Standardized Timeline Colors
I've been editing articles with member timelines so they all have the same colors for the various instruments/vocals. Now, someone else may come along and make a new article with different colors, or change an existing article so I am suggesting a standardization of colors as follows (what I have found on other articles and have been editing other articles to).
Red = Lead vocals Green = Guitars Blue = Bass Purple = Keyboards Orange = Drums
Other close colors, for example, light green, can be used for similar instruments, like rhythm guitar.
KyoufuNoDaiou (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, folks. KyoufuNoDaiou is talking about the membership timelines that some of the band articles have. His concept is for us to agree on a standard set of colors for the different instruments, and then use those colors in all the band article timelines. Presumably this would be a guideline, subject to customization or modification for particular articles if the editors agree on that talk page. Here's an example using his proposed colors:
- My two cents: This sounds reasonable to me, and the color scheme seems pretty good too. But how about black instead of red for vocalists? That's a little less hard on the eyes. â Mudwater (Talk) 20:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please consult WP:ACCESSIBILITY, specifically WP:COLOUR. These pure colour choices are not ideal, as it will affect people with various kinds of colour-blindness. I'd suggest finding pastels, or using textures rather than just colour. - Floydian Ï Â¢ 21:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yikes! That looks complicated. Short of finding a colour-blind person (and I don't know any off the top of my head) and hallway usability testing stuff, I'm not sure what to suggest. If you're colour impaired, Floydian, can you knock up something more suitable for us? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
There is another progressive, acid/psychedelic rock band formed in 2007 also called "The Machine": . You can also just youtube "The Machine: Moons of Neptune" to see which band I mean or any of their related tunes. Should we have a separate page?
If this is the wrong place or has been mentioned before, then apologies. Talk:The Machine (band) links to this wikiproject, and to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd but that project seems inactive. Mâ§Åc2Ä§ÎµÐÏlk 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Before we get to that stage, I think we need a little more evidence than the band's own website and a youtube video to determine whether they should have an article. I would use the Article Wizard to put a new submission in Articles for creation if you are not sure a band article should exist. Somebody else will review it and if it's acceptable, we can sort out the article titles at that point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for replying. The Wikipedia:Article wizard/Musical notability suggests the band are not very notable for WP. It's easy to find them on loads of sites (and they seem quite popular), but none of them are really reliable sources, just external links. Following your advice I'll submit a quick draft anyway here Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Machine (Dutch band) and see what others think. If not accepted, I understand. Thanks again, Mâ§Åc2Ä§ÎµÐÏlk 16:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Bram Tchaikovsky Article Biography Warning Banner removal
Are there now enough references cited for the Bram Tchaikovsky article to have that banner removed ? Also, is citing the official store on facebook a legitimate reference or does it contravene some form of rule regarding advertising and or subverting the Wikipedia anti-commercialism policy ? In defence of this in case it is not regarded as a valid citation, what better way to prove a recording by an artist exists than to point to the official store or website. â irongron â (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The tag is for no sources. It now has more than none, so the tag is obsolete. I have removed the tag. If somebody complains and re-adds the tag (or a similar one), we can revisit things then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)