Talk:Three Days Grace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Three Days Grace was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 1, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
May 25, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Metal (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / Toronto / Music (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.
 

Edit request[edit]

Back from wikibreak for this one little nitpick. I performed a perfectly reasonable edit to this article that was completely undone without any explanation as to why. I updated some verb tense and removed an informality, as well as removed a redundancy. With no explanation practically all of it was undone a few edits later. Let me list the changes I made to the "Transit of Venus and Gontier's departure (2012–present)" section and I'll be on wikibreak once again.

  • Couple verb tense updates pertaining to an album that is already available:
    • "will be called" --> "would be called" (I hadn't made this change; I only noticed it needs to be made now)
    • "will most likely take on" Make that "would".
  • "The first single on the album" I changed this to say, "...from the album."
  • "On October 7, 2011, RCA Music Group announced it was disbanding Jive Records along with Arista Records and J Records. With the shutdown, the band (and all other artists previously signed to these three labels) will release their future material (including their upcoming fourth studio album) on the RCA Records brand."

I reworded this to become

  • "On October 7, 2011, RCA Music Group announced it was disbanding Jive Records along with Arista Records and J Records, and moving all the artists signed to the three labels to its own RCA Records brand, including Three Days Grace." Of course, I kept the same citation there.
  • "kicked off" Way too informal. This is not an appropriate term for an encyclopedia. I replaced it with "commenced".
  • "...instead of Adam Gontier." This is redundant. At this point in the article it's obvious he's not in the band anymore, so to say Matt Walst specifically filled in for him at least for this tour is surplus. I removed this bit.
  • "...it was confirmed that Matt Walst is back" I replaced "is" with "was" here, as I'm not certain what My Darkest Days is up to at this point. I could go either way on this one, however.
  • I also changed the period of that sentence to a comma, and joined the sentence beginning "He will however" to it, replacing that phrase with "but would". I would also recommend adding the year 2013 to August in that paragraph as it clearly wasn't referring to next August; why this was changed back to future tense is beyond me, considering it is now October.
  • I had also removed the unsourced radio interview; I ran a search for part of the quote on Google and all the results led me back here or to places that copied this article, for a total of ten results.

LazyBastardGuy 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Wait until it's unprotected.

