Talk:The Fray

Subject Archive

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

Untitled Article Links

Band Genre

Christian Influence

Disambiguation Page

Good Article Noms

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

Archive

I've created a an archive for this page - done by subject. Pretty standard - except if you want to add a new link, start it out with "[[Talk:The_Fray/A_...]]" - the "A_" indicates that it's an archive.danielfolsom © 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no "B". LaraLove 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, sorry bout that - done.--danielfolsom 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Singles

I think She Is is being released as a single?? �58.170.188.227 05:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a source then what you think doesn't really make a difference...--danielfolsom 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It says on the billboard site (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=665225&aid=1056757) that it was released as a single. It didn't chart but it was released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.213.22 (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How are they indie or alternative?

Not to start an argument, but Epic and Sony are kind of directly opposed to the indie aesthetic. 209.6.170.137 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I removed "Alternative rock and indie rock" from their genre, but someone undid it within a few minutes. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the genre section. I replaced indie rock with adult contemporary, which is true and fitting. This is a band that never toured independently and whose career was launched, practically overnight, from airplay on a Clear Channel radio station. Not to knock the band, but there is essentially nothing in their history that could be considered indie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfrailey (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian genre

The Fray says in an interview that they are all Christians and they are a faith-based band but don't like playing with Christian bands to a Christian audience because the audience is already Christian, and they don't have a chance to change lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.1.24 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 August 2007).

A) the Fray have said they're all Christian - that's true, in fact I'm pretty sure we say that in the article. B) They aren't a christian band - that's also true (as you said). we also say this in the article. C) The audience is Christian - that's not true- I haven't seen that in any report and I sincerely doubt such a statement would have been made. However, the fact that the Fray say they aren't a Christian band means we can't classify them as a Christian band -it's not our right to choose, it's their's.--danielfolsom 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed his point. He was saying that the Fray would rather not play to a Christian audience because they won't have the life changing impact like they could possibly have if they played in front of a non Christian audience. To assume that you could ever have a whole audience that is Christian is extremely naive ha, but that was what he was trying to say i think. -Brad 128.175.81.47 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are a Christian but they mix it up so the can reach non christians like many other bands have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.159.58 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if all of the members are Christian, I do not agree that they should be classified as a Christian band. Regardless of their stated reasons, their intent is to market the music to a mainstream audience, they are accepted by a mainstream audience and primary derive airplay on mainstream, secular radio stations. The music is neither directed toward Christians nor overtly praise/proselytizing. As far as faith goes, it is more a theme which does not necessarily aim to convert (example: "You Found Me" is a song about betrayal and hurt from faith). But your and my interpretation is irrelevent and "original research." Since this is Wikipedia, if you claim they are a Christian band, that information must come from a verifiable source. That is sufficient to cast doubt on the label from inclusion in this article.69.229.38.187 (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with the compromise of a band with Christian influences. I find it odd that they sometimes deny that they are a Christian band and yet other times they say that they are faith based. Issac Slade visited our church in 2006 and he spoke about how his music brings him closer to God and that his music was his ultimate praise for him. I have my own suspicions that they deny it to appease the recording labels in order to appeal to a wider audience, but that's just speculation on my part and nothing more. Eros2250 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Fray - Vienna.ogg

Image:The Fray - Vienna.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian faith section

Why was ut removed when its a very important part of the artical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.161.30 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sereously! Not many people know that all the members are christian and not many christians know there not a christian band.So it is very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.75.4 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can't spell right, how can we take your critique seriously? 67.166.57.119 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC) By the way, I am a member, I just forgot to log in before posting. Binglebongle2000 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and yes, they are a christian band, but it's never been explicitly stated, therefore (as they say they aren't a christian band and we have no right to choose) the section was taken out. Sorry! YelloCello (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Fray - Over My Head (Cable Car).ogg

The image Image:The Fray - Over My Head (Cable Car).ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC) They do stat that the band played on Chrisitian stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.109.133 (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thornton

