Talk:Avril Lavigne/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Statistics on this article

From the maker of Edit Counter is this new feature called Page History Statistics. I thought some people may be interested in checking out the stats on this article here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vocal cords

Yeah, I wrote "chords" out of habit; I hadn't even noticed. According to Vocal_cord#Spelling, both are historically correct, but when I saw the correction, I realized I was probably in the minority. Both ways may be acceptable, but since a Canadian spelling can't be found, "cords" works just as well and looks more professional anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarian

She is vegetarian. (quotes needed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.214.248 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statement? Zylo1994 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Lavigne has scored a total of five #1 singles worldwide"

What does "Lavigne has scored a total of five #1 singles worldwide" actually mean? Is there an actual Worldwide chart where these songs have been #1? I just ask because I know she's never had a UK #1 and I assumed Worldwide would mean #1 in every country? Or does it mean they were number #1 in a majority of countries? Zylo1994 (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it just means that the five songs, "Complicated", "Sk8er Boi", "I'm With You", "My Happy Ending" and "Girlfriend", peaked at #1 on a chart at any given time, and that chart may have been anywhere in the world. If all five songs peaked at #1 in the US and nowhere else, then the sentence would be semantically incorrect. I don't think I ever checked that information, though. Charts aren't really my thing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh I see. So it's sort of an easier way of saying "number 1 in France, USA, Spain, blah, blah...". Thanks! Zylo1994 (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre

the genre description sorta doesnt describe avrils harder songs...may i suggest changing the genre to Pop punk, Pop rock, Rock, im just suggesting here 24.139.117.90 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the articles for her singles (where the genres are all sourced) her most frequent genres are rock and pop which are easily represented by pop rock. Her next two frequent genres are pop punk and powerpop. So for these reasons I'm gonna suggest we keep the genres the way they are. Zylo1994 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP, thanks for your suggestions. The three current genres listed are actually sub-genres of rock, so it would almost be superfluous to add it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

pop rock, powerpop, and pop punk arnt rock subgenres, but ok then, i guess it sorta does describe it, but i feel that power pop isnt so necesary to list, but wtv 24.139.117.90 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlock

Unlock the page now! --93.82.1.233 (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected to prevent vandalism. You may create an account if you would like to contribute to the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: this IP may be hoaxing as it and a very similar IP (93.82.3.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have been making vandalism-type edits on other pages. Second IP has been banned. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropist?

Would it be fair to call Avril Lavigne a philanthropist? She's set up her own charity foundation and she's posted a couple of videos of her working with disabled children. She can be labelled a philanthropist right? Would it be considered an occupation? Zylo1994 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm gonna add it for now and if anyone has a problem with it we can simply remove it. Zylo1994 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna samples "I'm With You"

I've added the news about Rihanna sampling "I'm With You" to the Fourth Studio Album section...is that right? I wasn't sure whether it went in the Let Go section (as "I'm With You" is from Let Go) or the Fourth Album section (as the sampling occured during the fourth album's period). Let me know what you think. Zylo1994 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the article is divided into years essentially, then I think it works fine where it's at. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Letter from Avril

It's difficult to source her original letter on her website, but despite there being dozens of articles on her update now, I think the best one I've found that includes most, if not all, of her original letter, plus commentary by the author, is the MTV article, found here. I think more information can probably be extracted from this. I don't have time at the moment though. Cheers! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry that was me. I tried to google some other sources but couldn't find any so I thought it would be a good short-term solution. Also I was shaking with excitement - yes, I'm a giant Avril-nerd. XD Zylo1994 (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No no, I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I know exactly how you feel, btw :D But I just replaced your primary source (someone else came along and added the same thing), which is just a news page on the main avril lavigne site, and any news on that page won't last longer than a few months. Although I replaced the link with another one, I think the MTV article I found is better, plus it goes through the entire letter. Avril said a lot of important things in there. I'm just not in the "researching" mood at the moment to go through and do all that. So I just threw the link here as an option for anyone, or I'll get to it eventually. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Date

I think that this article should be either changed to month-date-year, as it much more efficient and consistent. Either that, or change the rest of her articles too, in which I'd be much easier just to change the main page. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This article fully complies with wikipedia policies regarding language/date use consistency. If you would like to be bold and convert the other articles as well, that would be a welcome contribution to Wikipedia and the Avril Lavigne collection of articles. However, there is no reason why this article should or should not determine the language/date use of other articles or vice versa. This article is about the person--who is Canadian-American, and thus Canadian English is used. Other articles are about the music, which is released primarily in the USA, and dates and languages reflect that. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

New album is a fusion of hip-hop and pop rock

Article at MTV. Should anyone wish to cite this article, please use the following reference to expedite their time, which I've already archived:

<ref name="mtvdinh">{{cite news|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1652716/20101119/lavigne_avril.jhtml|title=Avril Lavigne Experimenting With Hip-Hop, Alex Da Kid Reveals |last=Dinh |first=James |date=19 November 2010 |work=MTV.com |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtv.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2F1652716%2F20101119%2Flavigne_avril.jhtml&date=2010-11-20 |archivedate=19 November 2010 |accessdate=20 November 2010}}</ref>

– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Added it. ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

New Picture

This article needs a new profile picture at the top. The current one looks psychopathic and creepy.-Zyrath (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I about died laughing when I read your comment... lol

I'd choose File:Avrilgfdl.JPG as a new infobox picture if anything. It's used in a variety of other languaged wikis, including Canada. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I laughed too. I'm not a fan of the current infobox picture either. We can move your suggested image up from the body of the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like a new picture. I was thinking, if this okay, I could always post a message over at Avril Bandaids to ask members to contribute photos they have of Avril. Some of them are pretty hardcore fans and will have fairly recent photographs of that they actuallly took themselves. So all we need is their permission to use them and then we can, right? Zylo1994 (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Even though we're fortunate to even have a selection at the Commons to choose from, it's really not all that great. The easiest way would be for someone to post an authentic photo up on Flickr and license it CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or put it in the public domain. The alternative is emailing someone a boilerplate release form and a bunch of bureaucratic stuff to get it approved. I don't really know anyone at Bandaids but I would assume most pictures would just be pocket camera concert stuff. If anyone has some good images that can compete with the few amazing ones we have, then that would be swell. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What about if they actually post the picture up on Wikipedia? I'll make a post on Bandaids and ask them! Also sorry about my spelling...it's very early >_< Zylo1994 (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course lol. Forgot about that option. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw your thread. Here's how to upload directly to Commons: Sign in, go to the upload link, click on entirely my own work, and fill out all the complicated looking fields :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

maybe this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.77.43 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything works, I think it'd be nice to just change the image, keep things fresh. Either of the suggested images. Someone be bold here! :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be bold! =D I've changed the picture now. Zylo1994 (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, adds a splash of color to the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Studio Album

zOMG! New album, new song! :D

Anyways, the 'What The Hell' song link-thing: when you click on it, it doesn't take you anywhere. :/ Is this because the single hasn't been released yet, so we don't have a lot of sources/info on it? 66.60.210.32 (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently it's a redirect, merely a placeholder for the song should it achieve enough notability to be turned into an article of its own. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Avril has stated that the new album will be released in March. However she says it in this YouTube video. I'm always a bit worried about adding videos as references especially for a Good Article. Should we just wait until it's stated in a magazine? Zylo1994 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1652842/20101122/lavigne_avril.jhtml ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The linking of "What The Hell" is redirected to the "Fourth Studio Album" section but it's now the "Goodbye Lullaby" section right? I'd change it myself but I have no idea how to... Zylo1994 (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Zylo, the easiest way to do this is to go to the article and click on the section in the table of contents. The URL will change. Just copy the part of the URL you need and replace the redirect accordingly. Good catch, I'd forgotten about that. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I knew how to get the right URL I just didn't know how to alter the actual redirect. Would you mind explaining? Zylo1994 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question. What I usually do is search for the title, in this case "What the Hell". You'll be taken to a disambiguation page, so just click on the appropriate song link. Then you'll be forwarded to the Avril Lavigne article. Scroll to the top of the article and you will see a little note telling you that you've been redirected. You can click on the link provided. All it does is it adds "&redirect=no" to the URL so you will not be redirected back to the article. If it's faster for you, you can always just type the URL and add "&redirect=no" to the string. In case you didn't know, the strange .E2.80.93 in the redirect just represents the en-dash within the section header, but with copying and pasting URLs, you really don't need to memorize that. Does that help? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting the Goodbye Lullaby article

