Talk:Yes (band)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Help

I am sign in.Help me dont use free wikipedia again.change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.73.83.129 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Did Yes reform in 1982 or 1983?

The latest revert was interesting! I believe Yes reformed in 1983, as the group were required to change from Cinema after numerous letters from other bands threatening to sue, and the fact that it made more business sense following Anderson's involvement, which was 1983 also. From the various sources I have seen, there was no Yes in 1982, only Squire and White teaming with Rabin, and Kaye coming into the fold, followed by rehearsals, all conducted under the Cinema name. So I don't think 1982 is the correct year to put for active years. What does anyone else think? Cheers! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a matter of semantics, but the group that would come to re-adopt the Yes name was working in 1982, so that seems to me more meaningful than the exact date they re-claimed the name. Bondegezou (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I made a request for page protection. There are many edits and reverts made by people of different opinion. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Fekso (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that what you're doing with this sock-account you've created? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Fekso (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. All the best! Fekso (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman - their current status in Yes

Aside from the merging issue. Are Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman former members of Yes? I'm attending a show this summer promoted as Yes. The members of that version are Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman. How should they be represented in this member section? Fekso (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes They Should. I though that was clear. Especially since both bands acknowledge the rights to the name that each other uses. Multiple national sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weams (talk • contribs) 10:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC) weams (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)http://ultimateclassicrock.com/yes-band-name-ownership/weams (talk)

It might be clear to some, but Wikipedia suffers from inconsistency when it comes to bands using the same name. My hope is that people could agree that if there are multiple legal owners to a name in two different bands, then there's two versions of the same band. John Payne featuring Asia does not hold any legal rights to the Asia name and therefore John Payne should be regarded as a former member of Asia, but a current member of John Payne featuring Asia: "On the 9th of May 2006, John Payne, Geoff Downes, John Wetton, Carl Palmer and Steve Howe contractually agreed that John Payne would continue his 14 year legacy with ASIA as “ASIA Featuring John Payne” (I know it sounds ridiculous..). The reason why we have a version touring under the name Yes featuring Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman is to avoid confusion. If the other Yes didn't exist, then the ARW version would use the Yes banner. John Payne could never do that legally. We have one band legally entitled to the name Asia. We have two bands legally entitled to the name Yes. Fekso (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

John Payne did do that legally. Until Downes, Howe, Palmer, and Wetton reunited John Payne's Asia was the only Asia, and they were called "Asia". It's of little consequence, as you've yet again failed to put forth a policy-based argument. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No he didn't. John Payne has no legal right to the name Asia the same way Geoff Tate has no legal right to the Queensryche name. He had once, but not today. Payne was allowed the legal right to use ASIA Featuring John Payne, Geoff Tate was not allowed the legal right to Queensryche featuring Geoff Tate. The Asia you are talking about featured one of the name owners, Geoff Downes. There has been to legal outcome on the Yes name, since both parties have to right to the Yes name. Furthermore, you need to change your tone. Over and over again you add sentences such as "as you've yet again failed to put forth a policy-based argument", which doesn't really add anything to what you just stated. Your agenda seems to assume everyone have bad intentions here. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Fekso (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't assume you have bad intentions, you just have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it is just a matter of time before the administrators will tell you what I just tried to tell you anyway. Fekso (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well now you've gone and put the fear of Jesus in me! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And on that note Joefromrandb returned to the topic while putting his own agenda at rest. Feel free to discuss on my talk page! Fekso (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Payne has the rights to the name "Asia Featuring John Payne", but not to the name "Asia". Howe/White's Yes have the rights to the name "Yes". Yes ft ARW have the rights to the name "Yes featuring Anderson Rabin Wakeman". It is not clear whether Yes ft ARW have the rights to the name "Yes" alone, without the "featuring..." bit.

I suggest the members section has three parts: Yes members, YfARW members and former members. That seems the obvious and simple solution. Bondegezou (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I had assumed that you would know the nuances of this situation better than I. It's clear that Anderson couldn't use the naked name of Yes as long as Yes remain an entity. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bondegezou. That would go leaps and bounds toward clarity for readers. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, all the legal owners to the name have the right to use it. The only reason why Yes featuring AWR is using the AWR addition to the name is to avoid confusion. So to state that 'Anderson couldn't use the naked name of Yes' is wrong. This point is very important in what role 2017 will play in the history of the band. I support the Yes members, YfARW members and former members solution. Fekso (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it stated by both Anderson and Howe that Anderson has the rights to the name sufficient for how he's currently using it, but I haven't seen anything that gets as specific as you're suggesting. That is an important distinction that will possibly be important in the future. Do you have a source you can share?—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

He does have a source; he posted it higher on this page. In a manner that's bizarre even by en-Wiki standards, he's brought a source, and is attempting to bolster his argument by arguing against what his source says. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. With so much nonsense having been put forth it's hard to keep up. It is Weams, not Fekso, whom is arguing against his own source. Fekso, while the overwhelming majority of what you've said here is wrong, I apologize for accusing you of something of which you were innocent. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi folks! Question: Why have a list of YfARW members in the Band members section? They are a separate band with a different name, so such a list should be kept on their article, no? Shouldn't it be reverted so ARW are listed as former members of Yes and that's that? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is the "different name" is not so different, except by legal standards, and this isn't a courtroom. This encyclopedia should provide information in such a way that it alleviates confusion. The confusion arises in that there are two lineups of a band called Yes. One of them is legally required to tag on "featuring…" to their name, but they both perform in context of the history of the band called Yes presented in this article, both perform Yes music, and are both composed of Yes musicians, selling tickets to Yes' fans, using the Yes name, and the recent accolade of having been inducted into the RRHoF as Yes. Having a separate article for the lineup known as "Yes, featuring…" in order to go into detail on their recent history and current activities, is something many editors are in favor of (I wasn't, but I've ceded the point), but to exclude them from the Yes article creates a clarity problem for readers coming to this article for information. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your question, LSE, is "yes, they should". The situation is self-explanatory and astonishingly simple. This insanity is the cost of doing business on an open wiki; there's no requirement that our editors possess the same degree of common sense expected of our readers. Simple English Wikipedia exists for a reason. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to User:Shubopshadangalang's position. Calling YfARW a "separate band with a different name" is not accurate. They are Yes, or at least a Yes, just as the other Yes is Yes. They both have a claim to be the same band that existed up to 2004 that most of the article is about. The way to make things clear to the reader is to spell everything out. That's what the current wording does. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that ARW have a claim as the rightful linear progression of Yes from 1968 to 2004? Where would that leave the Drama lineup, of which neither Anderson, Rabin, nor Wakeman were part? Joefromrandb(talk)

16:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, "Yes is Yes, YfARW is 'a Yes" is an excellent way of putting it. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has a right or claim to anything that's relevant here, except the reader's right to clarity. This page and its contents belong neither to Howe's nor Anderson's bands; they belong to the reader. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your issues with comprehension aren't restricted to the text of this article. The indent should have let you know my question was for Bondegezou. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a talk page. If you you want to have a private discussion do it elsewhere.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why this debate is so contentious. It seems to me that either in the lede, or between that and the history section there should be something that basically says "Currently, there are two groups who both have rights to the Yes trademark currently performing as Yes. One consists of ... and uses the original logo. The other consists of .... and uses a different logo and makes clear the difference calling themselves Yes featuring .... " Right now this information is kind of buried down in the Sherwood replaces Squire, Yes Feat. ARW, and Hall of Fame (2015–present) section, and it should probably be made more clear. Centerone (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Because there aren't "two bands currently performing as Yes". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary

Jon Anderson is a co-owner of the trademark "Yes", and as such has the right to use it to the extent that it doesn't cause any potential confusion with Yes LLC. Yes LLC (DBA "Yes") is owned by Howe, White, and the estate of Squire; Anderson has no claim to it. Jon Anderson is a class act, and has voluntarily gone beyond what is legally required of him. It's a shame that a few pretentious simpletons want to use WP as a soapbox to declare YfARW something it is not. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

source?—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 12:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The status of the Yes trademark ownership would add relevant info to the article, but beyond noting the band's statements regarding that ownership, we have nothing to add without a source. I think we should, if one exists. You seem to have knowledge, and I'm asking for the source of that knowledge.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 18:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"I" don't have a source. The community has one, and it's here, higher on this page. I've already mentioned this, of course, and at this point I'm no longer buying that you're incapable of comprehending such simple, straightforward statements. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source regarding who owns the Yes trademark?—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We have sources confirming that Anderson is "one of the co-owners" and Howe's Yes confirming that that is the case, but I'm looking for a more comprehensive source. Who are the other "co-owners"? Howe? White? Squire's estate? Others? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We're getting into WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY territory here, but I understand the critical trademark to be this, which says it is co-owned by Anderson, White and Squire.