The Fray is from Thornton. This has been confirmed, I got in a large debate over this with another Wikipedian, and it was confirmed that they are in fact from Thornton, CO. I have put this in the article, also giving an idea of where Thornton for those unfamiliar to the Denver Metro Area. YelloCello (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Links? I've been wondering how a band can really be from someplace very specific unless it's where they're based out of. Which is a bit why I'm wondering why Greeley is listed as their origin. Prk166 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Discography

I propose we make a special "The Fray Discography" page. Chastayo (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the article does not appear overlong and the discography section is not a major contributor to the length of the article. What is you basis for the suggestion?-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The majority of other artists have this page, even if they don't have an extensive discography section. One example: Paramore discography. The Fray is a very popular band and should have a discography page. Chastayo (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1) I diagree with your claim that "most other artists have one no matter the length of the discography." 2) Some like Paramore may indeed have one, but that doesnt mean that they actually SHOULD have one. And 3) even if another band SHOULD have one, that doesnt imply that this one should have one too. 4) "The Fray is popular" is not an argument that convinces me at all either.

So far, I haven't heard any logical reason that convinces me that a new discography article is needed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know your guidelines as to what constitutes a discography page, so if popularity and other Wikipedia examples doesn't justify the page what does? Chastayo (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

From looking at [[1]], I believe The Fray has released enough albums/singles now that they constitute a band that has "a list of contributions to music." Chastayo (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I can think of 2 reasons: 1) the discography of the artist is long enough or complex enough that as a stand alone discography article would feel like a complete article and not a stub. 2) the article about the band itself has reached a size that it is beginning to feel excessively long and difficult to navigate through and we are looking for "daughter articles" topics to spin off as stand alone. There may be other reasons, but "The Fray should have one cause otherwise they dont seem special" is not part of the calculation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe a Discography page for The Fray would allow to add specific sales numbers, as well as how 1) their current album exceeded critical reception, and/or 2) that three songs ("Absolute," "Never Say Never," and "Syndication") charted on Billboards without actually being released, an uncommon event. Chastayo (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources to support such additional content, that sounds like a great reason to create a new article! -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

All right! I'll start this article as soon as possible/when I find these verifications! I'm glad we came to an agreement, and thank you for telling me about the "Other Crap" policy! Chastayo (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Fray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

• The lead does not adequately cover and summarize the entire article (WP:LEAD). Things that should be touched on, in my opinion: the band's formation and early years, more germane elements of their current activities, summation of critical reaction.
• This is a perennial problem with GAs I've seen so forgive me for yelling "Didn't anyone teach you people how to write paragraphs?" A paragraph by definition needs at least three sentences; that means that every grouping of less than that needs to be either expanded with more information, cut from the article entirely (simply throwing a sentence about X is a common wiki-issue, and often leads to collections of trivial details and cruft), or merge information into a more cohesive batch of paragraphs. This is a special issue with the first two subsections under history, which are worthless divisions (and unsourced to boot).
• Tone and style issues: who says Timbaland is a "superstar producer"? What about "The book represented a visually intimate look at the band's rise to success"?
• "The Fray is a Grammy Award-nominated four-piece piano rock band"—ok, I'm putting my foot down on the whole "make up your own genre" party. Find me several high-quality reliable sources that call it piano rock. Otherwise remove the specious classification.
• WP:SYNTH and original research issues throughout: example, " The next year, they released Reason EP to some local critical acclaim, particularly by Denver's Westword alternative newsweekly." is cited solely to the Westwood. Where's the citation for the "local critical acclaim" bit? This appears to be pervasive throughout the article and I recommend every citation be rechecked.
• Non-free content: There's no significant critical commentary about the band's style or lyrics to make File:The Fray - How to Save a Life.ogg and File:The Fray - Over My Head (Cable Car).ogg justifiable per non-free content criteria (NFCC).

