This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evanescence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	Evanescence is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
	Evanescence has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 31, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed December 4, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted November 2, 2016 Peer review Reviewed March 11, 2018 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Alternative music Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal Rock music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Evanescence (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evanescence, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.EvanescenceWikipedia:WikiProject EvanescenceTemplate:WikiProject EvanescenceEvanescence

In March 27, the single and lyric video "Afterlife" by Evanescence featured in the Netflix's Devil May Cry series soundtrack was released. The music video was released in April 17, including references of "Bring Me to Life" and "Going Under" music videos.

I would accept WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument were yours not the only deviation from the entire de facto standard. The timeline was fine at the time the band's article was listed at GA almost eight years ago (my work–not to be confused with WP:OWN, as I am simply asserting I am familiar with the article's history), though at that time the band's members were in a separate list that has since been merged to the band. You can see that timeline in this diff.

To the contrary of your statement, instrument order is long-established and easy to understand. Readers of band biographies have learned through time that chronology for bands is better understood when band members are grouped by their role in the band. Chronological order focuses on the identity of who's in the band, which isn't helpful; when people look for these timelines, they look for how the role has evolved over time, and chronological order makes this harder to read. It is a bunch of distracting colors all over the place, frankly looking more like a 1910s Kandinsky painting if I'm being honest. Its structure never should have been changed in the first place. You can't change it from a long-established consensus and just say "this is the way we're doing it now" and say I'm edit warring when I try to go back to the long-established timeline that didn't have anything actually wrong with it. If anything, you should have been the one to propose a completely different presentation of the timeline!

You are in fact the one with the point of view push. The only thing "arbitrary" about our existing rule of thumb is the order in which roles are represented: typically it goes vocals, guitar, bass, drums, unless someone does something weird and rare like Tim switched instruments. When roles overlap, it may vary what's the bigger line, but that's not what I'm debating, and if you have follow-up questions about that I will happily explain.

In conclusion: don't fix what's not broken by taking approaches entirely unique to you because you don't like how chronology is presented. Stick to the status quo. As for the band member list, I'd be more open to changing that if you'd compromise on that, but to the best of my knowledge the two in practice do typically contradict each other. mftp dan ^oops 14:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "instrument order" as there is no objectivity or rule as to which instrument is more important to be placed in a position above another instrument. That is arbitrary and subjective. We should not personally determine that guitar, or drums, or vocals or piano should go first, second, third, etc, in what is supposed to be a timeline, which by definition prescribes chronology. Chronological order is the only objective WP:NPOV order, as also reflected in the member list above the image. As you alluded to, the list and image shouldn't contradict each other. Member lists have always been in chronological order. And a timeline image is merely a supplementary visual.

And as I noted, there is no guideline on this therefore there is no community-wide official "standard", which is what a guideline is. WP articles are free to arrange content in the way that best serves each respective article/topic, in accordance with WP's policies and guidelines and in the spirit of WP:IAR where necessary. I would like to hear why exactly you think presenting a band member list by arbitrarily and subjectively grouping instruments is better than presenting it in simple and impartial chronological order. Lapadite (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you why. Whether you agree we should have or not I'll abstain from arguing for or against, but I will say is irrelevant, because at this point that order has, de facto, long been decided and is widespread to the point of ubiquity. In turn, this structure is better because it helps people follow a descending order of like instruments rather than trying to follow a disorganized mess that is strictly time. People do not want to see a linear timeline which exclusively follows time, as yours shows; grouping it by instrument is easier to understand because it is easier to tell how one role has evolved over time, which is what readers actually look for. You get only one of these things without causing confusion with the way you currently have it, but the roles are being interrupted by other instruments. To tell you the truth, the purpose of the "timeline" is not singular, and perhaps it would be helpful for you to think of it as several timelines of individual instruments/roles in one table.

I don't know how else to explain it to you, making your own rules for a timeline confuses the hell out of anyone who regularly looks at Wikipedia band articles, but from what I can observe you edit pop music otherwise so you don't see these much. Just because there's a loophole doesn't mean you ought to exploit it. Wouldn't you expect that I might have a a clue what I'm talking about instead of immediately doubting me? I really find your lack of awareness and unwillingness to listen to feedback on Evanescence related subject matter irritating, not just this matter, so if you don't understand here I'm going to have to escalate it to a wider audience. I promise you, everyone is going to agree your approach is incorrect.