I was thinking we can get a head start on creating the article on someone's sandbox. The current section for the fourth album will probably end up like the previous album sections, sort of summarizing the album as a whole and its reception and chart positions, etc. The more detailed "making of" information should eventually be moved onto the Goodbye Lullaby article (though I would leave everything there for now). I would just copy the infobox from The Best Damn Thing, copy the edit-window text of the fourth section of this article, and we can tweak as necessary during the coming months as more information becomes available. Or we can simply start the article this way immediately, and remove the "making of" text from the AL article right away. What do people think? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a bare bones copy here. I didn't use TBDT article's infobox (stupidly) but used one from We Are the Fallen, and just changed the info. At least we have a starting point at the moment. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Nice ambox warning, too! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To de-bulk the large text of the background section, I was wondering if maybe we could split it up a little more into sub-sections? Maybe have a "musical style" sub-section which has the information about the hip-hop fusion, acoustic songs etc. Then maybe have a separate sub-setion about the delays. Then the actual main background section could be about the recording process? The Let Go article has separate sections for "Background" and "Writing and Recording". Just an idea. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Have at it. Tear it up. Add. Remove. We have months to work on it. I merely copied/pasted the bulk of the text and references so we have putty to play with. Ending-start kindly tweaked it up a bit. It's there for people to work on. Be bold, do whatever you think is right for it! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

New album name

She said the name of her new album, The Bad Lullaby or Goodbye Lullaby. I can't really tell though because she mumbles the beginning. Ref: [1] --New divine (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like she says Goodbye Lullaby. It'll be all over the web soon enough. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Goodbye and her lips seem to match that as well. News spreading like molasses, kind of frustrating. The only sources I can find are blogs and forums. But it's direct from her mouth, so I added it, and she confirmed the March date as well (this may've been confirmed before, but I wasn't really sure, hence the "expected to be released" phrases). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Article confirming release date, single name, and album name. (I had to put in spaces 'cuz wiki wouldn't allow it.) Hope this helps for sourcing. :) [SPAM -> HTML-commented out] 66.60.210.32 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

AceShowBiz.com is identified as SPAM by wikipedia, and so these articles cannot be used as sources or external links. I have HTML-commented out the link above. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way we could ask Wiki to remove it from the spam list? Also, why isn't Ace Show Biz a reliable source? :? 66.60.210.32 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP. I do not know the reason for its blacklisting, but you can request that a specific page on a blacklisted domain be whitelisted by going here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. You will need to follow the guidelines explained on that page. The alternative is to be patient until a news outlet receives word of the title. (You could always try emailing your local newspaper the YouTube video of her saying the title. I would think the news would jump at a chance to be the first to report it.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the copyright violation by using Youtube as a citation. I haven't fully investigated the policy (I'm only on a lunch break at the moment), but it was my understanding that we couldn't link or source to youtube videos that ARE copyright violations (such as user-uploads of music videos, screen-recordings of television programs, etc). But this particular video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G8wTsQoJmc ) is uploaded by the Dick Clark Productions youtube channel, who holds the copyright for the video (notice there is no ABC logo in the corner of the video indicating this is the original shot footage), so there is no copyright violation here. Sourcing it shouldn't be a problem, in my opinion. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What about this or this --Greeneyed soul (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ScottMHoward, the linked video (given in the Ref in the OP) is copyvio because the uploader doesn't own the video. The video you linked is not a copyviolation and can be used, but I only heard her talk about "What the Hell" and that the new album drops in March. So it can be used as a reference for either of those facts. She does not mention the title of the album, though. I checked several times last night for news sources to repeat the news and found nothing still (AceShowBiz is blacklisted, as you already mentioned). Greeneyed soul, the Zimbio reference should work just fine. According to our article—despite the caveat—I think it's safe to say the website is not a blog or an unreliable source. I'll add it now. Your second source is still AceShowBiz (it says so at the bottom of IMDb's excerpt). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad, Zimbio is a blog and user-submitted by the looks of it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. As I mentioned, I didn't have a lot of time and got the URL from somewhere else on the talk page and didn't exactly see what information it had on it. At least I know I'm not going crazy on the copyvio policy. =D (And why the heck aren't there any sources for this yet?! You'd think it'd be pretty big news to finally have a title) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if she let it slip by mistake or what. But other interviews, including the one you posted, she very consciously withholds that information. Because it's Latin America Reuters, who knows how long it took for someone to notice. I suppose I could find out, but I'm really too lazy right now. But without an official statement or having said it on an American outlet, I almost wonder if the media is being slow on purpose. Who knows? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a Slovakian article here. We can use sources in other languages, but even Google Translate (and Chrome's translation extension) has a bit of a problem with this article. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

another here and here. Reliable sources, though? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The tv.com source is from AceShowBiz, so I'm not sure if the tie-in works. The GlamourVanity may work; with all the Facebook/Twitter buttons and comments on every page, I don't really know what constitutes a blog anymore... the Slovak article seemed fine in Google translate, and it cites its source as SITA, but I have no idea what that is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's all recycled news stemming from the AMA, but: here. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Article on philanthropy

From the Los Angeles Times. Lavigne is mentioned several times as are her causes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 DoneZylo1994 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What the Hell

The video for the single will be shot in November

We can change that to 'was shot in November' now, right? 66.60.210.32 (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Stryn ^(talk) 15:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The video was shot today. However, the only source is Evan Taubenfeld's Twitter. I'll add it now with a 'citation needed' - do you think this is the sort of information that's likely to be reported by a website? Zylo1994 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that information would be widely sourced, but you never really know. If the CN template remains for a long period of time, we may be able keep the previous source but list it as "late 2010?" ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the 'December 3' part, could we change that to 'the video was shot on the third of December'? The former version just sounds and looks awkward. 66.60.210.32 (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thats the date format the entire article uses in references as well as in the actual article itself. I think it should stay the way it is personally. Zylo1994 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"3 December" is correct per WP:DATESNO ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I just preferred reading it as 'The video was shot on the third of December' than 'The video was shot on 3 December'. 66.60.210.32 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you can read it as "the third of December", if that helps. Also, ordinals are usually not recommended for articles ("third", 3rd, etc). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that is the way it is meant to be read in non-American English. But I'm no expert. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"All You Will Never Know"

Just curious. A collection of B-Sides Avril did (Head Set, Let Go, Tomorrow You Didn't...) are on a CD called 'All You Will Never Know'. Is this official or is it just a fan compilation? It appears to be a last.fm (http://www.last.fm/music/Avril+Lavigne/All+You+Will+Never+Know).66.60.210.32 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this to be a fan-made album, even though it can be found in many download locations. I compare this to "Not for your Ears" by Evanescence: it's a magnificent album full of studio-like remixes and demos of songs (and seems to contain the only good copy of "Missing" I've ever found), but is 100% unofficial. If memory serves me (I believe I've downloaded the album you speak of, actually), the album itself contains nearly 20 songs (if not more), which screams unofficial. But I have no concrete proof either way. Who knows, it might even be an import album released through official channels in another country. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's an unofficial compilation of B-sides, acoustic versions, covers recorded live, and even fan-made mash-ups. The track lists vary from download to download, so there's not even consistency with what's on the album. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are tours italicized?