This article says that, at Squire's death, ownership of the Yes brand (whatever precisely that means) was jointly held by Squire/Anderson/Howe/White. It has continuity Yes saying that Anderson "has a co-ownership right to use the name", while Anderson's management has that, "Jon Anderson [...] has always had the rights to use the name and the trademark". It also notes that the continuity Yes have all the rights to the Roger Dean logos. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will avoid OR in the article of course. Clarifying trademark ownership specifically, is something I believe would be of relevant interest in context of recent events. As always, seeking clarity :) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 12:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thought your version was clear myself, but someone felt they needed to place a viewpoint into the facts and overrode it. 2601:980:4180:1090:C88A:EB22:A5AF:73AA (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

To which section/edit are you referring?—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something useful in this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This just gives further evidence that it's a confusing mess. I appreciate the sources… but for the moment I can't see how adding anything additional contained in them helps the article. There's no singular statement of the current status of the name rights… just a bunch of varying reports that seem to conflict with each other. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement in the lede

Hey, folks! Is it necessary to stick a full statement in the lede? Why not have "In 2017, a band featuring former Yes members Anderson, guitarist Trevor Rabin and keyboardist Rick Wakeman changed their name to Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman." and explain it in detail in the sections like we have at the moment? It's going to have to change at some point if we want the article to get better in quality, right? Cheers. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary, and it imbrues the article with low-quality nonsense. It will resolve itself in due time. Two of the obstructionist editors seem to have moved on already, as they always do eventually. Unfortunately "anyone" includes Randy in Boise. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's important to make clear that both bands are active at the same time, and that there are concerns of confusion as a result of their activity with this name change. The rest is explained in the article. As for the brevity of the lede, I'll stay out of that one as long as the crucial info is covered. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out where I had seen your name before and now I remember: it was from the disruption you caused concerning Asia at MediaWiki and elsewhere. It certainly doesn't justify your obstructionist campaign to praise ARW and bury Yes, but it sure explains it. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

My goal is toward a neutral viewpoint in the article that represents the information that's relevant to the average reader coming to the article, especially after Yes' profile has been raised as a result of RRHOF. The way you've phrased this comment confirms clearly to me that you have a bias otherwise.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have said "…suggest to me that you may have a bias otherwise". I shouldn't presume to know your bias as an absolute, only what your words suggest.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, I myself was remiss in not considering the possibility that English is not your first language. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Joe, I know you prefer Yes to YFARW. So do I. Trevor Rabin is a joke; he can write a few catchy pop riffs, but that's about it. Steve Howe is not only one of the best guitarists around, he's a brilliant writer. He and Chris Squire were the true core of Yes from 1970 until Chris' death. The idea that ARW is "the definitive line-up" of anything is absurd; aside from the fact that Rabin and Wakeman have essentially no history with one another, there's the problem of the bassist and drummer. (Ask ten thousand Yes fans who should play bass and drums in "the definitive lineup", and zero point zero zero zero zero percent will reply "Lee Pomeroy and Lou Molino, of course.")

But this isn't about which band is better. It's about the fact that there are two bands with "Yes" in their name; both of them are touring with shows filled with Yes music. Both of these five-piece bands have three members who have recorded at least four studio albums with the band Yes (and one of them has five members who have recorded at least one). The two bands even mixed and mingled when playing at the Rock-and-Roll Hall of Fame, Steve side-by-side with Trevor. This means the question "which of these bands is Yes?" is a perfectly reasonable question for a newbie. Someone unfamiliar with the band Yes will find the two-bands-at-once thing confusing, or wonder whether one of them is the real band Yes, or whether perhaps both of them are arguably the real band Yes. It is our job to make sure that they can answer this question when they read the lede of this Wikipedia article.

My point is that not everyone who thinks that YFARW should be mentioned in the lede is trying to pretend they are the real Yes. Some of us think that they are not the real Yes, but that an extremely brief and cryptic mention of them in the lede will confuse our readers more than it will help them. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't think I have some kind of hatred for ARW. Jon Anderson is a astoundingly mellifluous singer and a wonderful human being. Jon Davison is a fine chap who gets an "A" for effort, but there's really no comparison. While Rick Wakeman has largely retained his manual dexterity, the years have not been a friend to Geoff Downes' fingers. What was once a close call is now no contest. Steve Howe is a virtuoso, and while Trevor Rabin is not in his league, IMHO he's far from a joke. Believe it or not, I don't really have a preference. They're two wonderful, wonderful bands; two DIFFERENT wonderful bands. Therein lies my gripe here. We have fanboy editors trying to fill the page with "alternative facts", original research, and speculation, instead of simply letting the facts speak for themselves. YfARW have an article, and the hat at the top of this article lets the reader know as much. Unlike the Jim Crow South, on Wikipedia, "separate but equal" is a good thing. My only platform here is accuracy. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I share the same goal - let the facts speak for themselves. There's no reason to play favorites, just consider the reader. Consider the many readers coming to this article after seeing the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction, and saying "I remember Yes. I want to know more about them." Some, I think, are coming at this too close to the topic of the past 10 years, and not seeing it from the holistic sense. No sense in restating beyond that - I agree with Lawrence's explanation. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The article tells all about them, so problem solved. Furthermore, there's a note at the top of the article that lets the reader know there is a band called "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman", and said note is wiki-linked, allowing interested readers to learn all about them with a single click. Again, problem solved. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: Agreed. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The hat note does not alone indicate that there "is" a band with that name (simply that there has, at one point, been one). The fact that they are both currently active, along with the fact that Yes is concerned of the confusion to ticket buyers, are both immediately relevant to understanding the present relevance of the topic.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to resolve this with a recent edit. Please discuss as needed. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shubopshadangalang: Finally! Something that reads and looks like a proper edit! Well done! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hiatus 2004-2008

We could continue the edit war forever, but perhaps a brief discussion would be more productive.

I think the following things are not in dispute:

Between 1981 and 1983, Yes was broken up. The band did not exist during this time.
Between 2004 and 2008, Yes was not "broken up". They were, according to their own words, "on hiatus".
It is not logical or sensible to say that a band is "active" while they are on hiatus. Joefromrandb made this point very forcefully in his comments on this edit.
Other bands, including Genesis, Pink Floyd, and Rush, have sometimes had gaps of several years between their albums and tours, during which the band members didn't work together in writing music, recording, or playing concerts -- and yet they were not "broken up" or disbanded during these gaps.
The template at the top of every Wikipedia band page has a field called years_active, which displays the words Years active to our readers.

Until I changed it two days ago, the years_active field said "1968–1981, 1983–present (Hiatus 2004–2008).

My argument is that (1) Yes was on hiatus between 2004 and 2008; (2) a band on hiatus is not "active"; (3) therefore, Yes was not active between 2004 and 2008; (4) and therefore the years_active field should not include the years 2005 to 2007 at all. In my judgment, it should simply read: 1968–1981, 1983–2004, 2008–present. Readers who are interested in why the band was inactive during the "inactive" eras can read the article. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It says "hiatus" right there in the info-box, so no one is going to be confused. The only reason it's even there is because it's how the band referred to themselves during this period. As I (and you) noted, other bands go through years-long periods of inactivity. I see no reason to handle Yes' situation any differently than we handle those bands, and I'm not sure why you do. Yes were non-existent from 1981–1983. This isn't the case with 2004–2008. (These are another two points that you yourself mention.) Joefromrandb (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of handling all these bands the same way. But I did a quick search of the bands you mentioned and can't find any that say "hiatus" in their infoboxes. Are there any?

Given a choice between the "hiatus" option and simply saying "active 1983 to present", I prefer the hiatus option. If the Wikipedia field said "Years together" or "Years that the band existed", I would instantly agree with you. But the term is "years active", and you yourself agreed that the band was not active from 2005 to 2007. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Hiatus" was added way back when the band's website said: "Yes on hiatus". It's not entirely necessary. We could just list them as "active" from 1983–present. What I meant about handling bands the same way was that the info-boxes for bands like The Rolling Stones and Rush don't list them as "inactive" during the years they didn't tour or release anything. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hiatus = inactive. That means not active, for the folks at home. Obviously there are nuances beyond the years they were active, and different reasons for different periods in which they weren't. Fortunately, we have a whole article to tell that story. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Info-boxes are for readers who do not wish to read the whole article. It's either "hiatus", or "1983–present". Joefromrandb (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb: I agree that we don't put gaps in the infobox just because a band doesn't release albums or tour for a few years. But do you have any evidence that any other band has ever publically said they were "on hiatus" during some period, and yet their Wikipedia infobox lists these among their "active" years? If not, then your analogy to other bands is not convincing.