I once again reiterate: You can't change it from a long-established consensus and just say "this is the way we're doing it now" and say I'm the one edit warring when I try to go back to the long-established timeline that didn't have anything actually wrong with it. That just isn't how that works. If anything, you should have been the one to propose a completely different presentation of the timeline! mftp dan ^oops 15:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsensical and backwards, particularly this: "people follow a descending order of like instruments rather than trying to follow a disorganized mess that is strictly time". There is no such thing as "descending order of instruments". There is no "order" in instruments. Grouping by instruments is strictly subjective, arbitrary, disorganized, and in a timeline provides no encyclopedic value to readers, while chronological order is strictly objective, neutral, and organized, not subject to individual preferences and biases; It also serves readers allowing them to plainly see the order in which members joined and left and how long they remained in the band in chronological order. As already stated several times, there is no consensus as there is no guideline supporting your point of view. There is however the policy of WP:NPOV supporting presenting content neutrally, such as the timeline in chronological order. Lapadite (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's really how you feel, we are once again at an impasse. I will let you be the catalyst that records it for the official record, then. It's funny, because by inventing your own rules here you're actually the one with the view that isn't neutral. If you edited or frankly really cared about rock music other than Evanescence, you'd have experienced this resistance a lot sooner. mftp dan ^oops 20:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One important point I would like to make known is that the current timeline I take issue with here was unilaterally implemented by Lapadite back in December 2022. I mentioned this in the project notices but not in the user talk. mftp dan ^oops 20:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Timeline grouped by instrument: I don't know that there's a defined instrument order, but it's pretty typical for rock bands to go vocals, guitar, bass, maybe keys, and drums. I have only ever seen timelines that are grouped by instrument, regardless of instrument order. See: Chili Peppers, Van Halen, Black Sabbath, Stones, Deep Purple, and Yes.

N-Devil, you mentioned instrument order guidelines in your update. I haven't seen that. Would you please share? Thanks! WidgetKid ^Converse 05:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@N-Devil?? WidgetKid ^Converse 04:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lapadite, would you please join the discussion here instead of continuing to show ownership of this article? Per my comment above, the norm for band timelines is to organize by instrument. Is there a good reason why this band's timeline should be any different? Thanks, WidgetKid ^Converse 20:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble justifying this discussion as anything more than stonewalling. If somehow I'm wrong, Lapadite, please participate in the discussion. mftp dan ^oops 01:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to my comment above in the original debate section, my comment which you yourself copied to this discussion section so you are aware that I already explained the stance, which is based on a WP:NPOV presentation of information. Find actual community-wide consensus. There is no guideline saying that a timeline should be grouped by instruments, which is, as I've said several times, arbitrary, subjective, not neutral, and antithetical to what a timeline is. If a consensus wants otherwise, so be it but a consensus needs to be achieved among multiple editors as there is no guideline. Lapadite (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This will be sufficient commentary until further users participate and is all I personally asked for. mftp dan ^oops 04:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lapadite, much of Wikipedia functions on norms, not always explicit policy & broad consensus. Grouping by instruments for rock bands is the norm. You don't have to like it, but arbitrarily deciding your way is better than the approach taken for tons of articles is why there are WP:OWN concerns here. Beyond your own opinion and reasoning, can you point to other examples of band timelines done the way you have dictated here? WidgetKid ^Converse 04:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Widgetkid, all of WP functions on its policies and guidelines. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR are its core content policies and all WP articles must abide by these policies. And for the dozenth time, there is no guideline supporting an arbitrary, subjective, non-neutral "grouping by instruments" for a timeline. There is however the policy of WP:NPOV, which includes the structure of the information in an article, and which states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery. [...] This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well. [...] This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". And I quote that from the policy because you are implying WP's content policies and broad consensus are an afterthought and editing is largely based on your personal preferences. If you enjoy going in circles, I do not. Seek consensus for a preference that's based on subjectivity and not on the objectivity, inherent neutrality, and simplicity of linear time. Lapadite (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lapadite, it seems like you're saying your way is right and that every other rock band timeline is wrong. Am I understanding that correctly? I am not following what WP:NPOV has to do with this. Please offer other examples of rock band timelines organized how you think they should be done.