There is an inconsistency throughout the article with italicized and unitalicized tour names. Anyone know? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sales and Certifications

A recent addition of Spain to the list on Under My Skin made me notice this section is a MESS.. and on all Avril-related album articles. They are mostly unsourced, and instead of having a COUNTRY and a CERTIFICATION with a QUANTITY of sales, it has charts listed...

On the Let Go (Avril Lavigne album) article the "chart" column is listed as U.S. Billboard 200 but then has a PROPER reference to the RIAA website. The column should be labeled something along the lines of "Certification Industry" and titled "United States (RIAA)". All of these articles need a MAJOR cleanup...

Sales and Certifications isn't really my thing... is there any way we can add a "help is needed" type notice to these sections to get all the facts squared away properly? If it were up to me, I'd delete pretty much everything that lists a CHART without a source, leaving only those which list either a country or a certification company... But again: this isn't my thing. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing citations entirely from lead

The below sentences were, I believe, originally located in the "Music career" introduction, which was eventually combined with the "Let Go" section. According to WP:LEADCITE guidelines, since "the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material", but the "necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Despite this, the citations were allowed during the GA nom.

Therefore, I propose—if possible—that the cited sentences be moved and replaced, and if not now, then possibly at some point. This would keep our lead from introducing original information and being overly detailed. The text in question is:

Lavigne has sold more than 30 million copies of her albums worldwide[1] and is currently one of the top-selling artists releasing albums in the U.S., with over 10.25 million copies certified by the RIAA.[2] Billboard named Lavigne the #10 pop artist in the "Best of the 2000s" chart, and she was listed as the 28th overall best act of the decade based on album sales, chart success, and cultural relativity in the U.S.[3][4]

and, once moved, should be replaced with the more general:

With more than 30 million copies of her albums sold worldwide, Lavigne is currently one of the top-selling artists releasing albums in the U.S., with over 10.25 million copies certified by the RIAA.

The difficulty lies in where the sentences should be moved. So I thought I'd bring this up in case anyone has any ideas. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of whatever ideas you come up with. I've been wanting to reduce the size of the lead ever since we redid the entire article for GA--in fact, the entire article is quite large (have you noticed how much longer it takes wikipedia to load this article than any other one? lol), but there's really nothing we can do about that, it's really as condensed as it can be unless we make a separate article for each section, which is ridiculous.

Sorry, I just don't really have any ideas on where to move stuff to, or what to delete. I've been looking for ideas myself for months now. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, in defense of the lead, I think it summarizes the entire article fairly well. As for the length of time it takes to load Avril Lavigne, it's not the only one, that's for sure. As for the length, I think we have one of the best articles on a pop star on Wikipedia; I've read several third-party articles, including one published a few hours ago, that have summarized our article using our quotes and the information we dug up. I'm very proud of it. I also think part of the slowness in the loading time may be affected because it receives one of the highest volumes of visitors each day. But if the article can be tightened up, I agree completely, I'm all for it. I reduced the Goodbye section greatly, but if it can be trimmed down more, then we should do it. If anything, some of the information will be replaced with chart positions and any other notable occurrences. I tend to re-read certain sections keeping an eye out for possible improvements as well, but I admit I tend to skip over the first three albums' sections. I'll have to give the entire article a lookover one of these days, but really, I keep telling myself to wait until after the fourth album contributors swing by and the article sort of settles. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye Lullaby

http://idolator.com/5710882/avril-lavigne-goodbye-lullaby It says that it'll drop March 8th, 2010. I love the picture, too, but album covers aren't allowed to be used as infobox pictures, are they? 66.60.210.75 (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article on Goodbye Lullaby, which includes a picture of the album cover. An album cover image is considered fair-use only within the infobox of the corresponding album, and exceptions to this rule are non-copyrightable album covers that use simple geometric shapes and/or text (like Nirvana (album) and The Beatles (album)). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Dancing Crazy" song

Miranda Cosgrove just released a song written by Avril Lavigne called "Dancing Crazy", which can be listened to and read about here. I don't know the "rules" regarding the notability of single songs written by songwriters, and I'm going to assume for now that the song hasn't attained notability, but how much notability is required for the song to be mentioned in passing in the article, I don't know. <s.>I'm also looking forward to reading more about the song or finding the credits on it—it sure sounds like Avril's singing on it as well, but I am not familiar with Cosgrove or her music at all. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess Avril also wrote Cosgrove's "Daydream", and I guess Cosgrove just sounds like Lavigne (I always thought it was some Avril b-side). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If the song is popular then I'm sure it will be made into an article and Avril will be mentioned. However I don't think it's an article we should be particularly worried about. Also I know an Avril b-side called "Daydream" was originally given to Demi Lovato, but maybe this "Daydream" is different? I don't think it's something to add to Avril's article. Zylo1994 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

-Facepalm- It just clicked with me that we should include this in Avril's article. When I read your comment I was thinking that it would all be handled on Miranda's article >_<...Anyway it was added a few days ago in the Goodbye Lullaby section. I just replaced the reference with this (not sure how reliable it is), and I re-wrote most of it too. Zylo1994 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to facepalm myself as well, I missed the part where you misunderstood me lol. I'm actually thinking that the song probably does not need to be mentioned in the article. But since it's there, we may as well leave it. I'm not aware of what songs Avril has written that have been sold to other artists, so without other examples, the "Dancing Crazy" seems more trivial than anything. I glanced at the Paul McCartney article, for example, and didn't see any examples of his songs (sold to other artists) being mentioned, even if they have their own article. So I guess I'm on the fence about it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it fits nicely in the GL album section as it's probably a leftover track for the album. Zylo1994 (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't really know that though. What I think would be neat is maybe finding all her songs that she's written and co-written and collecting them together somewhere. It'd show her as having a slightly broader musical career than just her own. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to chime in on the "we don't really know that" part. I saw the revised paragraph before coming here (nice, job, Z =D ), and the only word I don't like is "assumed". Even if the source assumes it (which I didn't check), I don't think we should put any assumed information in any article. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AVRIL ?

Why doesn't Avril Lavigne have her own WikiProject? It's clear that there are many members of Wikipedia who edit all the Avril articles regularly, why not have a "home base", if you will, of current projects, etc? I'm not entirely sure how to go about forming a WikiProject, or what EXACTLY all the components of the WP should be.. but it's just a thought I figured I'd throw out there. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about WikiProjects. Do most artists have them? I recall that an attempt to make a Miley Cyrus WP failed, and then a task force idea was tossed out there, but I really didn't follow what happened. As for me, I can honestly say I'm not interested. I'll gladly support the proposal, but I no longer have the time to make every Lavigne-related article a GA or FA, or even to just clean them up. I also don't think there are really that many regulars; I can think of three of us at the top of my head. But I don't want to be a Debbie Downer about the whole thing, either. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(LOL @ linking to Debbie Downer) No, that's okay. I was just really bored yesterday and was playing with userboxes and I saw my "This user is a member of Wikiproject Evanescence" and thought--is that even at all active anymore? Then I started thinking about Avril and wondered if the thought had ever come up. I guess this very page has worked as a kind of "home base" quite nicely, so there's no rush into it. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

2009–2010: Alice and conflict with record label

This section heading is new, I think? I am not sure it's the best of choices. I had to re-read the section three times to find any hint of a "conflict" with her record label. There is mention of the release date being pushed back. Perhaps using stronger wording would help get the point across, such as "blamed" instead of "cited." Perhaps we can rethink the section heading and come up with something more descriptive of that era. How about "Alice and record label delays" or better yet, re-collapsing this section into the one following it: two years isn't much of an era in a musician's life, and Avril is growing older and more prolific all the time. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted all changes. Something that major needs to be discussed on the talk page. The changes made absolutely no logical sense. (To a lesser degree of importance, this would also affect the Good Article standing.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Musical style and songwriting section?