Also: We have a choice between (A) "1983–present", (B) "1983–present (hiatus 2004-2008)", or (C) "1983–2004, 2008–present". The infobox previously used option B. Several editors, including myself, had edited the article to use option C. You reverted it to B, and argued for B. But then in your last statement (It's either "hiatus", or "1983–present.") and your most recent edit to the infobox suddenly pushed for A. It seems that this is a negotiating tactic on your part: when you realize that you are outnumbered in the argument for B versus C, you then propose option A, which naturally makes B the "reasonable compromise". This is a clever tactic, but I don't think it's a fair way to argue your case. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not meant as a clever tactic. I prefer "B", but a valid argument can be made for "A", so I'm fine with it. There is no valid argument for "C" right now. The info-box has listed that period as "hiatus" for years, without issue. I see no reason to remove it, but I'll go along with "1983–present" as a genuine, albeit begrudging willingness to compromise. As for other bands, I don't know any that have used the specific word "hiatus", but many have made similar announcements. Rush, for instance, announced the band was on hold indefinitely after the deaths of Neil Peart's daughter and wife. Since their "comeback", they've announced similar breaks of both specified and unspecified lengths. They're actually still listed as "active", even though they have no plans to tour or record, and Peart has announced his retirement. Genesis are listed as "active" (I personally find this to be extreme) simply because they haven't specifically said they're done. Camel (band), and Genesis (band) have both used "hiatus" in the info-box at some point. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, "2" is not "several", and "2–2" is not "outnumbered". Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Analogy to Genesis article

Full disclosure: Now that I think about it, in Genesis' case, I believe it was I who added the word "hiatus". It was meant largely as an attempt at compromise, as I found (still find) the idea that Genesis are an active band to be patently absurd. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Joefromrandb with respect to Genesis! Bondegezou (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

C. Also, the Genesis article mentioned follows this as well. Their hiatus between 1998 and 2006 is represented in the info box as a period in which they weren't active. Again, the article is there to explain *why* there was a period of inactivity.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 12:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong and wrong. Then again, I shouldn't expect you to suddenly start paying attention. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Joe, can you explain why you think Shada Ng is wrong about Genesis? The lede and body of Genesis (band) both state that Genesis was on "hiatus" between 1998 and 2007, and its infobox does not include these years within the period of being "active". In other words, the Genesis infobox does not include a "hiatus" as part of "Years active". Obviously it's not a fixed law that we should edit the Yes article in the same way as the Genesis article, but you were the one who appealed to Genesis as a parallel, and yet that parallel seems to support your opponents' arguments. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

They don't state Genesis were "on hiatus". After Phil Collins left, they made one album with Ray Wilson and then called it quits. They weren't "on hiatus", they were disbanded. They reunited for one tour, yet they are listed as "active" even though they have done nothing for 10 years now and have no plans to. The info-box never said Genesis were on hiatus between 1998 & 2007; it said they are currently on hiatus. Even that was apparently too much for the guardians of the article. The info-box lists them as inactive during the years they were broken up, while calling them active over the course of 10 years during which they have done nothing, because they haven't officially broken up. If the thousand-to-one shot tour with Peter Gabriel were to take place next year, the info-box would say they were "active" over the course of 11 years that they were technically inactive. "Years active", for info-box purposes, means "years together". In Yes' case, the band were a non-entity from 1981 to 1983. This isn't the case with 2004 to 2008. The article can handle the details, but as I said, the info-box is specifically meant for readers who don't wish to read the article. The info-box for Genesis (band) is most certainly a parallel; so are those for The Rolling Stones, Camel (band), Kiss (band), Rush (band), AC/DC, Guns N' Roses, Bitch (band), Hawkwind, Golden Earring, Queen (band), ZZ Top, Zebra (American band), King Diamond (band), D.R.I. (band), The Kingsmen, The The, Raven (British band), and on and on and on. I've reached the point where I assume bad faith with Shada Ng, but you seem quite sincere. It just baffles me why you would want Yes treated as an anomaly. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Joe, I wrote, "The lede and body of Genesis (band) both state that Genesis was on 'hiatus' between 1998 and 2007." You replied, "They don't state Genesis were 'on hiatus'." Yet here is a direct quotation from the lede: "Banks and Rutherford recruited Ray Wilson for Calling All Stations (1997), but a lack of success in the US led to a group hiatus. Banks, Rutherford and Collins reunited for the Turn It On Again Tour in 2007...." The body again uses the word "hiatus", and in fact it is used as a section header: Genesis (band)#1996–2006: Wilson on lead vocals, Calling All Stations, and hiatus. So I don't understand why you say the article doesn't say this. I do not want Yes treated as an anomaly. I want it treated exactly like Genesis, whose infobox simply says "1967–1998, 2006–present" -- entirely omitting the period which the article says they were on hiatus.

I don't know about the text of the article. I'm talking about the info-box, which lists them as "active" over the course of the last 10 years although they have not been active at all, nor do they have any plans to be "active" at any time in the future. We seem to have a very different reading of the article, so let's put Genesis aside for a moment. Above, I listed 17 other examples of articles that list bands as "active" during years during which they had no activity at all, and I can easily provide many more. Unintentional as it may be, you are in fact trying to treat Yes as an anomaly. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Bondegezou, could you weigh in on the Genesis article? Somehow it seems that Joe and I are reading the Genesis article completely differently; I believe it says the band was on hiatus 1998-2006 and omits those years in the infobox. Assuming good faith, perhaps there is confusion here. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Joe, I agree with you that Genesis being listed as "active" during 2008-present (or, for that matter, 1988-1990) is analogous to the Yes situation from 2004-2008. Therefore, I agree that it makes sense for the Yes infobox to say what it currently says. I know that tempers are a bit raw here, but I wish you would read my comments more carefully. I had written, "The lede and body of Genesis (band) both state that Genesis was on 'hiatus' ....", to which you replied, "They don't state Genesis were 'on hiatus'" -- which was incorrect. But now you say "I don't know about the text of the article; I'm talking about the info-box". So now I see that when you said "They", you meant "the infobox", not the actual antecedent. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Return to main discussion

Anyone else have an opinion worth paying attention to ?—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cute. Before he quietly changed it, the above post read: "Anyone worth paying attention to have an opinion?". There's a word for that, and it starts with "T"... ... ... Joefromrandb (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I avoid anything that looks like a personal attack, as a rule. Because it's a terribly ineffective way to make an argument. It's a rule I highly recommend. And nothing is quiet here.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, it was quiet. Otherwise, you would have stricken the original text, or at least noted "edited", or "amended". Nice try though. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! You too. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Back to the point: Was the band active during their hiatus? Yes or no. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer to that question is "yes and no", which is why the word "hiatus" helps to clarify things. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If so, the article needs to verifiably speak to what kinds of activity the band were engaged in if it contradicts with their self-described hiatus. Currently it (the article) doesn't accomplish that. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Both, I think a lot more assuming good faith needs to be going on.

As for Yes, they weren't touring or working on material in the 2004-7 hiatus, but they were talking to each other, discussing possible plans, overseeing archival releases. So, in some sense, a Yes did exist during this period, and, in another sense, it was largely inactive. Infoboxes are lousy at capturing subtlety: I don't see a "right" answer to how the infobox should cover this. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Great point, but existence and activity are two different things. The article can—and should—explain the difference, but as for the infobox, the part we're discussing concerns "years active"; and "hiatus" specifically means a period in which they're not active. If there is sourced material in the article that speaks to ongoing activity, as you've summarized, despite the band describing themselves as inactive, then we might have something to talk about here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The sad thing is that there isn't really anything to talk about here. The chances of a consensus to change the info-box from the long-standing version are up there with Peter Banks being announced as Howe's replacement for the next Cruise to the Edge. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

For once, I agree. If that's the case, it is, indeed, sad.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Could agree to at least note the hiatus in sequence? Currently we have: "1968–1981 • 1983–present (Hiatus: 2004–2008)" …what if, instead, we said: "1968–1981 • 1983–2004 • (Hiatus) • 2008-present" ? That would seem to make it clear, in, to me, a much more logical way. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're truly unable to grasp such a frightfully simple concept (which I'm not buying for a second), perhaps you should try Simple English Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

The infobox and the personnel section for this article follow the pattern at Ratt, listing both Yes (i.e. Howe, White &c.) and Yes ft ARW.

The lede stays focused on the history of the band, but refers to both at the end.

The article text remains focused on the 2008+ history of the band with Squire (until 2015), Howe, White etc., but with reference and links to Yes ft ARW. Bondegezou (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be OK with all of that except the info-box. There is currently no ancillary article for the spin-off Ratt. AR&W already have an article. They certainly belong in the info-box under "associated acts", but everything else can be handled at their article. Both bands' members are listed in Ratt's article because it's the only one. Conversely, the members of Asia Featuring John Payne are not listed in Asia's info-box because they have two articles. Yes have two articles as well. Listing AR&W's members in Yes' info-box is not only unnecessary, but stands to confuse readers, misleading them to believe there are two versions of Yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In some sense, there are two versions of Yes. Our duty to the reader is to explain what's going on and to follow WP:BALANCE/WP:PROPORTION.

If we can reach consensus on the changes to the personnel section, lede and main text, perhaps we can get the article unblocked and then come back to the infobox question later. Bondegezou (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've got my vote for everything else. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks Bondegezou.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Weams:, @Fekso: if you're OK with the above, we can probably request that the article is unblocked ahead of time. Any comments? Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. As I mentioned, I do not care who does the edits. Just so they are truthful and not vindictive. weams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I have asked User:Ymblanter to reduce the protection level. Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The article has now been unblocked. Let's avoid any edit-warring and come back to Talk if there is any disagreement. I've changed the personnel section as promised. I've made YfARW a bit more prominent in the lede, to better balance it. I've also expanded the main text somewhat to better cover developments. Hope that's all OK.

I've left the infobox unchanged, but maybe we could discuss that further. Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I made a few little edits to add consistency with your changes. I can't imagine any of them would be controversial. I'm in favor of making the info box consistent with the Personnel section. I don't understand that being a separate concern. Open to discussion on all of the above of course.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but the first paragraph in the current lede is quite problematic. Sentences 1, 2 and 4 are about the band Yes, but sentence 3 is about YFARW, and the result is confusing. I've moved the YFARW material to a separate paragraph in the lede. I suspect this will be reverted or changed, but I feel that the following facts are essential and should become clear to anyone who reads the lede:

As of this moment, there are two Yes-related bands with "Yes" in their names who play Yes music in their concerts. (This does NOT mean that they are "equally Yes" -- that's a controversial point -- but the previous sentence is not controversial.)
One of these bands -- the one named "Yes" -- has released two studio albums as well as live albums under the name "Yes" since the Yes/Anderson split in 2008. The other band has not recorded or released any albums.