I am trying to work towards consensus here - smart people can and will disagree - but dismissing a very reasonable (and, again, common) way of organizing a timeline feels like WP:OWN here. I understand your reasoning, but that doesn't make the norm any more arbitrary, subjective, or non-neutral. WidgetKid ^Converse 03:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lapadite, I'm thinking about how we resolve this conflict. Given the history, I don't feel like anything I or others say is going to change your mind. I'm thinking about seeking a third opinion. Do you have other ideas for how we can resolve? WidgetKid ^Converse 04:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Rock music project and reviewed all the band articles that are FA with Top & High importance, along with those that are GA with Top and High importance. Of those that had timelines, every single one is organized by instrument:

1. FA: Pink Floyd
2. FA: Sex Pistols
3. FA: The Beatles
4. FA: U2
5. FA: Megadeth
6. FA: Metallica
7. FA: R.E.M.
8. FA: The Kinks
9. GA: Black Sabbath
10. GA: Genesis (band)
11. GA: Oasis (band)
12. GA: Ramones
13. GA: The Clash
14. GA: The Rolling Stones
15. GA: The Who
16. GA: AC/DC
17. GA: Marilyn Manson (band)
18. GA: The Allman Brothers Band
19. GA: The Byrds

WidgetKid ^Converse 05:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fell completely down the rabbit hole and uncovered several old community discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 7#RfC: Consensus on band timeline colour schemes

While there wasn't a full consensus of all the details, all example timelines included members grouped by instrument.

Lapadite, I am going to re-edit the timeline to align with timelines used everywhere else. If you revert the changes again, I will seek help from admins to resolve. Cheers, WidgetKid ^Converse 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You linked two 10+ years old discussions that have nothing to do with this and are about color schemes and whether touring musicians should be included with band members; the second link even has an RfC that was determined to lack consensus. Why are you deliberately ignoring this, policy, and resolution procedure to disrupt the article again with another revert of a timeline image?

It has been said several times that consensus is how things are resolved. A few editors going back and forth is not consensus. I'm not sure why you've refused to see through the dispute resolution process and get community consensus. You're needlessly disrupting the article and the process of dispute resolution by just continuously reverting without seeking consensus. Do you not understand WP's policies and guidelines or do you believe you're exempt and refuse to follow them? WP:CONSENSUS is policy, WP:ONUS is policy, WP:NPOV is policy. Stop disrupting the article and find consensus on this specific matter. There is no WP guideline supporting your instrument preference or WP:OTHERCONTENT, therefore a community consensus is needed. I've removed the timeline image until a consensus is reached; the article loses nothing without it as it's merely a supplementary visual of the written timeline list. WP:ONUS. Lapadite (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will see if someone else can help here, since it's turning into an edit war. WidgetKid ^Converse 17:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution requested opened here. WidgetKid ^Converse 17:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further general discussion is occurring at WT:Musicians#Timelines Rabbit Hole. The Nightwish#Band_members section is an example of a members list in chronological order. Lapadite (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The timeline is grouped by instrument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WidgetKid ^Converse 21:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly redirected Tim to the band page. Yes, I know he's been in the band for a long time, but I do not believe there is anything that genuinely establishes his notability. If anyone objects and prefers I take it to AfD, please let me know. mftp dan ^oops 14:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's determined to be notable, as he is a longtime member of a high profile band, you shouldn't just blank the article without any discussion or notice on its talk page. There should be a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. Lapadite (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLAR is a perfectly reasonable action for a non-notable artist within a notable band. WidgetKid ^Converse 20:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page, if you insist I will take it to AfD. You do have the right to contest it. mftp dan ^oops 00:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WidgetKid, you decided to echo it's not notable without any discussion anywhere; a discussion with other editors at a venue like WP:AFD determines that. I'm not contesting on AFD, but the deletion discussion should be had. MFTP DAN, I already asked you before to stop bringing article discussion to my talk every time you have something to say, I commented here not on your talk page, keep article discussion at its respective talk page. Lapadite (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it was simply that I didn't see it first. I would not have if I had remembered I put this here. My apologies. mftp dan ^oops 04:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. Like I said in the AFD, I agree that at this point redirect is the best option. I doubt there's interest in delving into 2000s research for a musician that doesn't appear to get individual press today. On the other hand, I believe Emma Anzai should have an article as some years ago I came across a number of interviews with her and profiles of her other band with her as a focus. There have also been interviews with her as a member of Evanescence. Lapadite (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Emma is a case of "nobody really ever tried", and have thought for a while she was worth making one on. In the past I could have seen the argument that she didn't have notability away from Sick Puppies, but now that she's in another, more prominent band, she's probably earned what Wikipedia asks for. mftp dan ^oops 12:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wtf u talkin about he's been a good bassist and an even better guitarist since he switched ~2026-27655-33 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt of his musical talent. That has no bearing on whether he should have an article or not. He is not represented by the press with any meaningful depth that would warrant a Wikipedia article. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SIGCOV. mftp dan ^oops 12:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

since he was the one that approached her to start the band to begin with

ben then amy then david will always be the REAL ev to me ~2026-27655-33 (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't always about what you want. Can you be more clear about what you're asking for? Where do you want him being "first"? mftp dan ^oops 12:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following timelines should be shown in the article on Evanescence?