I was just looking at Katy Perry's article and saw she has a musical style and themes section. Lady Gaga also has a similar section. Both are GA status. I was thinking, maybe we should have a similar section for Avril Lavigne? Something like "Musical style, influences and songwriting"? We could talk about her genre, themes in her music, her influences and her songwriting - touching upon some of her songwriting criticisms, without stepping too much on her album articles. What do you think? Zylo1994 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Heres a rough example of what I mean. Reading it over, it may be a little too much information as most of it should be covered in the appropriate album articles. However, I think the songwriting criticisms are too big not to be included in the AL article itself. I took some of it from the "Personal style and public image" section, so perhaps the songwriting could be covered in their somehow? Zylo1994 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I support this. You already extracted the required text from various articles, but I completely agree that some of the songwriting controversy should be made note of in the main article. Also, some of the text from the main article is now in a place that makes it a little more cohesive. (For example, the text about songwriting (in the Under My Skin section of her Personal style section) never seemed to belong there.

First, what the section should be titled, "Musical style and _________", you've suggested songwriting, Katy Perry's section says "themes", and Gaga's says "influences". So really, that second word should be taken from the second major topic of the section. I think "songwriting" would work thanks in part to the accusations of plagiarism, etc. Lavigne also made quite a stand to make sure people knew she was involved in the songwriting aspects. So that works for me. "Themes" is too broad, and we would have to find sources that talked about the themes of her songs. This should probably be discussed at any rate, but not really focused on. "Influences" doesn't last more than a few sentences in Avril Lavigne's article, but it's good to mention. I like how Katy Perry's article says she has a "contralto vocal range". In all the (online) reading I've done for Lavigne, I've never once seen anyone talk about her singing, which now that I'm aware of this, seems really odd. The media always seemed focused on her image and her punkness.

Second, do you think we could change the section titled "Personal style and public image" to just "Public image"? I think the main section's title, "Personal life", makes "Personal style" a bit redundant... besides, the next section it "Tattoos", which is also technically a part of her personal style, and not necessarily her public image.

Third, does anyone here live near a good library system? This section could probably be expanded with some information from books that have been written about Avril. I just checked my own library's catalog, and except for CDs and Make 5 Wishes comics, we don't have any biographies on Avril. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I searched for Lavigne's vocal range but I couldn't find anything useful. I couldn't find much about her influences either. I originally went through each album and talked about the themes but it really did step all over the individual album articles. Also, changing the "Personal style and public image" section to "Public image" sounds great to me. Zylo1994 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I figured it'd be hard to find something. But I searched Google news archives for "avril lavigne alto" (and "contralto") and found several news sources citing her voice as alto (Boston Globe and Washington Post and Oakland Tribune), but the only one that was not pay-to-view was this Chicago Tribune article. Below is the WebCite archival link:

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.chicagotribune.com%2F2004-11-13%2Fnews%2F0411130129_1_avril-lavigne-self-empowerment-audience&date=2010-12-30

Also, I think it's okay to step on the individual album articles a bit. If the lead is to summarize an entire article, then the album sections of an artist's main article should summarize the albums. I would change up the language so it's different from the album articles, of course. Or we don't have to go into themes at all, if you think the album articles cover it well enough. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay I created a small themes section - tell me what you think. That newspaper article was actually very useful. I also took some sources other articles and took some quotes from the AL article. Zylo1994 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, would it be fair to talk about "Alice" being nominated for an Oscar? Just becuase an Oscar is quite a prestigious award and "Alice" was the first song she wrote on her own that was released as a single (which I won't mention as there is no source for this). Would that be okay or would that not be keeping a neutral point of view?

I think it's great! When I have more time, I'll go through and copyedit a bit to help make it read smoother. Since there isn't any opposition to the section, let's go ahead and make it live if you think it's ready. Plug it into the article somewhere appropriate (maybe right before "Other work"?) and make sure to remove any text in the rest of the article that repeats what's said in your new section (if any). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your help! Zylo1994 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You did all the work! I think it's a fantastic addition to the article and now that I see it, I definitely think it was a missing piece. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne in The Sims: Superstar

During the Let Go era she was included in the game as an NPC, I thought it might be cool to add. However I'm not sure about the soures I've found. They're game reviews but I think some may be user-subtmitted but I'm not sure so I was hoping somebody else could take a look? Here are some I found...this, this and this. Zylo1994 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That is cool, I didn't know that. You have two excellent sources. GamingExcellence can be used. If you click on the author's name, Shawn Snider, it will take you to his profile, where you learn he is the Executive Editor for the company. Game Vortex is okay to use as well; the review was written by Andrew Horwitz. I had to dig a little deeper for him; his profile says he is retired, but that doesn't tell me anything. Fortunately, there is a Staff section (at the top) and that lists everyone who has worked for the company and who is also retired. Staff of reliable websites are definitely accepted. Your second example is an obvious user submission (or else impossible to confirm that it is a staff entry). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GamingExcellence it is then. Thanks! Zylo1994 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

sources need, especially in the case of bad, bad news

I heard that she had died and rushed over to Wikipedia. No news. Google helped to dispel the myth. She did not die on January 1, 2011. Long live Avril. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The revealing of the hoax has more media attention than the actual hoax itself. Completely non-notable. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Daily Record Interview

For some reason, the Daily Record just published a new, small article (on Jan. 10) on Lavigne using information and quotes that are three years old. The pseudo-new article mentions that Lavigne's idol is Madonna. I found the full exclusive interview here (three pages in length). I never came across it during the expansion of this Wiki article, and there are a few details in there that can augment the current article a bit. I'll be happy to do it later when I have more time, but it's a quick read and anyone can go for it if they'd like. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Marketed Image?

Is there anything in the literature about this?

I met a Canadian English teacher in China who told me lived a few towns over from Avril before she hit it big. He seemed like a reliable, down-to-earth fellow, trained in social work. He once saw her wasted at a party. He claimed that before she made it big, she was a loner and into drugs, but that her thing was Country, like Twain, not Punk-rock, which was obviously just marketing. Her punk-rock image was manufactured to sell albums. He claimed that local people in Canada there know this about her. It could be rumors based on mis-interpreting her original work, but it seems connect the dots of this wikipedia article better than the explanation given and re-enforced with quotes from her. Scandal-mongering is terrible, but celebrities shouldn't lie through their teeth just to sell. It's fine to play a character on stage, but at some point a person has to be honest about what's going on. Can anyone else find anything reliable like this?

110.74.222.76 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Any stage performer is going to have a "marketed image". And I've read online several times that Avril's "image" changed once she was awarded a record contract. But so what? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states she was a loner and into drugs and I'm sure we'll squeeze it in somewhere. However her image change is nothing new and her opinion on drugs is very negative...So I don't really believe your Canadian English teacher in China. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Intro is Too Damn Long Party

The introduction should be just that, an intro. This intro could be a biography in and of itself. Includes way too much information, cites way too many things. Most of the info should be included in the music career and personal life sections.

