unknown-importance Percussion articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Unassessed Pop music articles
• Unknown-importance Pop music articles
• Pop music articles