I am alotting a week to improve the article, longer if significant progress is being made. Questions or queries, as well as updates on progress, should be written here. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As no progress has been made on the above, I am delisting for now. You may renominate at WP:GAN at any time; questions should be directed to my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Orphaned references in The Fray

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Fray's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RS":

• From How to Save a Life: "Review: The Fray - How to Save a Life". Rolling Stone. September 22, 2005.
• From U2: The Immortals: The First Fifty. Rolling Stone (24 March 2004). Retrieved on 8 February 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fray/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: User:Esprit15d, User:TenPoundHammer

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Lead looks nice, although this sentence is too subjective to be there: "The Fray is notable for using a piano as the lead instrument in their music, instead of the guitar, thus setting them apart from most other rock bands." The second paragraph under Early history doesn't relate to the band's early history. It should be moved to a more relevant section. There is no need to state when the band announced they would release a single. Just state when the single was released and the subsequent commercial, critical and media response. A double dash (--) or a mdash (—) should be used between clauses. The ndash (-) should NOT be used. I won't fail for this, but why not fix it now before it goes to FA. (example: "...the album - which was released on February 3, 2009 - debuted.." This sentence "...directed by Rod Blackhurst was sold with.." should probably read "directed by Rod Blackhurst was included with...". The first three paragraphs under The Fray (2009 - present) should be combined. It wouldn't hurt to find a better way to consolidate or unify the other disparate paragraphs under that subheading. The article is not poorly written, but I see some nitpickety missing commas, redundant pronouns, little things that a solid copyedit would fix. WP:COPYEDITORS might be able to help in this regard.

2. Factually accurate?: Inline citations should always come AFTER punctuation. I'm also not thrilled about the blogs used as reference, which should be avoided if possible. I will not fail on this however. Also, the citation formatting is terrible. Check WP:CITET for suggestions on how to format them correctly. This sentence needs a reference, preferably with the source mentioned in the sentence: "His use of falsetto also increased on the second album."

Im slowly working through the references to fix and add all relevant info to them. It will take a while since there are so many references. All help would be appreciated.Mephiston999 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

The article is solid, but not tight. It is evident a lot of work has gone into it, and it is coming together. The Discograhy section looks really good.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the statement "notable for using a piano...." to The Fray's use of the piano as the lead instrument in their music has led....". Also, I've split "Early history" to two separate section. I've removed the ndash (-). Also combined the many lines of the "2009-present" section to two sizable paragraphs. Any suggestion to improve the article would be helpful indeed Prince Imrahil (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A new reviewer is needed as the original one has stopped editing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Original reviewer has suddenly quit editing, so I'll take over. Here are the points I noted.

Infobox

• Removed Sony Music, as there's no need to list both the label (which is Epic) and its parent company. Sony Music is not a label. Also made it just say "Epic" to match recommended formatting of infobox.
• Are there no associated acts that could be listed?

Source quality

• You can't cite an Amazon review!
• Removed metrolyrics and what appeared to be a wiki as sources from the intro.
• Not sure about the use of a YouTube interview as a ref.
• There was another YouTube link that didn't look reliable, so I removed it.
• Removed Fray Away the Edges, an acknowledged fansite.
• Removed TV.com, which is user submitted.
• Removed 100 Best Everything.com, which looked unreliable.
• Removed IMDb.
• Removed a few unreliable looking sources under Songwriting (one was a user submitted guitar-tab website).

Citations

• Ideally, the intro should not have citations in it, since it summarizes points that will be addressed later on in the article.
• Second paragraph of "Formation" is unsourced.
• Most of The Fray (2008-2009) section is unsourced.
• Found a few unsourced statements throughout, which I tagged with [citation needed].
• Two of the three sources under Awards and Nominations were unreliable (a lyrics directory and Rock on the Net, the latter of which is known for hosting the unusable ARC Top 40 chart).

Prose and MOS

• Changed all instances of "sophomore album" to "second album" to avoid colloquialism.
• Removed "Formation (2002)" subheader under "History." Pretty sure MOS disallows a header followed instantly by a subheader.
• Removed some "however"s.
• The band is a singular entity, and should be referred to as an "it" throughout. Many times, "they" is used instead.
• Many overlinks: The names of the Billboard charts, for example, should be linked only the first time they occur.

Comprehensive coverage

• At what point did the band abandon its Christian sound? The sources don't make it clear.
• I see almost no reviews sourced. One important part of an artist's biography is what the critics thought. I would recommend looking at reviews from Billboard, Rolling Stone, Allmusic, Entertainment Weekly, etc. for starters.