Oh, I totally think this article should include the bit about how she didn't know who David Bowie was. Also, for the record, punks don't share the stage with Shania Twain, so there is no real questioning whether or not she was made to act punk by a record exec.Brakoholic (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• The intro should be a summary of the entire article. So, in my opinion, it's fine the way it is.
• If you can find sources for the David Bowie controversy, then yes, it would be a good addition to the Let Go section.
• The article must be neutral so we don't simply say "Avril Lavigne is a punk" - we say that the media and some fans regarded her as a punk and show that Lavigne denied this. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

First off... lol @ the section heading. I was once a member of this party. Because visually, it is huge. But looking at the entire article, that is huge, too. I've run around in circles trying to think of any way of making the intro (and the entire article, for that matter) smaller, but there really isn't any easy way. It sums up the entire article without going into too much detail that isn't needed for an intro. I dropped out of this party a bit ago, though I completely understand your concerns. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Brakoholic, the whole point of the intro is so you get an excellent overview of Avril Lavigne (in this case) without going into the detail required by the actual article. As we move forward in time, certain things will become less relevant and will undoubtedly be replaced (e.g., eventually the Whibley marriage might not need so much focus, both in the lead and in the article)—especially if Lavigne decides to marry again. But believe it or not, this has been discussed before, and if the lead can be truncated, then it will be! As for the info being included in the career and life sections, they already are. Regarding David Bowie, maybe that's notable, maybe it's not, I've never read anything about it. But perhaps that would be better suited to the Let Go article, not the Avril Lavigne article (depending on its notability). And in response to your last comment, it's funny, but definitely, like Zylo said, non-neutral and original research. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra Track Listings

We've been through this whole thing before.. (see Talk:Avril_Lavigne/Archive_4#Infobox_Track_Listings). There is no reason why the track listing position cannot be placed within the infobox of the singles articles. It is clearly defined within {{Infobox single}} that the Misc parameter can be used for this purpose and instructions on how to do so. Also, {{Extra track listing}} uses Infobox single as its first example of usage. The track listings have been on the singles articles for a very long time and consensus from the previous discussion resulting in keeping them. What's the problem with having them? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 06:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why only the same people partake in these discussions. I'm going to quote Kww "The problem is with the statement "quick link to the next track in the album". These are navigational links, and should only be used when there are actual articles to navigate to. In the vast majority of cases, there are not (and should not be) articles for the other tracks on the album." Also, I am planning on getting "Girlfriend" specifically to be a good article, which I see none of her other articles are. Seriously, they are all a mess. And don't get me started on how the refs are. {{Infobox single}} doesn't say that it has to be there. And do you see any GA with it there? No, I don't think so. ℥^nding·start 06:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• The same people discuss Avril Lavigne because the same people edit the articles.
• If we're just quoting arguments from the previous discussion, how about "only 4 of the 14 articles which had this information removed had 'nothing to navigate to'."
• "Infobox single doesn't say that it has to be there" is just the parapharse of "can be used for this purpose". If something doesn't concretely say it must be one way or the other, it means that it CAN be one way OR the other.

The articles have had a long standing consensus that it improves the informational aspect of the singles articles by having them (not just for navigational purposes). As for GA-status (by the way, I immediately found an example of a GA--which has even MORE information than the current listing here--not to mention this Featured Article), having a track listing in the infobox doesn't guarantee a bad or good review. The fact that other articles do or don't have something doesn't control what other articles have. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 07:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that a lot of the same people edit her articles, it would just be nice to see other people get in on the discussion once and a while. I can see if "I Can Do Better" had an article, it would come in use, but come on, it doesn't even link to anything. There's no point to it at all. Not only does it look messy, but I can assure you that if this article gets nominated for a GA, it will be brought up. You haven't really given me any reasons to why it should be there in the first place. The only thing I got from it was that it's allowed to be there, and you want it there for some reason. ℥^nding·start 07:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to using the second type of extra track listing. ℥^nding·start 07:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Based off Bohemian Rhapsody. It's still there, but much more useful. ℥^nding·start 07:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't really give a deep and well researched answer; it's late. So I'm just going to say that the last suggestion, the Bohemian Rhapsody example, is pretty spiffy and pretty much solves any issues. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fine example. The template can then be used on all singles from the same album, so it's easily applied and editable, too. It also breaks up the pattern a bit so it's not just a few rows of tracks and can be hidden out of the way. This style definitely has its advantages over the previous style. Thanks for implementing. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we could all come to an agreement. I'll create ones for the other albums too. :) ℥^nding·start 15:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I was bored this morning (day off), so I put the new templates on all the singles articles. Though I'm somewhat unsure what we should do about the sountrack singles Keep Holding On and Alice. It seems repetitive to have both tracklists, but also seems weird to just have the album track listing. I think we should only include the soundtrack tracklist since they are only soundtrack singles not album singles. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point: they're soundtrack singles, not album singles. I agree with the soundtrack track list, then. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done But I didn't make templates for the soundtrack singles. Eragon is primarily composed by only one artist without any other notable singles, and most of the linked songs found in Almost Alice don't have substantial articles (though the Kerli one isn't bad). I included all the artists within the coding, but that caused a bit of mayhem so I commented them out, in case someone else has a better idea on how to include them (if even necessary). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no point in having one for Eragon. There's only one link it goes to, and it's Keep Holding On. ℥^nding·start 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Are tours italicized?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unresolved

---

There is an inconsistency throughout the article with italicized and unitalicized tour names. Anyone know? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:39, 8 December 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.

I pulled this from the archives. Just so there's a record, the answer is no. In accordance with WP:MOSMUSIC, more specifically Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Formatting, "tours are not formatted beyond ordinary capitalization." Thanks to ScottMHoward for locating this info. I suppose anyone who wishes to do so should go through and correct the tour articles, etc. as well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird, i totally missed that discussion when it came around the first time. I found that one little sentence buried in MUSTARD back when I was reorganizing the list of tours article. That used to be one of the things I always looked out for--proper formatting of albums, songs, and tours. I guess tours fell off the bandwagon at some point. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I was surprised to see the word "mustard" again. Part of how I got into Wikipedia was with making formats between articles consistent with Mustard, which became superseded by MosMusic, so I didn't think the term still even existed! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Please delete pop punk, Avril even stopped calling herself punk, there is no source for pop punk, all her albums are classified as pop/rock, the only song which is classified as pop punk is "girlfriend" (which isn´t pop punk either..)--84.217.29.160 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Pop punk must me deleted, there isn´t any source for that. If some stupid people think she is punk, that doesn´t make her punk.--Ogica1234 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We had many sources for pop punk but we took them away a while ago...not sure why - maybe to keep the infobox uncluttered? "Sk8er Boi", "He Wasn't", "Girlfriend" and "The Best Damn Thing" all have sources for pop punk. Let Go, Under My Skin and The Best Damn Thing also have sources for pop punk. Personally, I'm not really bothered if pop punk is removed from the genre section but only do it if you think it really doesn't represent her music (despite all the references) and NOT because you have something against Avril Lavigne being labelled with a genre you happen to enjoy. Remember Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. Zylo1994 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If sources are found for Pop Punk, there's no reason why it should not be included.~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly there is no reason to delete it! It's true that Avril isnt punk, but it doesnt mean she cant have songs with pop-punk's oriented sounds (instrumentall). It's stupid to think that someone have to be punk, just to do pop-punk. 200.75.123.220 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a few pop punk songs (that's what you say, she actually has none) doesn't make her pop punk. Give me an example of a pop punk song by her.--188.26.49.84 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. Wikipedia is a collection of information published by third-party sources. Sources that call Avril "pop punk" include The Vancouver Sun, The Santa Barbara Independent, The Providence Journal, etc. As for specific songs, an editor here would have to find a source that says that song is that genre. - Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers. Celebrity gossip. Is that a good source? The only reason they call her pop punk is that she calls herself that way. How can she be the same genre as the Buzzcocks, Generation X, (old) Green Day, Ramones etc?--188.26.49.18 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the source. Find us a source where Avril Lavigne specifically calls herself "pop punk". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Genres