Please specify which version you prefer in the Survey with a brief statement. You may discuss at length in the Discussion section.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A. A timeline organized by the dates that the musicians entered the band.

B. A timeline organized by instrument.

• Timeline A, showing members in chronological order (the order in which they joined). A timeline by definition is chronology. This is the format that is neutrally structured, objective, easy to read and useful for readers in several ways, and avoids the subjectivity of assigning varying or relative value/importance to each musician role. It maintains consistency with the members lists above the timeline image, which is in chronological order. A timeline image servers as an optional, supplementary visual of a band members list. WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't determine article content and there is no guideline for this, so a consensus should be achieved. There would either be flexibility across articles for this or a guideline recommending how all band timeline images should be structured. Lapadite (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC). It is easiest to read and useful to readers because allows readers to see at a glance three things: the order in which each member joined (which readers instinctively expect to see when looking at a timeline); for how long each member played in a band relative to when they joined (allowing readers to see if a band's recent members or older members have had longer tenure in the band); and what instrument(s) they used during their time in the band. Grouping by instruments does not provide all that information and it puts instruments above individuals; there's no information about the members' time in a band that readers get at a glance. Lapadite (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Timeline B – hard disagree on the following points regarding A: 1. easy to read (I think that it looks like a jumbled mess of colours, which stands out to me more/is less helpful than that the bars are listed chronologically is helpful); and 2. It maintains consistency with the members lists above the timeline image, which is in chronological order (this isn't always the case, and I see the members listed just as often, if not more, by instrument). I don't dispute that a timeline by definition is a chronology, but the way these band timelines have been structured for forever a day is in fact several chronologies in one table, and that these are neatly listed by instrument/separated by colour makes it much easier to read, in my opinion. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Timeline B. I went to the Rock music project and reviewed all the band articles that are FA with Top & High importance, along with those that are GA with Top and High importance. Of those that had timelines, every single one is organized by instrument. (Full list in discussion below). While not a published standard, if it's good enough for FA and GA articles, it's good enough for this article. WidgetKid ^Converse 03:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Timeline B per Widgetkid. In addition, as the original complainant, let me bring back into focus the main problem: there is absolutely no semblance of coherent structure in a strictly time-based timeline. The mix of all those colors is dizzying to discern how roles have evolved over time. Subjectivity is to the reader's advantage in the case of band member timelines, and Wikipedia's timelines should not be thought of as one timeline, but several within one. mftp dan ^oops 12:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Timeline B (Brought here from RFC/A) - I have to agree that intially after reviewing the two proposed tables, I would strongly prefer Timeline B, and after reading Widgetkid's response I have to say this seems to be the precedence and we should stick to what other featured articles with top & high importance do. MaximusEditor (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline B I agree that a timeline ordered by instrument type makes more sense for a band article, especially considering the precedence by other pages. 23impartial(talk) 23:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline B I sympathize with Lapadite but it's best to keep this consistent in wikivoice per WidgetKid. Burcet95 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• B. Widgetkid makes great points and it seems like from the similar pages I've looked at this seems consistent. Edittttor (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Timeline B similar to Lapadite, I find A easier to read at first glance. But when I looked at B for a slightly longer moment, I understood it just as well, and the organization of it tells a more thought-provoking story. Similary, Widgetekid makes a strong argument. Sorry, @Lapadite. It seems we're reaching consensus. Is there a middle ground we can get to? Or good reasons why you would strongly oppose consensus for B? pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 05:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: There is currently an open DRN case. As such, an RfC is premature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The two editors on one side of the dispute both gave their approval for how the RfC was formatted/for it to go ahead, and the opposing editor has already contributed their opinion above, so I personally don't see any issue with continuing. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The impending conclusion of that DR concluded that an RFC was going to happen anyway, by all parties involved. mftp dan ^oops 18:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't really an open DRN. I didn't go through the motions of closing the DRN before I launched the RFC. Maybe I should be more careful about closing the DRN at the same time as the RFC is launched. Maybe that was a mistake on my part, User:Redrose64. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: the DRN has been closed. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 09:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If one of the main points of contention is the supposed subjectivity of listing by instrument, then a discussion that we could have parallel to this one would be to ratify the order of instruments so that there is a consensus for that as well. I also think it's worth discussing (whether in this RfC or separately) the order in which the members are listed above the timeline as well as the inclusion of touring musicians – this was brought up at the DRN discussion that preceded this RfC and, for what it's worth (as I believe it's relevant to this discussion), I have always shared the stance that touring musicians should not be included in main timelines but still listed above. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per my position above, sharing the complete list of FA & GA top and high importance articles surveyed for this discussion. Every single one is organized by instrument (like Timeline B):