This is your last edit. Where was it "completely undone"? Please show with diffs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Right here. This is hardly the weak spot of the article - nearly the entire thing has fallen into disrepair, I would consider getting it reassessed at WP:GAR. LazyBastardGuy 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, but there needs to be a consensus to enact edit requests like this one, and I don't think this is apparent here. We would need at least a little bit of discussion here to make sure that everyone agrees with the edits. TJD2, perhaps you can share your views on this? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now I have seen a good reason to wait it out a bit. LazyBastardGuy 04:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The article is locked precisely because editors were making changes without discussion so perhaps rather than wait it out, you could discuss these changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I did, but I suppose it bears repeating. From where I sit, my changes consisted of simple verb tense updates (the events were dated as late as August 2013 so since it's October I felt it only necessary), a redundancy I removed (it's already established that Adam Gontier left the band, so to say Matt Walst replaced him on tour is just unnecessary), and adjustments for tone; perhaps the most contentious thing I did was remove an interview about a new album for which a citation has yet to be written. I guess I'm okay with that hanging around with a {{citation needed}} tag, though. I also added the outdated template to head the section as a way of letting anyone who comes by with more recent events to report on know that their services are needed. Other than a couple of basic grammar fixes and attempting to rewrite things to be a bit more clear and concise while still conveying the same information, I did not wish to enter into this debate as to the true status of Matt Walst within the band. For the record, I also fail to see how any of my changes affirm or deny either side of the controversy. TJD2's edit summary accompanying the undoing of my changes (and I will note he did other things too, so I don't believe he did this to spite me in any way) seems unnecessarily hostile but directed at no one in particular, symptomatic of this edit war I am apparently caught in the middle of. I had no idea something was brewing when I made my changes, which I assumed were fairly innocuous. Perhaps I am missing something here?
Again, I am concerned that the article as it exists now, having been passed almost four years ago, is the result of it being poorly maintained since it became a GA. It may no longer be a GA, or maybe it could be fixed but I suppose that is another ball of wax altogether. LazyBastardGuy 04:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't being hostile towards anyone and apologize for any hard feelings. I didn't mean to rv all the changes mentioned above, however I did want to envoke a discussion with Teresa about Matt's status in TDG. I checked her contribs and it appears she doesn't ever converse with anyone and just reverts without even an explanation in an edit summary. I merely wanted to make my point clear that Matt Walst is not an official member of Three Days Grace, that is all. Again no hostility towards anyone, I didn't even know all of this other stuff was going on. TJD2 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There we go, we have the discussion ball rolling at last! :D
I think for us to determine Matt's true status in the band we must establish one fact: he is at the very least a touring member. That much is certain. Being a touring member may mean, or not mean, that he is more than that in the band. The remarks on the situation by the band of late have been cryptic and until Matt, say, records an album with TDG I think we should just say he's a touring member. That much we know for certain. We should refrain from saying he's anything more than that until something definite and concrete comes along.
Do you agree, at least, that my changes as described above are not controversial or important to this apparent edit war? If any are, please tell me which ones and why. The floor is all yours, TJD2... LazyBastardGuy 06:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, LazyBastardGuy your edits cleaning up the article, fixing tenses and such were definitely needed, and should be restored. On the Matt situation, he should be listed as a touring member and nothing else until we have solid concrete proof that he has been inducted into the band. STATic message me! 06:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I agree the tenses were needed and as long as the article doesn't state Matt Walst is an official member I'm game for anything in this situation. I was just getting a little tired of the lack of discussion and edit summaries but I'm glad we're discussing the matter here.TJD2 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad we're in agreement. To be honest, there's a lot of other things on the article that need fixing the same way. I probably would have fixed those had I been thinking about it, but I was more concerned about recent things because it gets on my nerves if things that have just happened are still written in the future or present tense. I might fix a few more things once the article becomes unprotected once again, then I'll be off on wikibreak once more, possibly until after November at this rate. LazyBastardGuy 19:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad that it has come to a good resolution. I hope I didn't come out looking like a jerk. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I'm just a little frustrated sometimes when I see no reasonable obstacle to the changes I'm trying to implement, which can make me come off a bit dickish as well. I apologize if I did. LazyBastardGuy 19:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Matt Walst[edit]

Looks like he is now their official vocalist. See [1]: From a blog by the band's drummer, "2013 has been a pivotal year for Three Days Grace. The year has been a great mix of touring, writing, and enjoying the new chemistry born from bringing in Matt Walst as the frontman. Since he joined us in January, we’ve played 80+ shows with him! The reaction from fans has been amazing, and the vibe on the bus has never been better. Looking back on the last year, it was an obvious fit for us to bring Matt in on vocals. He has brought a rejuvenated energy to the live show, and the songs we’ve been writing with him have this aggression and heaviness that we’re super stoked about. For us, Matt is family, he’s been a collaborator with 3DG since the beginning, and he’s been through all the same ups and downs that we have over the years. I think it was Boxing Day last year when we sat down with Matt, and we were like, “Hey dude, we have a huge tour lined up with Shinedown that starts in like 5 weeks….what are you up to??” lol. That’s when we decided that we would forge ahead and blow the doors off this thing. We moved into a rehearsal space and got to work right away. I remember about a week into rehearsals, Brent from Shinedown called me up to let me know that they were in full support of what we were doing, and that he and the guys were excited to bear witness to the new rebirth of 3DG. So we packed our bags, jumped on the bus, and the Three Days Grace, Shinedown, and P.O.D. tour was under way." He clarifies that Matt has officially joined the band and that he is more than just touring with them, and they have wrote material for their next album. Also we have their official Facebook page, which clearly lists him as a member of the band. STATic message me! 23:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We have come to a consensus that he has not been officially announced as Adam's replacement, and "pretty much" doesn't substitute for a reliable source. Again, a consensus was made that he is not their official singer and if you wish to dispute this notify the users previously involved so we may bring it up for discussion once more. Do not revert it again without discussing. TJD2 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This "consensus" was made before these two sources came to light, unless you happen to also have reliable sources from this week that he is not a member of the band? Oh, you are just reverting because you disagree and ignoring reliable sources? Well, that is just disruptive mate. The band's own Facebook page and the drummer said Matt is the band's vocalist and they have already begun working on their new album. I love how you have not commented on either of the sources, that pretty clearly name him as an official member of the band and just revert. STATic message me! 04:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have previously dismissed the Facebook info page as I don't believe it to be as concrete as, say, a status post, but the Loudwire source is... a bit more reliable. One issue I have with it is that it kind of retroactively reinterpreting the facts to mean something other than what they were. Previously, the facts came closest to saying he was only a replacement member. It looks kind of like he's looking back and seeing it for something it wasn't; it was as I recall announced by the band themselves that Matt was only temporary at the time, and while it may be true that he is now more permanently in the band (which I'm still not sure about), I'd still wait for more news sources to pick up this story, as Loudwire citations have been tagged as needing to be replaced with better sources, indicating there is or has been a consensus of some sort that Loudwire isn't acceptable as yet. (Please point me to any recent discussion that reveals otherwise.)