Why are these points important? Because rather than focus on the question of who has legal rights to the name -- a point that is fundamentally irrelevant (the first Genesis album was released in America when a different band had the legal rights to the name "Genesis" in the USA, but Wikipedia still calls it the first Genesis album!) -- we should focus on the fact that Yes is, among other things, famous as a band that has written and recorded 21 studio albums. But this statement is not true of YFARW. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct. The problem is the misconception that both Yes and YfARW represent the natural linear progression of the band. Mr. Jon Anderson, of course, claims no such thing; it's simply original research and wishful thinking coming from misguided editors. (I respect Bondegezou as a knowledgeable historian of the band, which is why I requested he clarify his statement.) Joefromrandb (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed the confusing disclaimer at the top mentioning that the article did not include both bands touring as YES currently. Since the article clearly references both entities at several points that appears to be a baffling addition. weams (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think a "distinguish" hat-note is a "confusing disclaimer", I'm afraid you lack the competence required to participate here. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because you called a vandalism a hat note does not make it so here. It has been concluded that both bands are represented in the article. Unless someone other than you thinks that it needs to stay, It should not. It's just meant to muddy the factual content. You have made it clear that you think that restricting editing to superiors such as yourself is the correct way to do wikipedia. weams (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Weams, no it has not been "concluded" that both bands are represented here. Yes (band) and Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin and Rick Wakeman will remain two different articles. The "hat notes" will prevent confusion. It's just like George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush -- two separate articles, but since some people might confuse them, hat notes at the top of each article help our readers be sure they're looking at the right page. Moreover, because Yes and YFARW are two bands with important connections between them, there are also a variety of links within each bands' article mentioning the other bands. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the hat note is great to ward off potential confusion - a confusion warned by the band. Speaking of which, I've just added some details on that issue, with several sources of attempts at alleviating the confusion they warned about last week in their statement. Also added statements from both camps about their (lack of) intentions to tour together, even for the anniversary next year.

The phrasing of the hat note, however, (not its presence) could create additional confusion, though. There is a separate article with more info, but the implication is that they're unrelated, and merely have similar names. As Weams said, they are mentioned in this article, so they're not an unrelated topic. I don't know the standard phrasing for those, but something along the lines of "See also" would be more appropriate IMHO. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 12:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The template for the hat note, Template:Distinguish, says it should be used when the reader can tell simply from the title that they want the other article. That is not the case here where the reader may not have any understanding of the Yes/YfARW distinction. Ergo, I don't think the hat note is appropriate here. Either, we rely on the lede to explain the difference and provide a link to the full YfARW article, or we could use the Template:About template. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that for either one of those to be the right choice, the topic of this article would have to be entirely about Howe & White's Yes, and none of the shared history of the "Yes" that both bands place most of their value. Hypothetically, the only way to make that distinction would be to include the same history in both, or exclude it from both. Neither of those would be reasonable courses, so I'm at a loss to suggest anything but to remove the hat note and let the article speak for itself to clarify the distinction between the two acts, as I think it now does.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The lede is currently a complete sow's ear, but even if it accurately represented the facts, the hat would still be appropriate. It's purpose is to quickly redirect readers who may be looking for something else. It doesn't need to be "distinguish"; Bondegezou's suggestion of "about" would be fine too. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What should the About tag say?

I think we should switch from Template:Distinguish to Template:About, as discussed above. However, the latter requires some explanatory text. Thus...

I propose the following...

Or is that way too complicated?

The alternative is to leave the explanation up to the lede, with or without a hat note. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing looks good to me, up until you say "rival line-up" and one considers "…of what?". If of "the progressive rock band Yes formed in 1968…" then I think the whole thing is self-defeating. Let the article speak to the distinction. And for editors who think the article needs improvement, please improve it.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 12:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we revisit this? The implication of the current hat note is that it refers to a completely unrelated topic (e.g. the hat note on Train (band)). Tweaking Bondegezou's suggestion above, how about:

I realize that's rather lengthy, so help me out with that if possible without sacrificing clarity. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. Bondegezou (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems mostly okay. I am not convinced there's anything wrong with the simple hat-note. True, simple hat-notes are also used for articles that are completely unrelated except for their titles -- like Genesis (band) and Genesis (Bible) -- but I don't think that a simple hat note implies the articles are unrelated. YFARW is mentioned and linked to in the very first paragraph of the lede, so no confusion results from a simple hat note.

But the complicated hat-note is fine too -- except for the word "rival". Nothing in the body of this article states that the two bands are "rivals", and I'm not aware of any source that supports this claim. Anderson and Howe, in various interviews, have made statements from which long-time fans like us can reasonably infer that there are bruised feelings, but that doesn't seem enough to support the claim "rivals." (Roger Waters said some very nasty things about Yoko Ono, but they weren't "rivals." I'm short on money right now so I had to decide whether to buy tickets to YFARW or to King Crimson, but they aren't "rivals.") And suppose next month, Howe says something nice about YFARW: will you remove the word "rival" then? I'd rather avoid anything in the hatnote that is subjective. (I'm not even keen on the word "reunion", due to the lack of meaningful history connecting Rabin and Wakeman, but I don't have a better word to suggest, so I guess it's fine.) — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from here, but I agree with Bondegezou's word choice in "rival line-up". I think you're reacting to the connotation of the word, rather than its literal meaning. Literally, it's true to describe "line-up" - they are "rival line-ups" of one another, meaning that each line-up seeks to pull from one pool of resources (Yes fans), and in a very real sense, are competing for their attention. There's no reason to read into this that there is any ill will involved, unless a descriptive term were used with it, which there isn't. Of course I'm open to alternatives, but another word such as "competing" would carry more of a negative meaning, and we definitely want this to be as neutral as possible while remaining accurate. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; the term "rival" doesn't require ill-will. But your explanation still contains claims that, if stated in the body of the article, would require some kind of sourcing. Do these line-ups really compete for Yes fans? If Peter Green, Mick Fleetwood, and John McVie were to go on tour playing Fleetwood Mac's earliest blues music while Buckingham & Nicks were touring playing the later pop stuff, I don't think they would have much audience overlap. Of course, I believe that there is significant overlap between fans of Drama and fans of Big Generator, but that's a belief that needs to be sourced. Perhaps the term line-up is even more problematic. In 1998, I saw Dream Theatre and ELP open for Deep Purple. In normal parlance, I would say that I saw "three bands" that evening -- not "three line-ups". On the other hand, we would say that Yes' first five studio albums were recorded by "three different line-ups" -- not "three different bands". In other words, the word "line-up" typically indicates different incarnations of the same band. Thus the text you propose might imply that Yes and YFARW are in some sense the same band. That's problematic! My personal opinion is that YFARW is exactly as much of a true Yes as Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe were: recall that when Yes and ABRW merged for "Union", there was never any doubt what the merged band would be named. However, the decision to treat Yes and YFARW as two distinct bands for Wikipedia purposes is a done deal and shouldn't be undermined by the hat note. So that's another problem I have with the phrasing. I'm not saying "don't do it", because your version is better than what we have now -- I just think the wording can be improved to avoid the problems I mentioned. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from here, but I can't imagine we would need a source to tell us that a band composed of former Yes members who plays Yes music under a variation of the Yes name has any intention other than to do so to appeal to fans of Yes, regardless of the subtleties of the different aspects of fandom each may appeal to (the hat note is no place for subtlety anyway). If you need a source, I'm sure there are plenty that state that that's who their audience is, and I'd be happy to add that, if what's already in the article isn't enough. It just seems to me like adding extra content to the article that adds nothing new that's not obvious already.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not convinced that your current phrasing is the best possible, but it's fine with me. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Requires changing the lede, too: One other point. You are proposing an About tag that explains that there are two distinct bands today with "Yes" in their name, and that YFARW is composed of former Yes members. If that is done, then there is no need to repeat this exact same information in the first paragraph of the lede. Instead, the sentence (or half-sentence) about YFARW currently in the first paragraph of the lede should be moved lower, to the end of the third paragraph of the lede (in other words, to its correct chronological location). Otherwise we are telling our reader something and then repeating it just a few lines later. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the necessity of the hat note - only, that, if it's a must, it should be clear (and "not to be confused with…" isn't). Personally, I'd rather the lede explain in prose, and get rid of the hat note, so that it reads more naturally. However, though I do see your point about it being redundant, I don't agree that it's a "requirement" as the lede and the hat note serve different functions. (The info box also states redundant information, but its function in doing so is different) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that a hat-note is necessary, but I certainly prefer it. Readers can more quickly understand text in familiar format, and hat notes are very familiar to Wikipedia readers. You suggested that "the lede and the hat note serve different functions". Technically they serve multiple functions, and there is overlap between these function. The hat note serves two functions: (1) it lets casual readers know the relationship between the two different bands [this is why your wording is an improvement over the simple hatnote, which explains nothing], and (2) it provides a convenient link. The sentence in the lede serves two functions: (3) it lets casual readers know the relationship between the two different bands, and (4) it lets careful readers know that this is a recent development. Based on #3, the sentence should go as early as possible; based on #4, the sentence should go in its chronological location at the end of the third paragraph. If we go with the hat note you propose, the sentence no longer is required to perform task #3, so only task #4 is relevant -- so there will be no reason for the sentence to be located anywhere other than its chronological location in the lede. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's some overlap in their functions, but I think it it's important for each to serve those functions, despite some overlap. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the hat note serves the function of clarifying the article's over all intent, whereas the lede is an overview, including the contemporary relevance of Yes in context of its history. There's overlap there as well, but the two aren't mutually exclusive.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I'm not suggesting that the sentence about YFARW be removed from the lede. It certainly belongs there. But it belongs in its chronological position, at the end of the third paragraph of the lede. The only reason it's currently in the very first paragraph, where it doesn't really belong, is that the YFARW situation is so confusing. Your revised hatnote fixes that issue. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You certainly make a fair argument, and though I don't entirely agree, I'll go along with that. :) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made the edit along with some related wording tweaks and contextual detail. Discuss further as needed. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: Seeing the tag at the top of the page, I still like it a lot. But I feel it is too long; on my desktop it can span more than two rows if my browser isn't wide. What do you think about changing "the progressive rock band Yes" to "the rock band Yes" or simply "the band Yes"? I think the genre of Yes' music isn't needed in the hatnote. Also, what do you think about changing "their current line-up with the same name" to simply "their current line-up"? In the context, the word "their" refers back to "Yes", so "with the same name" would seem unnecessary. These suggestions are just to make the text shorter; I have no material objection to the current text. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've returned the original simple, self-explanatory tag. When I said I had no problem switching from "distinguish" to "about" it didn't occur to me to add the caveat that it needed to be truthful. Given the discussion so far, that was quite a foolish presumption on my part. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The new version by LK is fine. Still not necessary, but no point splitting hairs; at least it's now factual. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal.
Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman into this talk page's article was:

Not Done—Consensus Reached.
— — — — —

Merger proposal

I propose that Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman be merged into Yes (band). As of April 10th, the Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman band is known as Yes featuring Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman. I think that the content in the Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman article can easily be explained in the context of YES, and the YES article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman will not cause any problems (If shortend), as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

For examples of bands sharing the same Wikipedia page, see Great White, Ratt and L.A. Guns. Both versions of Yes have the right to this specific Wikipedia page, not just the Howe version. Fekso (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not gonna happen. This article is already long, but more importantly, it's about Yes. AR&W have their own article. More importantly, they had one long before they started calling themselves "Yes". See Asia (band) and Asia Featuring John Payne for more info. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because the page is large doesn't give anyone the right to exclude history. It just don't make sense to leave out a band that promotes itself as Yes from a Wikipedia Yes article. For example, I noticed that Wakeman, Rabin and Anderson are no longer listed as current nor former members of Yes in this article. Either you have a Yes featuring Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman section in the member section, or you list them as former members of this version of Yes. Fekso (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

If Anderson, Wakeman, and Rabin (and that's the order in which they would go) aren't listed as former members then that obviously needs to be fixed. AR&W should certainly be mentioned here, just as ABWH are mentioned, but merging the articles is a non-starter. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Having the current history of the band known as Yes featuring Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman under the Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman Wikipedia page would be like having the history of Yes under the Mabel Greer's Toyshop Wikipedia page or Black Sabbath under the Polka Tulk Blues Band Wikipedia page. It makes no sense whatsoever. The ABWH (for other people reading this discussion Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe was a project that held no legal rights to the Yes name) situation is nothing like the Yes featuring Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman situation since Yes featuring Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman has the legal right to call themself Yes. If they hold a legal right to that name they should also be part of this page.Fekso (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Sorry, I thought you were being serious before. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, the Yes page should be separate from ARW just as Yes is separate from ABWH.

Absolutely. The are both Yes, and both sides have agreed that they each have right to the name. Certainly it is ok if one points out that up until two months ago, the were referred to as ARW. ABWH was never given that right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weams (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

We should add Anderson, Wakeman, and Rabin in the Personnel section whether it's under the former or current section. Is there a reason why they are absent? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

They're either members of Yes or they're former members of Yes. You have to answer that question first.--—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys are edit-warring over this and then self-righteously leaving the Personnel section with the complete absence of 3 of its most well-known members? Excluding them is not an option. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 01:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that does it. Several users for whom I have considerable respect have suggested to me that I'm too cavalier with the word "troll". Taking that into consideration, I've been biting my tongue since this nonsense started, but that post is more than I can abide. A user asked about the absence of Anderson, Rabin, and Wakeman as personnel. Your response was that their status as "members/ former members" should be settled first (my emphasis). Several hours later you complained in mock-disbelief that they have been "self-righteously" excluded. Maybe that still doesn't amount to trolling, but its antecedent is a complete lack of the competence necessary to participate. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added them back in under "Former Members" - for the moment. There are two bands using the name Yes, and this article should make that clear. For the record, I'm in favor of merging the articles, but that's not the only way to make the point clear. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 01:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel that as ARW already had their own big page and just simply stole the Yes name, they should keep their own page and not be merged with the actual Yes. And, regardless of the legalities, they are still obviously two separate bands which have their own schedules which are distinct and different and their own members which are distinct and different, sharing none of the above in common currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.204.133 (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

They didn't "steal" the name. Jon Anderson is a part-owner of the "Yes" trademark, and he's entitled to use it. Instead, he wisely chose to use: "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Rick Wakeman, and Trevor Rabin". Despite the perspicacity of Anderson's negation of any ambiguity, we have a couple of folks here unable to grasp the astonishingly simple fact that these are two separate bands. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The ARW page should absolutely stay, but it should not represent anything beyond the namn change other than the fact that the name change to Yes featuring AWR occured. As I said before, just because the page is large doesn't give anyone the right to exclude history. The current Yes article represent one version of the band right now, the first step forward would be to agree on a proper way of representing Anderson, Wakeman, and Rabin in the member section. Are they current or former members of Yes? Are they current members of Yes featuring Anderson, Wakeman, and Rabin? Should the band Yes featuring Anderson, Wakeman, and Rabin have their own member section on this page? Fekso (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use a sandbox version of the Yes page to find some common ground? User:Fekso/sandbox. Fekso (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Editors: two things to consider: (1) Even though "Yes Featuring Anderson, Rabin, Wakeman" may be the official name, to most people the words that follow "Yes" aren't a name, they're just a description. If I ask for a ham sandwich, and you give me a "ham sandwich featuring mayonnaise" it's still a ham sandwich, and still what I asked for. (2) Remember Asia vs. John Payne, and how that affected the Asia (band) article. This is relevant on several levels, but if you recall, the continuity of the band's history was set aside based on name rights, and the continuation of the then-current band was disregarded. Briefly this delved into some revisionist history, but was rectified after a while. You have to be careful not to rewrite history, but also not to make continuity with history too precious either. What matters is accuracy and clarity for readers of the article: There are two bands using the name "Yes". Why? Who? --—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I see people refering to the Asia feat John Payne article, but there's also many examples where bands share Wikipedia page. For example, Great White, Ratt and L.A. Guns. The John Payne situation was very different to the Yes situation and is therefore not sufficient as a reference page. Fekso (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What you're failing to realize is that this comes down to site-wide guidelines. "Jack Russell's Great White" is not notable enough for a separate article. AR&W not only easily meet notability guidelines, but they met them with flying colors long before taking on a variant of the "Yes" name. As I said, this article is already pushing it in terms of length; if AR&W didn't have an article, this would have been an ideal time to discuss splitting them off into their own article. You're proposing the exact opposite, which would require an astoundingly egregious need. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Forest for the trees. Articles don't exist so they can be short. They exist to provide information. Regardless of whether an article existed before, what best serves the clarity of the subject (in this case, a band or bands called "Yes") to those reading it? --—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, someone must have put you up to this, right? You can tell me. Is this a rib? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, sorry :) You'll have to fill me in.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Articles don't exist so they can be short"? So that was actually serious? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing what I perceived as your rationale. But don't miss the point - the purpose of the article (or any article) is to be informative and accurate. Brevity should be a goal, but if you sacrifice clarity to achieve brevity, then your focus is off. Consider the reader.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 01:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a clarity problem that needs addressing. Don't get caught up in the technicalities. If not a merge, then what? There's a problem that needs to be solved here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added a proposal to merge the pages. I think that's the solution. If you disagree, fine - propose an alternative solution. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

