Talk:List of Black Flag band members

Case for including chart
1.) It is not removing any information, merely presenting it in another way; 2.) Wikipedia consensus is moving away from lists, as in the current format of the listing, and towards timeline charts, for better or worse; 3.) There's absolutely nothing "awful" about representing information in the form a chart, as you suggested, and certain users would find it much more helpful to see the information depicted visually. On a personal note, I don't appreciate my legitimate work being called "awful" and being erased without any discussion, and you need to take it easy on that 'undo' option.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1.) There is little sense in repeating the same information in multiple ways within the same article; 2.) Where's this consensus you speak of? I've never seen anything of the kind. In my experience timeline charts are the exception rather than the rule, most articles simply have a bulleted list of names; 3) It is an awful method of presenting this type of information (not calling your work awful, merely saying this format is not ideal for this type of info): trying to combine individuals, positions, lengths of time, and releases into a single 2-dimensional graph is not intuitive and actually makes it more difficult to understand. For example, what defines a "major" and "minor" release? How can I tell which releases particular people played on? What if I want to see smaller units of time than years? I can't do any of that with the graph, but I can with the table (which is also a timeline, merely read vertically...both are "depicted visually", it's just that one uses boxes containing text while the other uses bars of color). The graph is less intelligible than the table and totally redundant to it, considering that the information is already present in a more intelligible manner. I have argued this point before here. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1.) Many, many articles use multiple methods of displaying information: see, off the top of my head, List of Steppenwolf band members, List of Megadeth band members, List of Iron Maiden band members, List of Black Sabbath band members, List of Van Halen band members, List of Slipknot band members, List of Bad Religion band members, List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, List of AC/DC members, List of Aerosmith band members, etc. Every single one of these articles has this type of chart at the end of its article, which follows another method of conveying the information.  And then there are the countless articles that use these charts in the member section of the main article (Metallica, Slayer, ...I mean, my god, there are hundreds and hundreds.  If you think this type of chart is "awful", you are in disagreement with the huge list of editors and readers of these articles who find them helpful.  2.) I used the term "consensus" when I meant "convention", but the fact is, there is a shift towards this type of chart in Wikipedia articles over the long lists such as that which is currently in the Black Flag members article (which I happen to like, but especially in cases where it is supplemented with the type of chart that I added.)  Fewer and fewer long, vertical lists such as that on the Black Flag page are being used, and while I'm not proposing that we do away with the current Black Flag list, I think it's clear that Wikipedia users appreciate other forms of chart information.  3.) I disagree that this chart makes anything more difficult to understand.  I chose "major" and "minor" release to represent full-length and EP-length releases, respectively.  We can change their designations in the graph if it will help you understand the information.  The releases reflect their time of recording, not release, to overlap with the lineups involved.  And yes, I'm aware that everything beyond audio samples on Wikipedia is a "visual depiction" - I'm going to assume that you were being helpful and not a smart aleck in pointing that out.  If you prefer, we can think of this as a different sort of visual analogy that puts information into a different, complementary perspective, in which time is measured in colorful chunks - I don't want to have to get my calculator out when I want to figure out, say, who had the longest stint as Black Flag's bassist.  This is merely another means of depiction, one which I, along with these other hundreds of editors, happen to find helpful in supplementing the pre-existing material.  If you're against it, you're fighting against the tide of band member articles.  But why fight in the first place??  Everything that you want in the article will still be present, and you are losing nothing, except a tight-fisted control of the article - which is not what you're after, right?  Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think this type of chart is "awful", you are in disagreement with the huge list of editors and readers of these articles who find them helpful. — There is no standard or guideline that says to either use or not use these charts, nor have I ever seen a discussion about it on a project or MOS page, so I don't know where this "huge list of editors" is evidenced. That many editors like to use things with pretty colors does not surprise me (see the many edit-wars and discussions over infoboxes in comparison to those over actual article content). Whether readers find them helpful is unknown...it's not like we've polled readers to see if they care about these things or not.