Can we NOT remove sourced genres please. Having only one ref may look neater but that doesn't mean we should pick and choose which information we include. Also Allmusic lists quite a few genres doesn't it? So I assume you're listing them ALL and not simply picking which ones you want? Anyway, I reverted genre-change edits to "When You're Gone" but I didn't have time to change "Girlfriend" back - I couldn't actually find the genre sources so if anyone could help with this it would be much appreciated. Zylo1994 (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC) The Best Damn Thing's genres were also changed. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific about to whom you are speaking, or what changes were made. I didn't quite follow. Genre changes should simply be discussed on articles' respective talk pages. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it was more than one article so I thought maybe this would be a good place to discuss them all. It was aimed mostly at Ending-Start but I didn't want it to seem like I was singling him out. I can't seem to find The Best Damn Thing's or Girlfriend's old genre references either in the edit history. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. This talk page has been used as a "home" page for all of Lavigne's articles in the past, but I didn't realize that's what you were doing. And I wouldn't worry about "singling" anyone out lol, being vague is harder for the rest of us to follow : ) No one is blaming anyone, it's just a matter of being specific about certain edits and enforcing the fact that consensus is usually obtained for things such as genres (and referencing issues), etc. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Genres are still being removed. Ending-Start, I fail to see how having only one source makes things more accurate. Surely it makes them less accurate? Having a collection of sources is what Wikipedia is all about, surely? So instead of reverting eachother's genre changes, shall we just have both the Allmusic source AND the sources we already have? Zylo1994 (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The allmusic reference being used in most of these articles only show "STYLE" and not "GENRE". Use this information how you like. I don't genre-edit. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me, there has been at least one lengthy discussion on the reliability of Allmusic on the WikiProject Albums talk page. Maybe check the archives there? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's one. It appears the general vote is to not consider anything in the sidebar as reliable. This is how I've always looked at it: unless there is a specific genre outlined in a review written by an intelligent human being, the randomly thrown "styles" (which are not genres, as defined in the music genre article) should definitely not be considered for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

Is it possible to have a list somewhere of what sites are reliable or not when it comes to music genres? Similar to the list of Review siets... ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that's the one I was thinking of; not as lengthy as I remembered it. I think after I started that, Gyrofrog (talk · contribs) left a comment, and I may have somehow found his related topic, which I just Googled for, and which is located here, which I think goes into how Allmusic just makes up styles/genres and these were somehow being translated into Wikipedia. I don't believe I ever got a consensus to make Allmusic non-reliable; apparently they're okay for some albums. Kind of a catch-22. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If anyone cares to, the subject could be brought up again at WikiProject Music Genres maybe? Just a suggestion. I could not find anything in those archives (and Gyrofrog's topic is the only extant topic regarding Allmusic). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So the Allmusic source actually lists STYLES and not GENRES? Then it shouldn't even be in the infobox should it? Plus the link is hidden in the "<--" things (I don't know what they're called) and isn't even listed as a proper reference. Surely having lots of different sources is more reliable since certain genres can be backed up by numerous sources, whereas with Allmusic you only get one input? Anyway, the Allmusic references have been re-added once again so I think I'll direct Ending-Start right to this discussion... Zylo1994 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic does list genres, but they're very good at listing the most vague genre possible. For example, Avril Lavigne is listed as Pop/Rock. As a completely different example, so is Emperor, a notable Norwegian black metal band. According to our own articles, black metal is an "extreme sub-genre of heavy metal", and heavy metal is a genre of rock music. So to call a black metal band "pop/rock" is simply lazy and technically incorrect (and almost insulting lol). Allmusic may or may not get the actual sub-genre correct, but they will list is as a "style", not as a genre. And this is also incorrect. I agree with you that genres should be backed up by numerous sources (they don't necessarily all have to be listed, though), and that Allmusic is not necessarily the greatest source for genres. This is simply my opinion, though, and not necessarily consensus, either on this board or on Wikipedia—which is why another discussion on the matter isn't a bad idea. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and <!-- and --> is just referred to as "commenting/commented out", I believe. If a link is "commented out", then it's been hidden by the <-- thingies (which also works as a name for them) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Genres arbitrary break

Nothing in this discussion makes much sense at all. And why did you bring it here if it's about "Girlfriend"? That's what it's for. Allmusic seems the most reliable to me. Look at the other sources given, they are mostly all blog posts, not from a more official music source such as Allmusic. A whole bunch of genres come from there that are used on Wikipedia. I don't necessary believe that you need a bunch of sources to show a genre on Wikipedia. Only showing one, that shows the genres quite easily, keeps it clean. If you actually see on Allmusic, the genre is always listed the same, showing each artist's main genre, while the style is specifically for the song. I see no problem with listing Allmusic as a genre source. And I only had it hidden so it wouldn't be messy showing refs on the infobox. And why couldn't one of you simply leave a message on my talk page on this discussion? That's how you get somebody's attention. ℥^nding·start 19:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer for the "Girlfriend" thing, though this discussion on genres may be applicable to all of AL's songs, so having it here doesn't hurt. This discussion in short: genres must be cited by a reliable source, and the song/album must be specifically said to be of a certain genre. Allmusic may be used as a source unless someone specifically questions its reliability. Then consensus should be reached as to whether Allmusic's specific genre label is reliable or not. The infobox is a summary of the entire article, not unlike the WP:LEAD, so citations in the infobox are not needed, because the information should already be in the article. I would not put commented out references in the infobox; a comment about taking genre changes to the talk page should suffice. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I got from this as to why Allmusic isn't a reliable source is because it says "style" and not "genre". Isn't a music style what a genre is? And about refs in the infobox, that's why I had them in the hidden thing, as it says on the top, it's currently being expanded. I don't see it as a problem. The genres aren't much different, but come from, in my eyes, a much more reliable source. I don't think that just taking a source from what these blog posts say can divine a genre. The best way to go is something concrete. ℥^nding·start 20:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of editors use Allmusic as their source for genres. It's up to the editor to make the decision if it's reliable or not. As for defining "style" vs. "genre", our own article states, "A music genre (or sub-genre) could be defined by the techniques, the styles, the context and the themes (content, spirit)", but it does caution that some people consider style and genre to be the same thing. Again, it's at the editor's discretion. But if another editor disagrees, then it must be taken to the talk page. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have a severe problem with using Allmusic as the source for the genre? If not, I will be adding it back. ℥^nding·start 20:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I contest the reliability of Allmusic as a source for genres unless the genre described comes from a written review of the album/song in question. I find the side-panel to be unreliable in this aspect. I also disagree with <!-- --> being used for sourcing genres. If sources are to be used, Wikipedia's referencing system should be used as well. There's no reason why sources should ONLY be given to those who wish to edit the page. All visitors should have an opportunity to view where information is obtained. Other than those 2 opinions, I'm standing down from this conversation. This is the exact reason I have a "this user does not edit music genres" userbox on my userpage. There's too much room for WP:OPINION to overrule. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I only had those tags there until I had expanded the article more, and mention them in the composition. ℥^nding·start 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Then the only thing I contest is the use of the allmusic "list" being used as a reliable source for genres. In my opinion, any website should only be used if an actual sentence describes a song as being a specific genre. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply! I started the discussion on the Avril Lavigne talk-page because it wasn't only Girlfriend where genres were changed; It's also When You're Gone and (not so much anymore) The Best Damn Thing (song). So I thought instead of creating 3 different discussions, one on the AL page would be ok. Anyway, I agree with Scott. Allmusic lists so many genres/styles (and yes, I believe there IS a difference between the two) and like Keraunoscopia said, they can actually be very innaccurate. Maybe as the article is expanded we could include a "styles" section (similar to the album articles) where we could list the styles of the song and use Allmusic as a source? But anyway, for the infobox, I think we should stay away from Allmusic unless genres are mentioned in the actual written review. Zylo1994 (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No more list-defined refs?