Lapadite: FWIW, I went back and re-read WP:OTHERCONTENT. I think it may actually support using other examples: While relying on comparisons to other articles is generally unconvincing, articles that have been through some form of quality review—such as featured articles, good articles, or articles that have achieved a WikiProject A-class rating—are often the way they are for good reasons informed by site policy. If such articles have remained current with policy since their promotion, they are often more compelling examples to illustrate arguments. WidgetKid ^Converse 03:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I strongly believe that instrument order should also apply to the members list if there's a timeline, however I'm open to just listing members in chronological order in articles where no timeline exists or it exists at a separate members page – this is where we could have the flexibility that Lapadite mentioned. The order would be as follows:

Welcome to expand upon this list and even adjust depending on what the consensus ends up being, but figured if we're talking about instrument order as a major factor here, we might as well make sure everyone's on the same page about what that order is and have it in writing so that it's absolutely official. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That instrument order is what I had in mind and what I think most imagine would be conventional. Furthermore, since our desired result of this discussion is to see regulations on band timelines in general, just so we cover bases because I know the question will inevitably arise: I think that in the case of artists who have band members who participate in multiple roles, usual practice should prioritize the role from top-to-bottom as the thicker line unless say, a source gives evidence or common sense suggests otherwise. For example, Skillet frontman John Cooper has also been the band's bassist for the band's entire existence, but his place in his timeline is predominantly red for vocals, and a skinnier secondary blue represents his bass.

Also, that's a great point about chronological order. It makes sense and is easy to understand when it isn't a pictograph of data, especially when the timeline is in a separate listicle of members. mftp dan ^oops 16:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@4TheWynne, I agree 100% with your proposal , but would like to see that in another RFC in a relevant WikiProject. I really think there should be a standard approach for band timeline structure, but several attempts in the past have not reached the necessary consensus. See here and here. Thanks for adding to this RFC! WidgetKid ^Converse 16:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, isn't that the expected result of this RfC? I was aiming higher than just Evanescence here. mftp dan ^oops 17:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Widgetkid, I understand your point – was involved in both discussions – but I believe that was the intention of this RfC, as more of a catch-all than just this article. MFTP Dan, I knew what you were going for – perhaps it would have been better to stage the RfC at project level and tweak the wording slightly so that it didn't potentially appear to pertain to only one article, but at the same time, this section was created to direct people here from the project talk page, so at least anyone interested would be aware; we could either tweak this one or reach a result here first and then start a new one. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either/or, doesn't matter to me. mftp dan ^oops 18:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the talk page of an article is for discussing improvements to that specific article. Discussions where the scope is broader than that article belong at a more general venue. Like that WikiProject talk page that I mentioned earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of this RFC as just being for this article, but that it would be a good basis to getting consensus around a basic standard for band timelines afterwards. No concerns here about running those in parallel. WidgetKid ^Converse 20:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan, @4TheWynne, and @Redrose64, I started drafting a broader RFC here and would love any feedback you have on how it's structured or worded. WidgetKid ^Converse 06:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Member grouping/order should apply to the whole members section (including the list above the timeline); otherwise, I like it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan, @4TheWynne, @Redrose64: After consulting on the RFC talk page about doing a broader RFC, I boldly added a section to article guidance regarding band timelines. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Widgetkid, forgot to throw this in, but backing vocals should be included as well. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robert McClenon: I think this RFC has run it's course. Would you mind helping close it? Thank you! WidgetKid ^Converse 16:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:WidgetKid - An RFC usually runs for 30 days, after which time the bot deactivates it. This RFC is still running. I see what the consensus looks like, but if I were to close it, I might get an objection that it was closed prematurely. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the comments that we maybe should get something standardized about band timelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah @Robert McClenon, I didn't know the timing for RFCs (I'm used to less for PRODs, etc. ). This effort has spawned the documentation of existing standards-in-practice at WP:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidance#Band_timelines. Hopefully any further refinement and discussion can occur there instead of on individual articles. Thanks so much for the help with this! WidgetKid ^Converse 21:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]