 * there is a shift towards this type of chart in Wikipedia articles over the long lists such as that which is currently in the Black Flag members article — Again, I haven't seen this "shift" you speak of. WP:WPMAG gives no mention of it at all, it merely says there should be a Personnel section for bands. By my count, out of about 35 FAs about musical groups or bands, only 5 have these "timeline" graphs. Both of our FLs on band members seem to, but as I said there's no guideline saying they must, and there's been no discussion about their utility as far as I know.
 * especially in cases where it is supplemented with the type of chart that I added — But that's my point, it doesn't "supplement" the table in any way. To supplement would mean that it enhances or adds to the information presented in the table. The only thing it adds is colors, and it actually contains less information than the table does (most glaringly the names of the releases...all you get is vertical bars shaded "major" or "minor". That doesn't really tell the reader anything useful).
 * Fewer and fewer long, vertical lists such as that on the Black Flag page are being used — I don't see your point. This is merely swapping out one type of long list for another. The timelines can be just as long, even longer, merely in a horizontal rather than vertical direction. And they can be quite long vertically too if the band has had many members. And we still have long vertical lists in the form of bullet-pointed "Personnel" sections, whether a separate table/graph is also used or not.
 * My problems with these "timeline" graphs have to do with their utility, not "tight-fisted control of the article". There are no standards in place for when or how to use the things, for example. Glancing through a handful of articles that use them, I see a myriad of different colors being used...there's no consistency. For example in this article red means bass but in Metallica it means rhythm guitar/lead vocals, in List of Slipknot band members it means DJ, and in List of Nine Inch Nails band members it's lead vocals. In Wilco the same color is used for every band member. Some timelines try to name all the releases, some merely have a black bar for "studio release" (which again, tells the reader next to nothing). The fact that there are no standards or even discussion about when/how/if to use these graphs means they are wildly inconsistent and thus have less and less utility.
 * Also, as I said in the previous discussion I linked above, the timeline actually makes it harder to answer many of the fundamental questions a reader might look to something like this to answer. For example: What was Black Flag's lineup in 1984? Using the table I can answer this question in 2 steps: 1) scan down the left column until I find the date range covering 1984, 2) look to the right and there's the lineup listed. Using the timeline this takes twice as many steps: 1) look along the x axis for 1984, 2) go up and look for the colored bars that cross that area of the graph, 3) look to the y axis to see who those bars correspond to, 4) compare the colors to the legend to see which instruments each person played.
 * How about if I want to know who played on Damaged? Again, using the table this takes 2 steps: 1) scan down the left column until I see Damaged, 2) look to the right and there's the lineup. Using the timeline I can't even answer this question at all, because all I have are vertical bars for "releases".
 * So I really don't see where the timeline supplements anything in the table, since all it adds are colors and it has less utility. Until there is an actual discussion at the musicians project about whether or not to use these things, and that is reflected in our guidelines, and we set some standards for consistency, then I just don't see the point of adding another representation of the same info that doesn't even communicate as much info as the existing table. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We are agreed that there is no mention of this in any manual of style, nor am I arguing that the article "must" have the chart. I am simply arguing that it is a good addition for those who use them (users like me), and an utterly harmless addition for those who don't (users like yourself.)  The decision will need to reflect a combination of 1.) that which can be gleaned from other articles, and 2.) rational argument.