I see that the reference listing on the The Best Damn Thing (song) article has been reverted back from list-defined references becuase this is an "Unacceptable way of referencing". So are we changing all the articles back...? We discussed this here a while back if anyones interested. Zylo1994 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Ending-start (talk · contribs) was the one who reverted the LDR referencing. Since consensus was reached a while ago (you linked to it above), then there is absolutely no reason for the ref changes, and I would revert them back immediately, if it hasn't already been done so. And if Ending-start is reading this, WP:LDR is not only a completely acceptable form of referencing, it's one of the most efficient. Any major changes like that should be discussed on the talk page before being done. If you wish to see if consensus has changed, feel free to start up another discussion. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a "bot" (not really) that can convert any article back to LDR using Template:R. If anybody knows of any article that needs to have this implemented let me know and it'll take a matter of seconds vs. the long process of doing it manually. =D~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It only took me five minutes to do it with a word processor; if I had MS Word (which I don't), I could do it even faster (with wildcard search/replace). But I'm curious about your "bot" : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I sorta want to make my "bot" explanation into a template, but I just love talking about it, so I'll type it every time lol =D. It's a private php script run on my web sever which was originally meant to receive input from a user ("Avril Lavigne", for example), pull the wikitext from the article, search for all references, replace tags with {{R}}, create a reference name if there isn't already one (the base URL for the website--adding sequential numbers if that reference name already exists), then add all the created references to the {{reflist}} tag. The generated coding will then automatically be uploaded to wikipedia. So basically all the page is is a textbox that says "Article Name", you click submit, and it takes 2 seconds and the page is converted. The problem is that I'm not an authorized bot and the code that is retrieved from wikipedia loses special characters (like japanese fonts). This is probably the fault of my server or old php version, or maybe even chrome's fault--who knows. But since I can't post automatically anyway, I now just copy/paste the coding into the form, click submit, and then copy/paste the new generated coding back into wikipedia. So the process takes 5 seconds instead of 2. lol Took me like 8 hours to write, so I hope it'll be worth it at some point. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for explaining. TBDT was a quick article to take care of, but even with the MS Word search/replace trick, it wouldn't "move" each reference into the Reflist template—something I completely forgot to think about when I typed above. That sounds fascinating though. If you can get all the kinks out, you should consider applying to make a bot. I haven't looked at the requirements in over a year (no reason to, but the one time was merely out of curiosity) and I think you can "suggest" a bot, explain your code, and like-minded fellows will help you sort it out. The last time I ever programmed anything was an RPG game on a TI-85 in 1996, and I feel like a high-tech "coder" just typing the silly markup on Wikipedia here lol. So I can't be of much use to you beyond that. If you're looking for articles to convert, I say just employ WP:BOLD and do it to some random low-profile articles! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

New interview

Amy Siarretto interviewed Avril here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Avril prepares for performances by doing yoga and drinking tea. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Current Members (band)

Can someone remove her dancers? they arent part of lavigne's band since 2008-09 200.82.217.46 (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope someone else can help you. I'm not familiar with where information for that would be culled – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Explicit material on The Best Damn Thing

Are only two songs on this album explicit? "Girlfriend", and "I Can Do Better" -- CDK (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

IPAc-en template

Hi Deflective, I think instead of undoing your edit last time, I should have removed the icon parameter. I don't have a problem with the template, but I do have a problem with the icon itself. When I see the little "sound" symbol (speaker with soundwaves), I instantly think there is a sound file. The symbol usually indicates there is something to listen to; it doesn't mean "pronounce", it means "listen". This is standard with speaking dictionaries, for example. If someone recorded a pronunciation file for Avril Lavigne that linked to your icon, there'd be no issue (and I would gladly do it if I had a beautiful baritone). Would you be upset if I removed the icon? I would love to hear opinions from anyone passing through. Again, the icon—to me—means there is a recording of the pronunciation. I mouse over and there is no link; it's misleading.

However, I am going to be proactive and locate a place where recording-philes (?) hang out and maybe I can put in a request for her name to pronounced. I think this would be the best resolution. But until we get the recording, I think the icon should be removed—just my opinion. If others disagree, that's completely fine by me. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added the article to the Category:Requests_for_audio_pronunciation_(English). Should be good now; not sure how long it'll take though : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agreed with your first reversion when it happened, and also agree with the removal of the icon parameter for the same reasons. Having an icon when something is "unavailable" is just silly. I've already gone ahead and made the edit, replacing icon with pron, which replaces the icon with the word "pronunciation" until an audio recording can be made. I'd record one (I have a low voice), but I'm completely unfamiliar with any kind of standards (emphasis, timing, etc--though I can easily remove background noise). Plus, I have no idea how to get my sound file into a Wikipedia-style OGG file. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 09:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite know how to properly (at least for professional purposes) say her name either. "Leh-'veen" vs. "luh-'veen", etc. As for .ogg, with the freeware program, Audacity, you simply export nearly any lossless file from a menu command. It's very convenient; great for making sound clips for albums also. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The speaker icon is used because it's the least intrusive way to indicate a pronunciation in all situations. Sometimes there are several pronunciations scattered through a paragraph and the word showing up again and again very quickly clutters it. You can tell if an icon have a sound file attached because it will be blue (eg, Wiki).

If it really bugs you on certain pages then you can change the flag, that's why other flags are available. --deflective (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your understanding! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bandaids Quote

I think the quote from Avrilbandaids.com (footnote 60) ought to be removed, as it has been called into question whether it is genuine. At best, it's a statement from Avril's publicist, not a direct quote by Avril herself. At worst, it's a flat-out fabrication by Bandaids' owner, Sharifa Mohamed. Either way, it's tainted and should be removed in the interest of erring on the side of caution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.21.114 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't know if it's a statement from her publicist or from her. I removed the Bandaids reference because, in keeping with its GA status, this article would do better to not quote directly from a message board. Fortunately, though, we had a citation for the quote by the Kingston Herald website. At this point, it doesn't matter if the quote was from her publicist or from Lavigne herself, the quote was reported in a reliable third-party source. I don't see any news contradicting this information either, so the quote can stand as it is. I hope that's a fair compromise? - Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on new images please

Okay, I feel like I revert a lot of things on this article and I don't want to come across as "owning" anything or discourage future edits. So I'm going to put up a couple recent image additions for discussion here, and here's why I don't think they belong:

1. In the Let Go section, a pink star with the caption, "first album symbol". The article doesn't talk about any symbol, I don't see the point in the picture at all, it doesn't add to the article and removing it wouldn't be detrimental to the edification of the reader. If it had to be in an article, it should go in the Let Go album article, and only if there was good reason for it to be there, viz., if it was discussed in the text. As for its current placement, images should never be directly below a header. Finally, purely as a subjective point, I own Let Go and I sure don't recall seeing any pink stars in there. I don't think stars (or pink) appeared until The Best Damn Thing. So this could also be a case of WP:OR. The Flickr account the image is linked to shows the image was taken at a 2008 concert with Avril running around in Abbey Dawn clothes... a dead giveaway (besides the date) that Avril was quite past her "Let Go" era.
2. In the Entrepeneurship section, the Abbey Dawn logo. This is an example of fair-use imagery, and there is, again, absolutely no discussion about the logo, the design of the logo, or what the logo represents, therefore, there is no fair-use being practiced. Foreign language Wikipedias are less stringent on fair-use laws, but on en.wikipedia, this image should be removed as soon as possible.

So: keep or remove none, one, or both? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking remove both. Unless the images pertain to something specific in the prose, they shouldn't be there. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At the time of writing, I'd completely forgotten (and remembered earlier this morning) that the Abbey Dawn logo is font-based only and therefore isn't eligible for copyright. I just checked and it is, indeed, in the public domain. (I learned about this when trying to delete a band logo last year and apparently a font, no matter how stylized, cannot be copyrighted—so it wasn't forefront in my mind when writing. Here's what I propose: remove the pink star image. It does not add anything significant to the article and, as it stands, is incorrect anyway. Then, move the Abbey Dawn logo to the Abbey Dawn article since it is more appropriate over there. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Explicit material on The Best Damn Thing

Are only two songs on this album explicit? "Girlfriend", and "I Can Do Better" -- CDK (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Girlfriend, I Can Do Better, Runaway, Everything Back But You and I Don't Have To Try --200.82.247.241 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks =) I have the clean version, do you where I can get the explicit versions? -- CDK (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a chat room or forum. You should be able to buy the explicit album from any retailer. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, but I have bought the clean version (on CD). I just want explicit versions of those songs. -- CDK (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

New image uploaded

File:Avril Lavigne pointing Best Damn Tour (cropped).jpg is an image I found on Flickr that hadn't been uploaded to Commons yet. It's by the same photographer whose other images have been uploaded and some of which are currently being used. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

She kindof looks like a sad pink bear. lol ..just saying. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, I know... I didn't want to say anything, but that hoodie practically ruins the picture. I think that's why it wasn't uploaded in the first place; anyone else would just roll their eyes and "pass" on the image. On the other hand, I contacted someone at Flickr whose pictures of Avril are to die for, and I can't trace them to any copyrighted source. I hope they write back and allow at least one image to be licensed for use here. If we're so lucky, and if we're limited to only one image, I'll notify this board and we can basically vote on which image would serve us best. Chances are slim, though, so here's hoping. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

1999 duet with Shania Twain

I changed the year from 1998 (sourced from an Entertainment Weekly article) to 1999. Our article previously stated (2009 edit) 1998 as the year of the concert, apparently cited from the Joe Thorley book (though citations at this time were a little more vague throughout the article). At some point, a citation was added for the year 1998 (it could've been me, I'm too lazy to hunt for it). The EW article does use the year 1998, but this is what it says:

Years of practicing to be a star in front of her closet mirrors paid off in 1998, when Lavigne won a contest to sing a duet with fellow Canadian Shania Twain in front of a capacity arena crowd.