All that being said, if indeed things pan out to reveal that Matt Walst is now the singer that completely & totally replaces Adam Gontier, then that's fine with me. This is much better than what we had before, although I'd prefer more of an explicit "He's our permanent lead singer now" than an implication that it "just felt right" all this time and now he's being worked into more and more of the band's future plans. Those plans could change.

What I'm saying is, based on this source he's clearly been doing stuff with the band, but I don't understand how there are no better sources than Loudwire. My stance here is that I will say what the sources say, and no more. I helped establish the previous consensus on the grounds that at the time the evidence was insufficient to go one way or the other; however, I implicitly said that once the evidence was sufficient to say for sure, then whatever the verdict was, we were under an obligation to put it here on the article, regardless of whether everyone involved was in favor of the new turn of events or not. To put it simply, my participation in the consensus was expressly not that I disagreed with having him as the lead singer, but that I would not say for certain either way until the available evidence did. TJD2, I strongly advise you be willing to allow the consensus to change, because it can, and it often depends on the available material, likewise, Static, I advise you don't say the sources are saying things they don't really say just because it seems obvious.

Previously we have had to deal with tendentious editing from a select few who have tried to assert this in spite of better sources not agreeing with them, at least not entirely. But now things are different. If Loudwire is, by consensus both within and without this debate, an acceptable source, then I think we could at least put it in the article that Matt Walst may be the new singer for good now.

But until something more concrete comes along (e.g. "TDG Drummer Confirms Matt Is Here to Stay"), I'd say maybe wait a little while. And if nothing comes up, then we can use this as long as we make it clear he didn't say Matt is here to stay in so many words and in no uncertain terms. Even if it seems as obvious as the difference between night & day by what he wrote in that column, and forgive me if I sound like an verbose idiot with my post for missing the obvious if that indeed is what it turns out to be, I would still say there is a bit of creative liberty taken in its interpretation. For example, whether Matt was permanent or not, the mere absence of Adam would indicate a kind of "new rebirth of 3DG"; the band's music would have to accomodate a new singer regardless of who it was. Plus, it was someone outside the band who said something to this effect, and I hardly think that's a reliable source to attribute this to. I think the most concrete statment to imply his new status is that he's writing new songs with them, but again I think that exact interpretation of those words is stretching a bit.

I apologize for the long-winded rant - although I have no respect for anyone who TL;DRs me - but for now, I would say something to the effect of, "In a recent blog post, drummer Neil Sanderson stated that Walst has written new music with Three Days Grace and was an "obvious" choice as a replacement for Adam Gontier." I notice in the above post that it doesn't say he recorded with the group, just wrote the music. He's written stuff with them in the past and that didn't make him an official member at the time either.