 * 1.) A.) By my count, nine of the 32 applicable FA articles (more than a quarter) use this style of chart either in their own articles or in the attached List of ... band members article. A number of the featured articles (Joy Division, The Beatles, Audioslave, U2, etc.) would have no use for such a chart due to lineup consistency.  So this is an established method of depicting among successful articles, when applicable: e.g., when a band's member history is not easily represented in prose or with bullet points, and especially when it is particularly complex.  It is thus very applicable in Black Flag's case due to its member fluctuation and rich history.  So this addition is in keeping with a reasonable percentage of other successful articles, and is particularly relevant here.  B.) You say, There are no standards in place for when or how to use the things, for example. Glancing through a handful of articles that use them, I see a myriad of different colors being used...there's no consistency.  Why is this a problem?  The legend is right down there at the bottom of each chart.  Why does red always need to mean 'DJ', or 'lead guitar'?  All maps have keys, all charts have legends, etc.  There is no consistency for your form of chart either (some list time disbanded separately, some ignore it, some designate 'classic lineups', some list only full-length releases, some list no releases, etc.)  Therefore, neither of us favors a charting method that has been used with any consistency, and chart methods do not need to be standardized from article to article, merely intelligible and helpful in each instance.  C.) You say, The timelines can be just as long, even longer, merely in a horizontal rather than vertical direction. And they can be quite long vertically too if the band has had many members. And we still have long vertical lists in the form of bullet-pointed "Personnel" sections, whether a separate table/graph is also used or not.  While this is technically true, I will ask you to sincerely evaluate how often the charted timelines will be longer than the style of timeline you use in the Black Flag members article.  If you are really still convinced of this, compare the size of the charts on the FAs to the Black Flag members listing and evaluate the applicability of this claim.  But this is immaterial, as I am not of the opinion that shorter is better, and am merely reflecting the tastes I have observed in other Wikipedia articles, as well as my own tastes for multiple charts.
 * 2.) The important thing to remember when we are discussing the rationale behind this is that you are losing nothing from this addition aside from a supposedly "uncluttered" article, although I argue that the Black Flag members article was at best homely before the chart was added (no pictures, minimal copy, lack of diversity in refs, etc.) Regardless, let's talk about your points on the "functionality" of the chart. You say, the timeline actually makes it harder to answer many of the fundamental questions a reader might look to something like this to answer.  Perhaps, but it makes other questions easier.  For example, who was Black Flag's longest-standing bassist?  I would need to comb through the whole of your listings and try and keep track of everyone's dates to answer this question, but my chart quickly and easily addresses this.  You claim that the chart only adds "pretty colors" and imply this to be base, but it in fact adds something else - proportion.  Dukowski's block is the longest in the bass color: there, he played bass the longest in Black Flag.  Glancing at your chart, one might assume that the Roessler/Stevenson lineup was the most important due to all of the releases attached to it, but when they see the comparatively small bars intersecting in that area, they will be given a fresh perspective.  What will they do when they want to know the lineup on Damaged?  That's easy: they will scroll up to the pre-existing (i.e., your) member chart, because both will be present.  See?  This is how this presentation is complementary.
 * So I agree that we cannot look to any Wikipedia consensus on the utility of these things. All we can do is discuss it rationally and look to successful articles.  In doing so, I suggest that we see strong reason to believe that these charts serve certain needs, learning styles and tastes in certain situations, and believe that Black Flag is the perfect situation for such a presentation.  But the point that I can't help but return to is that you lose nothing with this addition.  Your information will remain as you like it, and users like you that do not find such charts useful can skip it.  I hope you don't deny that the Black Flag members article needs work - it has no infobox, poor refs, and minimal copy.  I think this is a good first step towards giving it the dignity I see in other successful band member pages, and a band with such a rich and storied history as that of Black Flag deserves such a treatment. PS: Good call on the move of the article - at least we agree on something!  Colinclarksmith (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Our counts clearly differ (I did not count separate "list of members" articles except for the FLs, as my goal was to sample our highest-quality articles for exemplars), but I think the end result is the same: a clear minority of our highest-quality applicable articles use timeline graphs, so I think we agree that there isn't a clear consensus or precedent here. I also agree that there is 1 functionality of the graph that has utility beyond what the table offers: the ability to answer the "who was in the band the longest/shortest" question rather conveniently (but then, that's pretty easy to see just from Black Flag (band)). I think I would have less issue with using the timeline as a supplement if 1) we removed the "releases" bit from it, as I say that doesn't convey anything of real use to a reader and the info is better presented in the table already; and 2) we started a discussion at WT:MUSICIANS to try to get some standardization/consistency on the usage/application of these things. Yes, there is a legend, but if indeed these timelines are seeing widespread use it would be preferable (IMO) if they had greater consistency between articles. We aim for consistency with infoboxes, article structure, section headers, and other types of tables/charts (ie. album/song chart histories), so it would seem reasonable to apply some consistency to these timeline graphs to make things easier on readers. Perhaps we could even have a standardized template like Band timeline or something to aid in consistency, rather than using straight graph coding each time (complex coding like what you see in the edit window when you look at the current version is intimidating to new editors, and often results in them screwing it up when they try to edit it).