An "alternative solution" would be rethinking the idiocy of "anyone can edit". Joefromrandb (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You are still misunderstanding that this proposal has no policy-based rationale, and runs contrary to the guidelines put forth at WP:Merging. Even if by some bizarre chance you gain consensus for this (which you won't), any merge will be quickly reverted (and not by me). Unless an extraordinary WP:IAR rationale is presented, local consensus cannot override site-wide norms. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a question for Joefromrandb, is your idea that all future events coming from Yes featuring AWR should be added to the AWR page with no mention on this page? 130.237.226.179 (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's so odd having AWR listed as former members of Yes. I'm seeing them live this summer at a concert promoted under the Yes banner. John Payne is a former member of Asia because his version of the band has no legal right to the Asia name. He is allowed to use the Asia featuring John Payne name. In the Yes situation we have multiple owners, each leading their version of the same band (in a legal sense). The only reason AWR are using the name Yes featuring AWR is to avoid confusion. If the Howe version of Yes folded I'm sure the AWR version would revert to using only Yes. We have multiple examples where members with no legal right use names such as Asia featuring John Payne, Queensryche featuring Geoff Tate (folded after legal process) and Oliver/Dawson Saxon. We also have examples where two bands share the legal right and therefore the right to the Wikipedia band page with the notable examples of Great White (Jack Russell's Great White and Great White both hold the legal right to the name), Ratt (legal process under way) and L.A. Guns (L.A. Guns has reverted back to being one single band). Fekso (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem still exists - two bands using versions of the name Yes. As an example, Yes (the one featuring Howe and White) was referred to in the San Diego tribune as "Yes — that is, the Yes that does not feature Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman" . To those interested in making constructive attempts to resolve the clarity issue and participating in a civil discussion - let's discuss what the possible approaches may be (merging the pages is only one possibility), and move forward from there. One note, a Wikipedia page is not something any person or group has a "right" to, as Fekso suggested above… it exists for public information. That said, the legal rights to a name are relevant insomuch as an article is about that the notable persons performing using that legal name, which the Yes article is. I say that as a reminder that our goal is not to give something to whoever we think deserves it - any and all edits should be to achieve clarity for the reader, not for Howe, not for Anderson, not for self-righteous editors, but the reader. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, if no merge, I will update the page with correct information as there is a lot of national attention to this due to the tours and Rock Hall induction. Weams weams (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I would avoid that. Obviously people don't agree on how to handle the situation. I'm sure your edits will be reverted if you do.Fekso (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been clarified today that Jon Anderson and Alan White are the sole owners of the Yes trademark and both intend for now to continue marketing their bands under YES monikers. If at some point in the future either choose to be know otherwise at that point the articles could be separated and edited as individual articles. I have no dog in this fight. I do not care if my edit is the surviving one. The facts need to be stated. A band originally promoted by the names of the band mates has now invoked it's legal right to perform under their legacy name. It is really quite simple. No agenda. Some folks want it to be one way. But it is the other. weams (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort has been "clarified". Anderson is a co-owner of the trademark "Yes". That means he can use the name. That's it. Notice the lettering of the logo that AR&W are using; it looks nothing like the traditional "Yes" logo. That's because the Roger Dean logos are owned by Howe, White, and Squire's estate. Furthermore, and this is what beggars belief, because it's actually covered in the fucking source that you provided: Anderson is contractually bound to not promote himself or his band in a manner that is likely to cause any confusion with the actual band "Yes". Yes are a limited-liability company owned by (again, your own source points this out) Howe, White, and Squire's estate. There are not "two versions of Yes". "Yes" and "Yes featuring Jon Anderson, Rick Wakeman, and Trevor Rabin" are two completely separate bands. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Weams: source? Joe: Calm the hell down… the distinction you make is not clear to anyone outside a courtroom. To everyone else, there are two bands called Yes, and by the way one of them features Anderson, Rabin, and Wakeman. This is the clarity issue that needs solving here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 04:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't tell me to calm the hell down, and don't presume to speak for "everyone else" either. Just whom the fuck do you think you are? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Case in point. WP:5P4 —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 12:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't merge. For at least two decades, it has been common for a handful of members of a classic rock band to tour, playing the "oldies". The tour promoters and individual venues will inevitably use the band's name to promote the tour. So "Pete Best On Tour" morphs into "Pete Best of the Beatles" morphs into "The Beatles Featuring Pete Best". All of the promotional materials prior to April 9 fall into this category. The April 9 announcement is something new -- and we don't yet know how the real Yes will react to it. If there is a legal settlement (as there was with Asia and AsiaFeaturingJohnPayne), Wikipedia will reflect that reality. But until then, ARW is not the band discussed in the Wikipedia article Yes (band), and claiming they are don't make it so. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't merge, but appropriately refer to each article from the other. There are two distinct bands: as there is enough material for each to have an article, so it should be. Each article should refer to the other to make clear to the uninformed reader what is going on (with reference to reliable sources). The question is really which band should share an article with the history of Yes 1968-2007? Given the continuity of name, personnel and Wikipedia editing, that would be more appropriately the "official" Yes under Howe/White. Contrary to claims above, it is not clear that Yes ft. ARW have the right to call themselves just "Yes": I've not seen a reliable source say that. The YfARW article should have a potted history of Yes and explain the difference to the current Howe/White-led band. This article should clearly signpost to the YfARW article in the main text, in the lede and in the infobox, as should associated templates and infoboxes. And, of course, the whole matter should be kept under review as the situation evolves and to reflect where the weight of reliable source coverage is. Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This is logical, and solving the problem to a large degree. Again, whether or not they have the rights to the Yes name on its own, the use of the phrase "featuring so-and-so…" following any name, based on common use of the language, would tend to suggest that it's an accolade of the name that precedes. If I ask for a ham sandwich and you give me a "ham sandwich featuring mayonnaise" I still got what I asked for. People looking for a band called Yes that features Jon Anderson and some other people and will come to this article and find that the first sentence says this is the band founded by Jon Anderson. The name is confusing to everybody else outside a courtroom as I said above (and I stand by that as only a very slight exaggeration) and this article should do all it can to make that distinction clear. So, bolding the entire name where appropriate can help, and/or using a descriptive phrase such as "spin-off band" or "offshoot band" or "separate band" etc. before or after the full name, would help. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose to merge. As an editor of both articles, I see no need for the two to merge as they are their own distinct entities with their own albums, line-ups, tour dates, reviews, etc. See how we did for ABWH into the Yes article, we can do for this. It's no different, really. Cheers guys! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

They haven't released any albums yet.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Revived merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge: Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman into Yes (band); dated: May 2017. Proposer's Rationale: There are two bands currently touring as Yes, both hold equal legal rights to the Yes name as stated by both. @Fekso:. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since last month, when this merge proposal was carefully discussed and rejected overwhelmingly. Since you are the one who proposed it on 11 April (see above), it seems odd for you to raise the question yet again. All the same people will vote no as we did last month. What's the point? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Nothing has changed and this is a waste of time. I suggest a speedy close. Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Tags have been removed (1 by Bondegezou, 1 by me), listing at "Proposed Mergers" has been removed (by me). The rationale is a lie that has been thoroughly debunked, as well as explained to the author of the proposal. Proposal is dead in the water. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

Yes on today's Did You Know...

Alright, fellow Yes heads!? I got "Wonderous Stories" on today's Did You Know section of the front page today. Let's make it an inspiration to improve and submit more Yes-related articles? I've recently worked on Keys to Ascension and Magnification, and currently working on the much needed Big Generator, the poor thing. Peace out. o/ LowSelfEstidle (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm so old that I remember when "Wonderous Stories" and "Going For the One" were occasionally played on AOR rock radio. Then that format died and was replaced with the "classic rock" radio format, which plays the same four songs ("Roundabout", "Long Distance Runaround", "I've Seen All Good People", and "Owner of a Lonely Heart") over and over and over, and is completely unaware of anything else that Yes ever recorded. That is, when they aren't playing "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "Hotel California" for the fifth time today. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

working together

I spent an hour fixing some confusion in the lead and it was reverted in a few minutes. This article is very disorganized and confused. It's rude and lazy to revert the good work of new people. Keep working to make it better. This keeps happening when I try to help and it's making me mad. --65.34.74.149 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Everyone is trying to make the article better, but the way Wikipedia works means that anything any of us do can and probably will get changed. The best way forward is to assume the best of one's fellow editors; it doesn't always help to call other people rude.

I appreciate the time you've put in, but my concern with your edit is that it made the lead section of this article rather long. WP:LEADLENGTH suggests we should be aiming for three or four paragraphs; the lead was four paragraphs long and you've now made it 7 paragraphs long. I think the details of Yes's history that you've added are not necessary for what is only meant to be a short introduction. For example, much as I love Drama, I don't think the lead needs a sentence about Horn and Downes joining. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to add new material to the article, the best place is in the body, not the lede. The lede is already too long. I know it's tempting to work on the lede instead of the body, but it's simply not possible to do justice to a band with almost fifty years of history in a lede. As a Yes fan, I want every member, even brief members like Horn, to get their due. I want Wikipedia readers to know about the change in style between the first album and Close to the Edge, about the strange Union era, about the current situation -- but this can't fit in a lede.

See, for example, the article Stephen Hawking. His family background, his marriages, his views on religion and philsoophy -- these are all in the body of the article, but not mentioned in the lede. And it's an excellent lede. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's something to clarify what I mean. The additions you made to the lede almost entirely concern the history of the band's lineup changes. But other readers will be interested in other things. For example, some readers might be interested to know that, to the average rock music fan, Yes essentially vanished after 1983: you won't hear anything post-90125 on classic rock radio. Many rock band articles focus on popularity in the lede. Other readers might like to know about the changes in Yes' style: do the later albums have progressive rock songs, long songs, short songs, pop songs? Who were the musical influences on Yes? Other readers might want to know about a band's influence: what of bands such as Flower Kings who were tremendously influenced by Yes' music? Indeed, within the world of progressive rock fandom, there is not a lot of interest in post-1980 Yes. (Look for any book or website by a prog-rock fan that discusses the "hundred best albums" or somethink like that, and see how many post-GFTO Yes albums show up on the list.)

