Talk:Evanescence

Devil May Cry

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.

RFC: Timeline of Musicians in Evanescence

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

1. A timeline organized by the dates that the musicians entered the band
2. A timeline organized by instruments

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)

The Timelines

Timeline A

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

Timeline B

B. A timeline organized by instrument.

Survey

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Discussion

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Order of band members. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

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

  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)

  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)

  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)

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

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)

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):

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

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)

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:

Instrument order

• Vocals/lead vocals
• Guitar
  • Lead guitar
  • Rhythm guitar
• Bass
• Keyboards/piano
• Drums
• Backing vocals

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

• @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)
  • 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)
  • I agree with the comments that we maybe should get something standardized about band timelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

    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)