Talk:Three Days Grace

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Three Days Grace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65iam7ka6?url=http://music.ign.com/articles/442/442689p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/442/442689p1.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65ias4zoS?url=http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1 to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Three%20Days%20Grace&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2009&sort=Artist&perPage=25
• Added Template:Tlx tag to http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20071109103622/local/news/p.g.-to-get-three-days-grace.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115195428/http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/index.ssf/2008/03/three_days_grace_bounds_toward.html to http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/index.ssf/2008/03/three_days_grace_bounds_toward.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131031512/http://pollstar.com/blogs/news/archive/2009/12/07/700685.aspx to http://www.pollstar.com/blogs/news/archive/2009/12/07/700685.aspx
• Added Template:Tlx tag to http://3dgfanclub.com/content/new-tour-and-presale
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305201411/http://www.musicpublishercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/MPCwinter2014.pdf to http://www.musicpublishercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/MPCwinter2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205091634/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/three_days_grace/transit_of_venus to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/three_days_grace/transit_of_venus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The ultimate-guitar.com is not archived. The rest are OK though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Unjustified and flawed edit session revert by User:Walter Görlitz

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Hello Template:Reply to, you recently reverted several edits I made on the Three Days Grace page, and even though they were not all of the same nature, the only explanation you provided was "We're repeating the band's name too often. Use prepositions instead." Can you please provide justification for reverts not involving the use of the band's name, as well as explaining how you determined that the band's name had been used excessively? I have tried to alternate the terms "Three Days Grace", "the band", and "they" on the page in order to provide variety, and I found the use of "the band" repetitive, especially in close succession, this is why I changed it to "Three Days Grace" in several places. I am open to reverts if they are reasonable, and I am certainly not set on my edits remaining if they are inappropriate. Additionally, and please believe that I do not mention this out of spite or vindictiveness, but neither "the band" nor "they" are prepositions or preposition phrases, so your reason for reverting my edits doesn't make grammatical sense. Your confusion on this point should be taken into consideration both by yourself and any other editor who will review this issue should it devolve into a disagreement. werewolf (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I only reverted one of your sessions. Can you please provide justification for any of your changes as they were all unexplained? And this discussion should probably be on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Reply to I can see that you reverted one of my sessions, but you haven't justified doing so. Your only explanation was grammatically flawed, which potentially disqualifies it. I am happy to move this discussion to the article's talk page, but I'm curious to know, do you intend to justify your revert in any coherent manner? werewolf (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this conversation here, again, in a flawed way. You didn't explain any of your edits either. Care to explain why any of the set that I reverted were needed? Also, putting this all on my is flawed logic, so knock it off. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Walter, if the issue is the fact that I didn't explain my edits, I can certainly go back and do that, but this in no way justifies you reverting an entire session of my work without proper explanation. I do believe this is on you, as you have mishandled the issue. You should have sent me a message requesting that I explain my edits rather than single-handedly reverting an entire session, using an improper grammatical justification, and being rude about it. I have not received a satisfactory response from you as to why you decided to revert my edits, and unless you make an attempt to do so, I will escalate this dispute further. werewolf (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No, the issue is that the changes were not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

For the same reason that we don not repeat the subject in headings, we don't repeat the subject's name incessantly through the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

And yet, when I fully explain the revert, you simply knee-jerk revert it. Time to stop friend. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Reply to, I have gone ahead and replaced each of my edits, adding a brief description of my reasoning for each one. Your response was to change each edit back without providing any adequate reason. The sole explanation you offered was the onerous exhortation not to use the band's name over and over and over...(ad nauseam). This is not only an inaccurate description of the edits I have been attempting to make, it is also a rude and immature approach to editing on your part. Currently, the article, as any reader can see, uses "the band" repetitively and consecutively, making for awkward reading. This, according to you, is preferable to the varied use of the band's name, "the band", and an appropriate pronoun, which I have tried to put implement. Your intransigence on this issue makes it clear that you are uninterested in either resolving this in a professional manner, or at least achieving some kind of compromise. If you continue in this manner, I will request a third opinion and proceed with further means of dispute resolution, as necessary.

I have gone ahead and reverted again. I have provided the rationale here and in my initial summary. We do not need to list the subject's name each time. It goes against other guidelines, most notably MOS:HEADING. Your lack of understanding on this issue makes it clear that you are uninterested in either resolving this in a professional manner. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Saw the 3O posting. Seemed at first like an edit war with some party not understanding WP:BRD, but it's more complicated than that, and I wonder how much the edit summaries might've caused some miscommunication. In this month's flurry of edits:

1. Werewolf changed 7 instances of "the band". Four to "they", one to "TDG", and two to "Three Days Grace". Aside from the album title (which should be treated as distinct from the band title, even if the same name), there were no other changes to "Three Days Grace".
2. Walter's first revert did not revert all of these changes. He changed two instance of "Three Days Grace" to "the band", changed their to "the band", "they" to "the band", and once instance of "band" to change "the second single" "the band's second single." In other words, this was not a wholesale revert at this point, but a partial pushback.
3. In Werewolf's next edits, two instances of "the band" changed back to "Three Days Grace" and one other instance of "the band" was removed, changing the sentence to say that [album] "included a few" rather than "On [album] the band included a few".
4. Walter's next revert wasn't really much of a revert. It changed many instances of "Three Days Grace" that Werewolf did not add: 11 changes of "Three Days Grace" to "the band" and 8 changes of "Three Days Grace" to they/them/their.
5. Then Werewolf reverted that edit in entirety and Walter restored.

