Talk:Legacy Five

Feb 08

OK I removed the blatant copyvio issues, sourced what I could and stubbed the article. I think they're quite notable but I have doubts about the band members so I removed the double list of band member names. I couldn't find free access to anything else, despite a plethora of coverage so the band info has some holes. Travellingcari (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks all

Thanks to all of you who have been helping with this. I had a feeling it could be saved. I just made a minor tweak with ref formatting and flip-flopped Refs/External Links per MOS. Travellingcari (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop adding Blake McAllister to the line-ups section.

We all love Blake, all right? But he's not part of the group. He is the tour manager. He MANAGES. He doesn't sing. The name is Legacy FIVE for a reason: FIVE singers. If we were to give credits to every single person who works on the staff of every single group in the history of gospel music, just imagine how long that list would be! Let's leave the line-ups section to those who really are part of the line-ups: the tenor, the lead, the baritone, the bass and the piano player. That's all. --LucasBitencourt (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A timeline isn't even necessary

A timeline is optional and six lead vocalists, two bases, a few keyboard players does not really need a timeline, a list of line-ups and anything else. Why in the world is wider better? When timelines were introduced for bands, 800 was considered the standard with.

And for the record, I'm planning to nominate the article for deletion, so feel free to rearrange the deck chairs. I likely will not revert again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a matter of need. Maybe it isn't necessary, but... it does look better. The article becomes more colorful and provides more content for readers who may be getting to know the group for the first time. When I changed the timeline's width for the first time, I did so because it seemed like the lines for the albums were getting too close to each other as the years went by. You reverted saying it's not needed. Agreed, not needed. Yet, not forbidden either. You may or may not be a fan of the group, I don't know. Still, there are fans around who certainly are please to see their favorite quartet's article on Wikipedia improving day by day. I've been editing this article and adding more info through the years. Many of the most recent changes on the group's lineups were first mentioned here by me, always providing citations, of course. I've added even more just now. You may check every single one of them. Lack of citations is no longer a problem. Also, the notability is not really questionable. The group is well-known, period. If you don't know them, I apologize, but it doesn't mean they don't deserve a well-mantained article on Wikipedia. I appreciate your efforts. You are trying to make the website look better. But then again, we all are. Please, be reasonable. Let's change what has to be changed. Not a case for deletion. LucasBitencourt (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly not more content. It is the same content repeated in a different way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Which makes the content more instructive. You can see the same info in different ways. What's bad about it? There's literally no reason not to have a timeline. It's not forbidden, it's not uselles, it hurts no one. LucasBitencourt (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Which makes one set redundant. I would prefer to delete the table as it is large, ugly and offers no information that the timeline does not.

Again, the width is what you wanted to discuss, not its existence. Why is wider better? Do not use a subjective term of "it looks better" because the standard is 800 and represents all of the data well at that width. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wider looks better because the information on it does not seem all tucked together in a small space. I understand 800 was meant to be the standard, however having more space to show the albums makes it more visually pleasing. When it comes to being redundant, I believe the table and the timeline serve different purposes. The table gives us the names and the years all together. It sets exactly when a specific lineup started and ended. It shows by name all the singers who sang at the same time. The timeline, on the other hand, shows the group evolution down the years. Though that view may be reached after an analysis of the table, the color bars growing with time and the lines representing the albums all merge into the lineups. That gives us a glimpse of the transition between the member who left and the one who replaced him. It makes the understanding easier. That's why I believe we should keep both. LucasBitencourt (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not look cramped at 800 vs 900

900

800

Granted the albums compress more, but that's already happening with the last two albums in 2016 regardless of the scale. I also notice you updated it to predict the future. We do not know what will happen in two weeks, but it's on the timeline as such.

The timeline also gives us the names and the years, but does so graphically. The line-ups is no more exact than the timeline as its granularity is years, and even the timeline can stipulate an exact date. Again, the timeline repeats all of the information in the tables that are the line-ups, hence one is redundant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Given 800 is the standard, I believe we can leave it that way, then. Some of the albums, as you mentioned, do look compressed. It does not affect the view that much, though. Leave it at 800. I will still argue about the redundancy, though. The information on both the timeline and the table may be the same, but viewing the same info in different ways cannot be reduced to mere redundancy. It is didactic. It is helpful. It may not be so for you or me, but who knows how many people will use both. They should be kept. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I usually add extra time to it so that I don't have to come here every day to update the timeline. Whenever a change of member was needed, I came an corrected the timeline adding the new information. Even if it may seem like I'm trying to "predict the future" or whatever, that's not it. I'm simply trying to make it look more updated. That does not look like a huge problem to me. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There were reasons for the 800 width. Most had to do with monitor widths from four or five years ago when the standard was established. I understand the rationale for wanting to update to the future to make things seem more current, but it is not advisable. Thanks for understanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and efforts to improve the article. LucasBitencourt (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)