The difficulty in composing a lede is that it should focus on the most important things about the topic. That requires a balance between all these things. If we were to expand the lede from four to seven paragraphs -- which I would oppose -- I don't think the expansion should be more about the band's lineup history.

And one final point: Your reference to "two separate versions of Yes" opens a can of worms that we debated and closed some time ago. Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman is treated as a distinct band from Yes.

By the way, if you're a new editor, I hope you stick around. Despite my criticisms, your writing style is excellent. Your summary of Yes history is very well written, even though I don't think it belongs in the lede. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

One other thing: 65.34.74.149, I notice that this isn't the first time you've run into this exact conflict. You earlier added new information to the lede of the Rick Wakeman page, which led to reversion and argument [1] [2]. I think the best solution is to add new material to the body of the article, not the lede. Most of the ledes on Wikipedia are too long. My perspective is this: A curious person should be able to quickly read the entire lede to find out what the article is about, and then they can decide which sections are interesting to them. Thus the Harry Truman article might mention that he accomplished many things as a senator before becoming president -- but not list them. That allows Reader X to say "I want to know what he accomplished as a senator", and then look in that section. Meanwhile, Reader Y, who only cares about Truman's presidency, doesn't have to read about that material. I'm giving you this advice because I think that your material is less likely to be reverted if it goes in the body, not the lede -- and your writing is very good, so I want your edits to survive! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes Lyrics

For a lengthy article, one would expect at least a paragraph covering the incoherent aspects of Jon Anderson's lyrics, or word-painting. I did not find any mention of the lyrics, and think that is an aspect of the band's success worth mentioning Schreierdm (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Jon's lyrics should be mentioned. I don't agree that they are incoherent (the introduction to "The Revealing Science of God" is a brilliant precis of the creation, physical evolution, and spiritual evolution of human beings), but it's certainly notable that many critics have claimed that Yes' lyrics are nonsense. Of course, many others find them profound, and they should be cited as well. Bill Martin's book is a good source; I don't have it handy. I've never managed to find an affordable copy of Yes: But What Does It Mean? by Thomas Mosbo; if any of you have a copy, please cite it in this article. Not many rock bands have had an entire book written about their lyrics! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Aymeric Leroy's new (French-language) book, Yes (ISBN 236054389X), has some interesting discussion of the lyrics too. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the lyrics are incoherent to me - I love them but they are incoherent to most people, so I thought it was a safe word to use. Am scared of Wikipedia a bit - I believe they ban 'pseudo-scientists', so put on a scholarly face. Re Aymeric Leroy, is a translation available?' Got the Martin book,and am in awe of the work some of you are doing trying to keep up with Yes' lineups and names. I have edited a few wikipedia articles, and do not mind taking a crack at it, but would want to read more before I give it a shot. Otherwise its just a personal thing.

Only twist on the Tales intro as covering the "Evolution of human beings" is that while a human wrote these words, there is very little in the lyric that cannot be ascribed to the dawn of life in a machine, a god, or a coffee cup. although the human experience is the obvious metaphor. Side 2 lyrics break free of the human constraints in 1 and 4 ("we crawled from the ocean....., we are of the sun....") Side 2 deals with memory, it deals with strengths of moments, and a few other things that have zero anthropomorphic value. Similarly in the introduction, "dawn of thought transferred through...." is also something that is not necessarily a human endeavor, yet would grant Anderson and consumers were probably thinking about human thought. But lyrics have a way of writing themselves and in their own viral ways could be transmitting information that is not as obvious as what appears at first glance and is worthy of analysis. I see I should focus on the article improvement not blather so nuff saidSchreierdm (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Leroy's book is only available in French for now. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Personnel section

Looking at the personnel section, I can't help but notice that while Tony Kaye is credited for his guest work this year and that Trevor Horn and Billy Sherwood are credited for their work as producers or mixers, not only is there no mention of Horn guesting this year, but Anderson, Wakeman, and Rabin are not credited as guests in 2017, despite performing as Yes at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ceremony (AKA as a part of the original band, not as Yes feat. ARW). Personally I'm alright with both options, but it has to be either all of them credited or none of them I believe. This is also a good opportunity to discuss what should be credited in the Personnel section and what shouldn't, because between producer/mixer mentions, guest mentions, and mentions of being in Cinema, ABWH, and/or ARW, it's starting to make a lot of info, possibly too much. I believe the "alternative bands" things has already been discussed earlier if you scroll up (see "Current members"), but still. --Hyliad (d), March 19, 2018, 19:16 (CEST)

Well if nobody's interested, I guess I'll just add guest apparitions for Anderson, Horn, Rabin, and Wakeman.--Hyliad (d), March 27, 2018, 19:44 (CEST)

I think Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman would dispute that they were "guests" at the Hall of Fame induction. They were not described as such. I cannot recall any RS using that language. I would suggest some other way of covering the event. Equally, Horn wasn't a "guest" when he worked on 90125.

One possibility is not to. This section is a summary: I think we over-complicate things if we try to cover every single appearance. One-off appearances for a song or two could just be omitted. Why not let the section just describe when who was a member, plus significant other appearances (Horn producing, Kaye if he does a whole tour leg this summer). Bondegezou (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Current members

Myself and Lawrence King feel the Current Members section works best with the first subheading being "Current Members of Yes" to match the second subheading being "Current Members of Yes Featuring..." Joefromrandb is strongly opposed, arguing, "there's no possible reason for any reader to believe "current members" refers to anyone other than the band about whom the article is". Can we resolve this?

I think matching headings ("... of Yes" and "... of Yes Featuring...") makes things clearer for the reader. Sure, they can work out what the first set of names are, but why not make it simpler for them? How is Wikipedia made worse by including "of Yes" in the first subheading? Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I'm vehemently opposed to listing the members of YfARW in this article at all. As to your second question, it insults the reader's intelligence, and lends credence to the fallacious argument that Yes and YfARW are the same band. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Addendum for clarification: I obviously have no problem with them being mentioned in the article's prose. I'm decidedly against including them in list form, but I gave up on that one, and agreed to it as a compromise. Listing "Yes", and "YfARW" is crossing a line. The members section obviously means "Yes"; that's clear to anyone. Titling the first list "Yes" gives the uninformed reader the idea that there was a schism, resulting in two factions of one band. This is not the case and no one (other than a handful of uninformed fanboys) claims it to be. In summation, the matching headings make it less clear to the reader. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Like Joe, I believe the goal should be clarity. However, in this case there are two kinds of clarity that are in competition. We are considering two options: (1) The "Personnel" section has subheadings entitled "Current members", "Current members of Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman", "Former members", "Live musicians". (2) The "Personnel" section has subheadings entitled "Current members of Yes", "Current members of Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman", "Former members", "Live musicians".

So which of these is more clear? (A) If our goal is to help a reader of the "Personnel" section to understand what its subsections mean, then #2 is more clear, because the juxtaposition of "Current members [unspecified]" and "Current members of YFARW" is potentially confusing, whereas "Current members of Yes" avoids any possible ambiguity. (With regard to the argument that "Current members" is completely unambiguous and clarifying it "insults the reader's intelligence": this is true in most Wikipedia articles, but most Wikipedia articles do not list the current members of two different bands in the Personnel section!) (B) If our goal is to help a casual reader understand that only one of these bands is Yes -- and therefore only one of these bands is the band whom this article is about -- then #1 is more clear.

Joe and Bondegezou, would you agree with what I have argued here -- that each of these options improves clarity in one way while decreasing it in another way? If so, then the question we have to ask is which of these is more significant. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why option B implies a schism as Joefromrandb suggests. Bondegezou (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

To me it implies a schism (a la' Great White v Jack Russell's Great White, or Queensryche v Queensryche featuring Geoff Tate, Ratt v The Mickey Ratts, etc.). This is not a situation where factions of the band are each claiming ownership. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the Yes situation is particularly different from those other examples...? Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed this before. To answer, it's not only "particularly different", it's egregiously different. The other examples all have/had 2 groups of musicians each claiming to be the sole and rightful band in question, and each required legal proceedings to sort out the matter. In Yes' case, no such situation exists. Anderson, as a part-owner of the trademark, is entitled to use the name (in this sense, Rabin and Wakeman are no different than Pomeroy and Molino, in that they don't share this right–it could just as easily be "Yes featuring Jon Anderson, King Diamond, and Taylor Swift"). Howe & White don't contest Anderson's right to do this, and Anderson doesn't pretend any right to Yes itself. YfARW do not claim to be Yes, and Yes do not claim to be YfARW. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's an exciting idea: We can stop pretending either of these bands is Yes, as they both originate in side projects that contained three Yes musicians but claimed to be something other than Yes, namely "Chris Squire, Steve Howe and Alan White of Yes" and "Anderson Rabin Wakeman," before they made a mid-tour appropriation of the previously disavowed name, in 2009 and 2017, respectively. Both bands are therefore pretenders.2600:1:C300:ED62:56EC:D311:D791:AD2D (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You can take any view of the bands you want, but Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, and reliable sources describe both bands as "Yes". Bondegezou (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. This article doesn't currently describe both bands as "Yes". Should it?—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This article describes one band as "Yes" and one as "Yes featuring Anderson Rabin Wakeman", which seems to be the simplest approach, consistent with RS and while avoiding confusion. No? Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Simplest, I suppose… for the editors, but not consistent with reliable sources which, as you say, that "describe both bands as 'Yes'". And in the nearly year-and-a-half since the name change, the perception from the outside is, as you said, that there are two bands in parallel performing under the name, and that making this article about Howe's Yes primarily, with slight mentions of an additional band that is also called Yes, is unnecessarily confusing. I know we've discussed this before, right after the ARW name change, and I wasn't sure if perhaps you had come to a different perspective on that issue now.

