Talk:Wintersleep

Cleanup

I suggest that this page be edited to Wikipedia quality standards. The article reads like a 6th grade synopsis. I will take the liberty to edit basic points of interest, but many citations are needed and I suggest that someone very familiar with Wintersleep's career who can give citations pick up the pieces here. - Bentonia School, Jan. 1/07.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Stolen Gear

I don't see the need for a separate section regarding the stolen gear. What do you think? Neon Flow (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New picture

Could we please get a more recent band picture on the page? The one currently on the page is over 6 years old and shows members who aren't even in the band anymore.

Band members section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think we should change the sub-title of "Current" and "Past" to "Current members" and "Former members". A majority of artist and/or band articles utilize what I am proposing, so I don't see why we should keep it as it currently is. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. The section title is "Band members", so repeating "members" twice more is simply redundant. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

If we are not going to add "members", fine. But can we at least change Past to Former, as a majority of band articles utilize it as such? HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@HorrorLover555, I'm not convinced that they do though. I've seen loads of pages that use "past" and others that use "former". I think either is fine. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say most (if not all) band articles use the "________ members" format, and that includes our finest articles on that field. I see no reason why Wintersleep should be an exception. As for the "past vs. former" matter, I have no preference, nor guideline-backed argument. A quick look at some FAs reveals an apparent prevalence of "Former", while the infobox uses "past". Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 15:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes, definitely not all, as I've seen my preferred version on countless band pages. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer "current members" and "past/former members". I have no problem with either "past" or "former".★Trekker (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem redundant to include a word in a subsection header that is clearly already in the section header? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it seems redundant since I have seen it used on multiple band articles (at least the ones I have worked on). In regards to your comment on seeing your preferred version on other band pages, it goes back to what Victor Lopes was stating that there are no grounds that state that "former" is inappropriate, and both are used interchangeably. So I see no reason why we cannot use "Former". HorrorLover555 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't fully disagree with Revirvlkodlaku's argument regarding redundancy, I just don't think it's a big deal. Anyway, since that goes against common practice, it would require a broader discussion in a bigger space like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Alternatively, it would require consensus here for an exception to be made. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 14:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@HorrorLover555, redundancy has nothing to do with prevalence on other pages—it simply refers to unnecessary repetition. How is repeating the word "members" not redundant, when their referent is contextually clear? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes, if it's not a big deal to repeat a word unnecessarily, then it shouldn't be a big deal to omit it, either.

It's not an exception, either; I can list hundreds of band pages that follow my preferred example. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that is where the problem lies, which is that it boils down to you reverting because you prefer it, therefore you created it as an established style that cannot be changed. Going back to what I had said, there are no grounds that "Former" is unacceptable as it is used interchangeably. If it is incorrect to you, then please explain why the band articles and/or a majority of them utilize it? In regards to this "members", I already had stated this: If we are not going to add "members", fine. which goes back to when I ask to at least change it to "Former". HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@HorrorLover555, I certainly wasn't the first to use "past", don't give me too much credit;)

Are you suggesting the compromise of not using "members" redundantly but to switch "past" to "former"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I can agree to a compromise in which I will not add "members" redundantly as I did back in the edits for December 2024, and to switch "past" to "former". If I was a bit persistent about it earlier, then I do apologize. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.