Overall, the article is very messy and has large stretches of unsourced material, and would need a great deal more work to meet GA standards. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GA

This is just a note to say that I might pick this up if it's renominated once the concerns have been met. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page when it's ready and I'll fast-track it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Members

I have created a much-needed "band members" section and I listed the former members, but I do not know what instrument that they played. Can anyone provide this information? • GunMetal Angel 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that's done, but now I have another question. ; This band doesn't have a bassist? • GunMetal Angel 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The band has no permanent bassist as of now. They keep hiring temporary bassists for tours - it was mentioned in a previous edition of the article, but someone seems to have edited it. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In the band members section I would suspect that these touring bass players deserve to be mentioned, whether famous or not. - GunMetal Angel 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I have added those members' names again. As I said, it was mentioned in a previous edition of the article. No problems now I guess. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The 'Formation and Early years' section says

"Slade's younger brother Caleb on bass to the band. Caleb was the band's first (and only official) bass player but was eventually asked to leave"

but the band members section has Former members

   * Mike Ayars – bass guitar (2002–2004)
   * Dan Battenhouse - bass guitar (2002)
   * Zach Johnson - drums (2002–2003)
   * Caleb Slade - lead guitar (2002–2003)

If Caleb was the only official bass player, why are Mike Ayars and Dan Battenhouse credited here as bass players, and Caleb as a lead guitarist? Exxolon (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is resolved now. It was a typo I think, whoever mentioned Caleb as a lead guitarist. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

about them being a Christian band....

http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/TheFray.asp The message just above the discography might be worth incorporating into the article, particularly to the section that talks about them being a Christian band.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that, at the link above, Jesusfreakhideout says quote, "As of early 2011, The Fray has been exhibiting behavior (including using profanity and mocking fans who question their usage of it) that JFH does not support. In response to this, we have removed them from the Artists Database and will cease covering the band indefinitely."

THIS needs to be incorporated into the article.RhettGedies (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

File:The Fray.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The Fray.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The Fray.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified January 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130219175153/http://www.billboard.com:80/articles/columns/chart-beat/268564/chart-beat-kris-allen-swv-green-day-al-b-sure to http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/268564/chart-beat-kris-allen-swv-green-day-al-b-sure

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified February 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110417011341/http://www.billboard.com:80/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=379&cfgn=Singles&cfn=The+Billboard+Hot+100&ci=3103227&cdi=10060072&cid=03%2F17%2F2009 to http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=379&cfgn=Singles&cfn=The+Billboard+Hot+100&ci=3103227&cdi=10060072&cid=03%2F17%2F2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Just because they are all Christian and have played in front of Christian audiences doesn't make them a "Christian Rock" band. None of their released material falls under any sort of Christian genre. SlaniCraft (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not why some reviewers consider them Christian rock. They have released in the Christian marketplace, have had their music consistently reviewed by media that caters to the Christian music industry and we have three RSes that refer to the issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Fray. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5ljfiEv05?url=http://www.grammy.com/grammy_awards/52nd_show/list.aspx to http://www.grammy.com/grammy_awards/52nd_show/list.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008140557/http://www.sonybmg.com.au/news/details.do?newsId=20030829004122 to http://www.sonybmg.com.au/news/details.do?newsId=20030829004122
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208082123/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_singles.asp?chart=1U50 to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_singles.asp?chart=1U50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028220406/http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691 to http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Fray. 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://web.archive.org/web/20060715181706/http://blogs.usatoday.com/listenup/2006/07/first_half_sale.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/listenup/2006/07/first_half_sale.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510001418/http://stylusmagazine.com/reviews/the-fray/how-to-save-a-life.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/the-fray/how-to-save-a-life.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214155057/http://www.thefray.net/ to http://www.thefray.net/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Fray. 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://web.archive.org/web/20091213211122/http://www.reverb.org/partners/artists-2 to http://www.reverb.org/partners/artists-2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303093533/http://www.denvermagazine.com/culture/2008/10/fray-take-2 to http://www.denvermagazine.com/culture/2008/10/fray-take-2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081023034918/http://rodblackhurst.com/main.html to http://www.rodblackhurst.com/main.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302184740/http://blog.thefray.net/us/news/deluxe-edition-ithe-frayi-out-now to http://blog.thefray.net/us/news/deluxe-edition-ithe-frayi-out-now
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070823233109/http://www.musicianforums.com/album.php?albumid=4123 to http://www.musicianforums.com/album.php?albumid=4123

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Performance and critical reception?