 * One thing we both agree on is that this article needs a good deal of improvement. I've got the edit window and my copy of Our Band Could Be Your Life open right now...into the breach! :-) --IllaZilla (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Problem already: I can't find reliable sources for Raymond Pettibon or David Horvitz. The only rehearsal member I can source (other than Ginn & Morris, obviously) is Spot. I tried Our Band Could Be Your Life, Get in the Van, the Everything Went Black liner notes, and Allmusic...nada on Pettibon or Horvitz playing with the band in early rehearsals (in fact, nothing on Horvitz at all). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a minority that use the chart, but when we look at factors for this - numerous high-quality articles are about groups for whom this chart would not be applicable (again, U2, The Beatles, Joy Division, Insane Clown Posse, etc.), others contain these charts on separate pages like this Black Flag members page - we begin to see reasons why. I disagree that the timeline can only give us an answer to who was in the band the longest and nothing else: this sort of visual representation gives numerous insights, including areas where releases are clustered, perspective on relative events (for example, I see Keith Morris's name all over your timeline because the band experienced many changes during his stint, but when I look at mine, I see that his tenure was rather brief.  Again, it's complementary.)
 * But anyway, with all of that said, I am all for the standardization of these things, and although I don't see the pressing need as much as you do I would definitely support that and work on that. And you're right that new editors (and even old ones) screw these up sometimes, so a template would be a good idea.  As for depicting albums on this chart, I'm all for discussing ways to address the problems you see - we could remove the minor releases, change all to the same color, or do away with the releases altogether if we absolutely have to.
 * Lastly, the problem of retrieving dates for Pettibon, Horvitz and Spot's tenure applies both to your timeline and to mine, and is one area that I was still hoping to further research. Those days were much less clearly documented than the latter days, of course.  I know that a Punk Planet article circa '97 spelled a lot of that out - when I get home from work I will see if I can dig it up.  Oh, and I've only had the time to give it a quick glance, but the prose section you added looks good.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I just ordered Rock and the Pop Narcotic, [ http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Joe-Cole/dp/1880985098 Planet Joe], and [ http://www.amazon.com/Spray-Paint-Walls-Story-Black/dp/1847726208 Spray Paint the Walls], so hopefully those may help fill in the gaps or answer some questions about the early lineups. I've already got Our Band Could Be Your Life, [ http://www.amazon.com/American-Hardcore-Second-Tribal-History/dp/1932595899 American Hardcore] (both the book and film), [ http://www.amazon.com/Get-Van-Road-Black-Flag/dp/1880985764 Get in the Van], and [ http://www.amazon.com/We-Got-Neutron-Bomb-L/dp/0609807749 We Got the Neutron Bomb], so between all of those (and with a lot of time and dedication) hopefully I can help improve the various Black Flag articles rather substantially. I'd like to at least get the band article up to GA. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks great so far. I dug up that Punk Planet article, but it had less than I had hoped and gleaned a lot from Our Band.  Anyway, my biggest hope is to iron out the details on, and get good dates for, those early (pre-Nervous Breakdown) lineups - it looks like you're on top of the formatting.  Thanks for the good work.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Full
allixpeeke (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Easier to digest
allixpeeke (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Smaller
allixpeeke (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * HenryRollins Singing.jpg