Just be careful with what you think the source is trying to say. I could go either way here but I think the point of my long-winded rant is that saying he's now a member based on this post is jumping the gun a little bit. LazyBastardGuy 04:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is something we have to take into consideration. Perhaps we could word the article a bit more loosely but I agree with LBG that we have to be very careful on how we interpret these kinds of articles because if they do not outright say it, it could mean just about anything. I'm up for discussing the changes for the consensus as long as we don't jump the gun on the changes and stick to the previous version of the article while we're discussing the changes. STATic, I appreciate the fact that you are discussing with us instead of reverting edits without a even a summary. Kudos to you for that. I don't really know how we could word it, but I know every other band I've listened to that has changed vocalists w=have made an official announcement. It's hard to not take anything with a grain of salt pertaining to the internal drama of this band just because of how vague they've been this year. TJD2 (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, good point. Would have mentioned it myself if I had thought of it. Most every other band usually just out and says it. Three Days Grace seem to be taking a bit more of a roundabout approach to it; truthfully, the easiest thing would be for them to just say it outright, but either they did and we're not looking in the right place or for some reason they think they did and they really didn't. Again, we must exercise caution before we say something for certain. LazyBastardGuy 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
So should we go with something like "it has been speculated that Matt is the official replacement", or something of that nature? I honestly don't want to come out and say he is for sure as not even the official page lists Walst as a member yet. Other than that I'm not sure what we could write.TJD2 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I think "it has been speculated" is kind of the wrong term at this point because it implies the source is analyzing recent events to arrive at that conclusion. I just had an idea - Neil definitely says they are doing or have done stuff with him in no uncertain terms, so I think we could at least put those in there and then figure out where to go from there. Like, it says he's written stuff for the new album with them... so we can put in that he's written stuff for the new album with them. There are things this source is definitely saying, we just need to be careful with what it doesn't say. LazyBastardGuy 06:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

If the Loudwire source was written by one of their writers or bloggers, then we could question what it says, but the article was actually written by the band's drummer for his debut column on the website. I am not sure why Loudwire's reliability has ever been questioned, it is owned by Townsquare Media afterall, anyways getting off topic. I see it as very unlikely that randomly one day we will have them officially announce him as joining the band, when he is already listed as a member on their Facebook page. I do not they would think they would need to say, "Hey Matt is officially a member of the band, you know since we have not made it obvious enough already." But, I like the wording discussed, but what I think we should say is something like, "Recently, Three Days Grace has not been clear about Matt Walst's official classification as a member of the band. In a early December 2013 blog post drummer Neil Sanderson confirmed that Walst had contributed writing to the band's next studio album and referred to him as the band's frontman." Or something to that degree. STATic message me! 06:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's actually quite good! That's way better than my previous examples. Again, the blog post does say certain things have indeed come to pass and no two ways about it, so we can definitely use those at least for a start. LazyBastardGuy 06:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is all the proof we need.[edit]

http://www.threedaysgrace.com/news/205893

A news post made just a few hours ago identifies Matt Walst as "a part" of Three Days Grace:

We are happy to announce that Matt will be a part of Three Days Grace. Matt has been on the road with us, and has been writing with us since 2003. Bringing Matt into the 3DG family is a no-brainer...he's always been in it.

Would we have consensus that this is exactly what we've been waiting for? This is fine as far as I'm concerned. LazyBastardGuy 17:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the page per WP:BOLD. The only thing I haven't done is updated the band member timeline graphic because I'm not sure how. Anyone else wanna take a stab at it for me? LazyBastardGuy 18:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Metal[edit]

--72.251.108.18 (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC) We should take off all of the other genres except for Alt. Metal. They're too aggressive to be any of the other stuff listed. They're influenced mainly by Alt. Metal bands like Helmet and Tool. Let's please change it and keep it changed because it is missleading. --72.251.108.18 (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

But do we have any sources to support the genres listed there? Is there a style section in the article? Are there sourced genres there? Do the band's albums have sourced genres? Opinion takes a back seat to sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible source for I Am Machine and new album drop date[edit]

http://www.yellmagazine.com/heavy-montreal-2014-three-days-grace-interview/88598/#

@Walter Görlitz:: Would this be acceptable, do you know? It appears that is where it came from in the first place. LazyBastardGuy 19:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't watch the video. The single is mentioned in the prose. Where is the album title provided? It would qualify as a WP:PRIMARY source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
"I Am Machine" is the single title. The album is as yet unnamed. (And no, I didn't watch the video either, I'm just trying to substantiate what's been added to the article recently.) LazyBastardGuy 05:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I have watched the video now, and I can confirm the album is still untitled but they are aiming for a March release date at this point. (That could change.) The single title is also confirmed. They also explained why the record has been in the works for so long (they've been taking it way more gradually this time around, recording for a few weeks, touring, recording, touring, etc. to allow the material to simmer, so to speak). LazyBastardGuy 05:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)