As the article is now (August 29, 2021), a disproportionately large chunk of each time period section is dedicated to the corresponding studio album's popular chart performance and its critical reviews. What are your thoughts on moving these chunks into a new, dedicated section? What should the section be called and where should it be placed? Any and all thoughts are welcome.
~ JDCAce (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Flat vs. multiline citations

Preface: For all Wikipedians reading this, please feel free to weigh in, even though I am calling out a single editor. I chose him only because he voiced his dissent first. I'm interested in the opinion of everyone equally, whether that be in support of or against my opinion.

Thanks for reviewing my changes, Walter Görlitz. I would like to respond to your edit summary given on your recent edit.

Would you provide some more insight into why flat citations should be used over multiline citations? These are my opinions why I believe multiline citations are occasionally better:

• Multiline is significantly easier to read than flat, especially when there are multiple citations written back-to-back. The intermediate <ref> tags are much easier to find and thus the multiple citation templates are easier to differentiate.
• When I want to inspect a citation's parameter information but I wish to ignore the url or archive-url values, it is easier to skip to the next parameter by moving my eyes to the next line than it is to carefully parse the URL visually, looking for its end. (The spaces I added to many flat citations makes doing this much easier than it was before, but it's still not as easy as skipping the URL's line in a multiline.)
• From what I read earlier today (which gave me the idea to do explode the citations), multiline citations make it easier to follow changes in the diff display, though I interpreted your edit summary to mean they make it harder to follow. As I said, I just began this practice today, so I haven't seen for myself if that is the case, but it does appear to be so: Each line in a multiline citation appears as its own entry in the diff, so the diff doesn't show the entire paragraph which the citation is within.
  • Though now, as I write this, I can envision how this may make it more difficult: If a single line is edited in a multiline citation, it could be difficult to identify exactly which citation to which that edit was performed. Is that true? On the other hand, the diff does include the two lines above and the two lines below every edited line, so perhaps it's not the case. Again, I haven't had the chance to see this in action for myself.

That final (potential) drawback aside, does it alone outweigh the benefits of multiline citations I listed above? I'm not certain, but I would lean toward no, it doesn't, as an editor could search the source text using the browser; in the worst-case scenario where there are multiple hits from the search, an editor could use the line numbers supplied in the diff. I realize using those line numbers would be a hassle, but so, too, would having to carefully parse a citation by hand (by eye?) to determine where each parameter is and where each citation ends when multiple are placed in a row.

Thank you for your time. I certainly won't start an edit war over this, but without fully understanding your point of view, I find it likely I will continue using multiline citations in other articles, at least on citations I add to the article myself. (However, I'll put a moratorium on this practice for at least a week or until I hear from you.)
~ JDCAce (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The only reason to retain flat refs is MOS:STYLERET. You did not change all, and so the mix is problematic.

The other problem was that it was nearly impossible to determine your changes because of how differences are determined and where you inserted unnecessary breaks. That was really my goal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. While my line breaks were unnecessary, I still do feel they do more good than harm, though not under these circumstances. I definitely do agree the diff for the initial change from flat to multiline did look absolutely horrendous. Speaking of change, you're absolutely right that my inclusion of multiline citations broke the retained style, which I try to never do. Additionally, the mix of flat and multiline broke the standardization of the page. I don't know what I was thinking; I strive for standardization. I suppose I thought non-visual standards (such as citation template appearance) were exempt from that, but I don't know why I thought that.

Once again, thanks for reviewing my edit, and thanks for correcting my mistakes. Happy editing!
~ JDCAce | user | talk | contributions ~ 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)