This all makes me wonder - how will we view the current state of Yes in the 10,000 ft. view of history? Is SHWoY->Yes(2009) really that much different from ARW->Yes(2017) in the scheme of the entire history of the topic of Yes? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

After thinking about what I wrote above, I see a flaw. (1) If we list Anderson, Rabin, and Wakeman as "Current members of Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman", why don't we also list Pomeroy and Molino in this subsection? If we don't, we will need to add a "Live musicans of YFARW" subsection! (2) Suppose that YFARW actually release a studio album as they keep hinting, with Pomeroy and Molino on bass and drums. Then Molino leaves the band and is replaced with, say, Jay Schellen. We will need to add a "Former members of YFARW" section and put Morlino in it! (3) Suppose that Schellen then leaves YFARW. Must he now be listed in both the "Former members [of Yes]" and the "Former members of YFARW" section? In other words, if YFARW lasts for several years, they will go through various changes and we will have an increasingly complex "Personnel" section. Alternatively, they might permanently disband next year. The article Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman will still be valid (we'd simply update the article to note that this band is no longer active) -- but would we still have to mention the band YFARW in the Yes article's Personnel section? If the answer is yes, then what justifies us not including Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe in Yes' "Personnel" section today?

Bottom line: The longer YFARW lasts and the more its membership changes, the more complicated it will become to document the present-and-past members of two bands in the Yes (band)#Personnel.

So here is my alternative proposal. Delete the "Current members of Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman" subsection entirely. Move Jon Anderson, Rick Wakeman, and Trevor Rabin to the "Former members" subsection (as they are, indeed, former members of Yes), but preserve the mention of YFARW in the parentheses following their names, as it currently exists (so readers will see that they are current members of YFARW). Do not include Morlino et al., even if they become full-fledged members of YFARW, because (unlike Anderson, Rabin, and Wakeman) they are not former members of Yes. And put a hat note at the top of the Personnel section which says something like this:

This section lists current and former members of Yes. For current and former members of Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman, see Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, Rick Wakeman#Personnel.

Of course, this hat note is redundant with the one at the top. But it would satisfy all of our goals: it prevents confusion within the Personnel section (because "Current members" becomes totally unambiguous), and it prevents confusion between Yes and YFARW (because the article Yes (band) will now document members of Yes, and not any other band), and it helps the casual reader who turns directly to the "Personnel" section without reading the rest of the article: this casual reader will learn of the existence of two bands, and will also learn that only one of these bands is Yes! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

THAT is an excellent proposal. I have a couple of minor disagreements with it, but it's such a fine idea that they're not even worth noting. AA+ Joefromrandb (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain that future possible complications is a good motivation. Let's deal with the situation now, and cross future bridges when we come to them! But I have no strong objection to Lawrence King's proposal. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me. Kudos for really thinking this through and attempting to future-proof the rationale. I think it's a good goal - we can't predict the future, but we certainly can hedge our bets on future lineup changes to both bands. Avoiding endless arguments in the future every time there's a personnel change makes sense. Like Joe, I could nitpick, but I won't :) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy moley, a consensus! I'll act quickly before the moment of clarity fades, as charity does (sometimes). — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No need for you to have panicked; you had a full 6 hours & 26 minutes to spare. :-) Joefromrandb (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If Cinema & ABWH are going to be in the time-line, then Anderson's entry should note "Cinema 1983". It was after Anderson's return, rather than upon it, that they became Yes. It was largely arm-twisting by Atco that resulted in 90125 being released as a Yes album. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The history is normally told that they became Yes when Anderson joined. Do you have an RS that they were Cinema after his return?

That said, I recognise that these things were probably fluid, and we know Cinema wasn't even called Cinema at first.

I wasn't certain whether listing "Cinema" at all was the right thing to do. It felt right looking at the entries, but drop if everyone thinks it's a mistake. Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference regarding Cinema. The conventional tale explains how Cinema evolved into Yes, which is true. But many bands evolve into other bands: Mabel Greer's Toyship arguably evolved into Yes; Giles Giles & Fripp certainly evolved into King Crimson; etc. "Personnel" sections of Wikipedia band articles don't list every member of such evolving bands. (In this case, Cinema only had future Yes members, but suppose they had had an extra member who dropped out before it evolved into Yes: should he be mentioned in the Personnel section?) On the other hand, I don't mind extra information that readers might find useful: hence the Personnel section mentions Horn's and Sherwood's stints as producer, even though other producers aren't listed here. ABWH is a different case, because when ABWH and Yes merged in 1990, the resulting "union" was simply called Yes, even though the Union album was a mixture of Yes and ABWH tracks. Now, ABWH was not Yes -- any more than YFARW are Yes -- but in both cases there is a significant link to Yes (as shown by the fact that the Union album was issued under the name "Yes", not "Yes Plus ABWH", and as shown by the fact that when Yes and YFARW played together at the detestable and thrice-condemned Hall of Fame, they clearly were representing Yes, not "Yes and YFARW"). So it seems useful to mention in the Personnnel section that Anderson was once a member of ABWH, and is now in YFARW, since that gives additional information that is useful for readers -- as long as it's not phrased in a way that reopens the "are they the same band" question! Whether Cinema is in the same category is difficult to say. Certainly XYZ and Circa are not. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Timeline contribution is removed, users won't explain why

I contributed a nice timeline to the Yes band page, similar to ones I have seen on other band pages.

Then it was deleted by LowSelfEstidle with no good explanation as to why.
The comment was "Only removing because wasn't the consensus to keep a timeline graphic for the List of members of Yes page?"
That says nothing about the problem with the timeline, only implies that a consensus is necessary.

This is wiki. Since when did making a contribution such as this require a "consensus"?
How is a person to know when a consensus is required for a contribution?
Apparently timelines are fine for some band pages, but not this one? Why?

So I restored it, only to have it removed by a different person, [[3]].
Again, no explanation as to WHY the timeline itself is not allowed, only a request to "take this dispute to Talk and establish consensus".

First, I am not the one disputing the timeline, YOU ARE!
Second, here's a thought: maybe YOU should have open a dialog about it, make suggestions, or explain your reason for not wanting it before just deleting something I spent a good amount of time working on.

So I restored it again, asking "What is the problem with the timeline?"
But again I received a useless non-answer of "The problem is that we have a way of working through disagreement between editors, which involves discussion on the Talk page, and you're not doing that. You should not just repeatedly make the edit you want. See WP:EDITWAR."

Really?

That does not answer my question or tell me anything about the problem with timeline, only about talking through disagreement. I guess some people don't understand simple English questions. You also accuse me off not working through a disagreement.
Since you are the one disputing it, why wouldn't YOU open the discussion before deleting my work? Myself and others I showed it to thought it was nice. This is a terrible way of dealing with something you don't like. So here I am, working through the disagreement.

So I will ask again: What is the problem with having a Timeline like this on this page?

Other band pages have it. What is your problem with it here? Is anyone capable of answering that simple question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylarkcat (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for the reasons of editors involved in the edit war, but for one thing, the timeline you added is generally redundant with the longstanding one that's already here. What reason is there to have a separate one here when there's already a very thorough article dedicated to the complexities of Yes members of the past 50 years there? As for why a consensus is necessary, I suggest reading this. Also, it's worth noting that an existing consensus is not set in stone… necessarily.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the version currently in the article with the one I mentioned above from the personnel article, as it's long-established and has had contributions over the years by numerous editors already. I'm very hesitant still that it should be included in this article as detail like this is why the personnel article ostensibly exists. My recommendation would be to let that article alone speak to such details. Let's see some other editors weigh in, though… it's been nearly a fortnight since Skylarkcat posed the question about this, and no other responses so far. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Skylarkcat, thank you for bringing this to the Talk page. That is what you should have done when you were first reverted. I suggest you read WP:BRD as well.

Shubopshadangalang, I think the timeline you have added works fine. I don't have a strong feeling whether we need one on this article or not. Bondegezou (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

One caution: If it stays on both this and the personnel article, we just have to make sure any edits on one are reflected on the other.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Shada Ng. It was not my intention to be redundant, and I didn't know about the graph on the List of Members page. I simply thought that having a graphical representation could be valuable for many that won't read and digest all textual information about the members, by providing a nice at-a-glance way of understanding the members participation. If the ones that removed my contribution would have simply indicated there was a similar graph on the members page and pointed me to it then I would have understood and not pressed the issue, but that was never stated in their explanations. I missed that link so was not aware of it until just now; thanks for mentioning it.

I'm not sure what the graph looked like previously, but it appears mine was updated to include extra "members" (though never included on an album so one could argue that) as well as the ABWH lineup (who have their own page) and other lineups that I wouldn't have included because of other possibilities that could be included when considering sub-groups. However, as it is I'm fine with it and have no intention of changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylarkcat (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure

No mention of the ending song? heresy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.176.95.101 (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

JoJo’s bizzare adventure is on the roundabout page. Progggy (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)