Then here we are. Please let me know if I'm misreading. To read the edit summaries, I would've assumed that Werewolf added a whole bunch of instances of "Three Days Grace" that Walter kept reverting. It looks like Werewolf made a few of those changes, and Walter responded by undoing them and changing many more instances of the band name at the same time. The result is that there are far fewer, not more, instances of "Three Days Grace" than when we began, and more instances of "the band." None of this is to say that anyone acted in bad faith, necessarily. Communication seems more likely to blame. In addition to edits being labeled as edit summaries and partial reverts characterized as full reverts, I'm unclear what MOS:HEADING has to do with text outside of headings and outside of heading-like material; also unclear why we would use prepositions, as mentioned in an edit summary. I presume these are typos, or perhaps refer to specific instances I didn't notice? Fundamentally, the issue seems like less of a black and white MOS issue and more of a good writing issue.

Question: do sources support common use of the acronym "TDG"? There is a single instance of that in the article. If not regularly used, it should be removed. If it is, it should be explained via parenthetical early on and then used with more frequently. Part of the issue with repeating the band's name is that, especially because it's three words, it hurts the writing of the article to have it repeated often. That said, too many instances of "the band" can also hurt. Reverting back to the starting point in terms of that particular issue may be a good idea, and then request the WP:GUILD take a pass. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about consistent use of the initialism, but it's not good writing style.

As for MOS:HEADING, the specific concern is "section headings should ... "Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Template:Xt, not Template:!xt or Template:!xt), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.}}" The idea is that repeating the subject's name is not needed throughout the article as we know who the subject is since we've landed on the page.

If the GUILD wants to take a stab at copy edits, I'd be happy with a full revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether use of the initialism makes sense depends on its usage in the sources. Many, many articles are better off for using common acronyms, like typical government agencies, companies, etc. Pop Will Eat Itself comes to mind as an example of a band. I disagree it's always going to be poorer writing, though could see many instances when it would indeed hurt rather than help. I don't know that this is one of them, but again, I think it would depend on the sources.

I understand the guideline about the heading, but it doesn't seem like the major disagreement above is about the headings, and MOS:HEADING doesn't apply to other text beyond heading-like text, which likewise doesn't seem to be the major point of contention here, unless I've misread something.

Werewolf, would you be fine restoring the older version, too, and deferring to the judgment of the guild on this particular issue? That would be a pretty good assurance that whoever comes in has a good grasp of wiki guidelines and has the quality of writing as first priority. As an aside, I must say it feels strange to refer to "the judgment of the guild" -- sounds like they wear black robes and have the king's ear. Hmm.... :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Groundswell again

The article already discusses Groundswell in the early years sub-section, but there is no consensus that this was the same band. Updating the lede and infobox with this information is not appropriate. There are similar examples with other bands where previous bands are not included in ledes or infoboxes but the facts are discussed in the articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you the only one who opposes this again? Because I support it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see that there is a consensus in the archives. So let's make one. What are your similar examples? dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As long as there are reliable sources that state they are the same band, feel free to add it. Without RSes, it's WP:OR, and as we know, WP:NOR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. For some reason, I thought that Sanderson, Gontier, and Brad Walst were the only official members of Groundswell, I did not see the others. I'm sleep deprived, Rockstar runs through my veins, and I am supposed to be doing work due this morning, but I have an addiction to this website. The bands are not the same. dannymusiceditor ^oops 06:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

I'd be cool with moving it to the body of the article for the appropriate time period, but I think an active band should have a leading photograph more recent than 13 years ago. Anyone got one? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Former band member Error

Under the list of former members it shows the following; Adam Gontier – lead vocals, rhythm guitar (1997–2013); lead guitar (1997–2003)

Adam quit the band in 2013, not 2003. I do not seem to be able to edit the article, so I'm leaving this info hear hoping someone can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.94.122 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Did he play lead until 2013 as well or did he stop a decade earlier, like when Barry Stock joined? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No Adam has never played lead guitar Barry has been lead since 2003 and has never played rhythm guitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:B01A:23CB:6FD:8AA2 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Adam was the guitarist until Barry joined in late 2003, after the release of their debut album

Explosions

Their seventh studio album has been released 86.178.206.188 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Talk:Three Days Grace/GA2