Lapadite (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Lapadite}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Please be civil and assume good faith when interacting with other editors. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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]

So are you going to participate, or are you just going to stonewall this? Funny how you're eager to revert me, but when I go to argue my case before the community, I'm invisible. Or not, given that you've clearly noticed. mftp dan ^oops 13:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to remove your harassment on my talk page, but I'll leave it here as further evidence of your hostile attitude on WP. I haven't reverted your Evanescence timeline edit since days before you started this discussion on my talk page, so I don't know what scenario you're making up. I did participate, as you can see my response to you above is on the Evanescence talk page as it was copied there by WidgetKid, whose page you seem to follow given that you link my talk comment that has nothing to do with you. I have nothing further to add to my position as I already stated it clearly. If other perspectives pop up perhaps I'll add to it. Don't bring your hostility again to my talk page, take article discussion to the article's talk page. Lapadite (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about another revert since last you did it. It's still the way you have it. I'm at the D at WP:BRD. All I was saying was you didn't seem to communicate when I actually try to start a discussion about your edits, at the time I sent the message. Took quite a long time and there wasn't anything at the time I left this. If what you've said here is all you wish to provide on your perspective, I'd appreciate that you noted that, that would be fine. mftp dan ^oops 18:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dead Internet theory on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 06:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

WidgetKid ^Converse 22:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lapadite, will you be participating? WidgetKid ^Converse 18:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lapadite, will you be continuing to participate? WidgetKid ^Converse 03:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am reaching out here first because if I bring this to Talk:Evanescence, it is going to fatigue the page since apparently we fight over almost every piece of content in this article. A lead is supposed to briefly summarize the main details, right? So why do we need every year each member of Evanescence joined the band? In a lead, that's trivia. Claiming that Since 2022, the band has comprised Lee, McCord, McLawhorn, Hunt, and bassist Emma Anzai implies they all joined the band in 2022 is quite the assumption. Literally all it says is that's been the band's lineup since then. I'll let go of the rest of the changes I made to that section save for the one I've already implemented, because you are partially correct. mftp dan ^oops 15:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]