— Entertainment Weekly, [2]

...which could be interpreted as the contest being won in 1998. Now, I don't have access to any Avril Lavigne biographies at the moment, but I managed to find one on Amazon that you could look inside, and on page 5, I found the following sentence:

In 1999, Shania Twain was the queen of country music.... To help promote her upcoming performance in Ottawa..., Shania agree to participate in a radio contest. The grand prize winner would be flown to Ottawa...[and] invited to sing a duet with Shania during the concert.

— Avril Lavigne, LookInside at Amazon, [http://www.amazon.com/Avril-Lavigne-Blue-Banner-Biographies/dp/1584153148/]

Now, I can't speak for the reliability of the book—it's written for young adults, though the copyright page does state that it's researched to the best of their abilities—but I also managed to find several other sources, none of which are appropriate for a GA article (in my opinion), but are extant and possibly true enough for support here on a talk page:

1. A 2002 message board post that apparently quotes a Rolling Stone article of some kind (I was not able to trace the article quoted). The quote mentions "March 1999" as the date of the concert (again, somewhat inferred): "When country-pop star Shania Twain came through Ottawa in March 1999, she did what had been doing all along her Come On Over tour and invited the winner of a local radio-sponsored contest onstage for a duet." source:[3]
2. A 2010 (I think) messy People.com page stating, "In 1999, Avril Lavigne won a radio contest to sing a duet with Shania Twain in Ottawa." source:[4]

Since it doesn't really matter when she won the contest, I think it's safe to assume the duet took place in 1999. Until a better source comes along, I believe the book takes precedence over the EW article. And, finally, the math in the lead now adds up properly ("By the age of 15, she had appeared on stage with Shania Twain")! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New infobox image?

The Japanese article is using a cool image of Avril onstage with a guitar. I thought I'd propose we use this image in the infobox for a while. Yays or nays? In addition, since the image is released under the CC-BY-SA license, I would most likely remove the Abby Dawn horns headband from her head and propose to use that adaptation instead. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the image I propose to use to the right. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The original image is suspect and almost certainly a copyvio, so the derivitive you created will be unusable. Tabercil (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that, thanks for letting me know. I'll try to find a replacement suggestion at some point. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JeffVolk321, 21 May 2011

Please add a reference under Filmography for Avril's appearance in the movie "Going the Distance" (2004). She had a scene as herself. This can be verified in IMDb under Cast.

JeffVolk321 (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Jeff Volk

As far as I am aware, no citation is needed for filmographies; it is implied that the work itself is citation enough for a credited role. Furthermore, IMDb is usually not considered a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDb. Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Exactly like Elizium23 said. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hazeltrack, 25 May 2011

Link global philanthropy group to Global Philanthropy Group page.

Hazeltrack (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Avril Lavigne Geneva June 09 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Avril Lavigne Geneva June 09 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please vote for a new image!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The greater vote was for the image titled "Avril Lavigne 5". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Mikhail Pribadi has kindly consented to allowing us one image from his Flickr gallery to be licensed as a free image that we can use on Wikipedia. There are several images that may work well for our articles, and they are recent images of Avril during her Black Star Tour performances. The gallery is here. The gallery isn't large, so it shouldn't take too long, and reply with links to the one or two favorite images you would like to see. Whichever one gets the most votes, we'll upload. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Avril Lavigne 5 and Avril Lavigne 10. If I understand correctly, the logo and URL "watermark" credits will have to be removed from the images for use on Commons. Elizium23 (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, most of his images actually require cropping, color correction, brightening and, of course, watermark removal. The majority of images are also kind of small, so I may gather up the gumption to ask if he can upload a larger image; but he has the right to license a certain size only (from what I've seen at Commons). So we'll see. Thanks for your vote! I'll add mine a little later, I'm debating between three of them. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My vote would be for Avril Lavigne 10 and I can't make up my mind between Avril Lavigne 12 and Avril Lavigne 5. I think I'll also go with 5, and hopefully he'll have a larger image of either. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say 5. Though I wish Avril Lavigne 13 had better lighting. The red completely drowns out her face (that could just be the increased "Digital Vibrance" setting of my laptop screen, though--it has trouble with bright red). But out of those, I'd vote that 5 is the best. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just you, the face is washed out by the red. The oversaturation is on the camera's end, unfortunately, so I don't think there'd be any way to rescue details. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My vote goes to Avril Lavigne 3 although I also like 1 and 12. 1 might be good for the tattoo section and 5 might be good for the Abbey Dawn section (she's wearing Abbey Dawn clothes). But for main picture, number 3 gets my vote. Zylo1994 (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The vote count so far is:

Image	Votes
1	1
3	1
5	4
10	2
12	2
13	1

I'll wait a little longer before contacting him again. He may not want to license images any larger than their current sizes, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, photographer has agreed to emailing me a full size version of Avril Lavigne 5. The image should be up shortly. Thanks everyone for participating! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:37, 31 May 2011 (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.

Odd ref system

Just think its time we fix this horrible ref system here. Why are we using the most complicated and un-user- friendly ref system.Moxy (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:R is one of those templates that likely won't go away (the template itself has been nominated for deletion, result was no consensus). Some people like it, some people hate it. There is no general opinion one way or another whether it should be kept or removed. When disagreements like that occur, consensus determines the result. Since there is no Consensus on Wikipedia as to if the template itself should be used at all or not, consensus for individual articles is then determined. For example, the consensus on the Avril Lavigne articles is to use the R template for reference calls. Alternatively, the R template was rejected by consensus on the Evanescence pages. You may find the reference system to be "horrible", but the majority of AL editors find it useful. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Was just a though - would be nice if editors could edit the page normally. We currently have this article setup so that only the most experienced editors can edit the page properly.Moxy (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• They are not newbie friendly (as in they are complicated to implement for new users).
• They force editors to have to edit the "whole" page, rather then just a section. (or have to edit 2 sections - creating an error in the mean time between edits, thus resulting in more edit conflicts)
• When statements are removed and/or changed and re-references the deletion on the ref tag parameter will give us an error in the ref section because its no longer being used.

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 86#Inline defined references versus list defined references

Oh, I see. So your concern was for LDR, not Template R.

• The LDR is still newbie friendly because the old system still works while using LDR (not that LDR is a true replacement, so "old system" is only used here for comparison purposes). Moreover, if a newbie wanted to modify a reference, what would their first instinct be to click on? The reference section, where all the references are listed just as expected.
• Yes, editors do have to make 2 edits if they utilize the option of section edits and wish to follow the LDR format, but the pro to this is when you do want to make non-reference related edits to the article, it's much easier to find the information you're looking for without having to weed through lengthly reference tags which typically takes up multiple lines of text in the middle of a paragraph.
• As for the third statement, when you modify references in any article, it's always important to pay attention to the tags and where it's used, etc. Even with non-LDR style, the <ref name="refname" /> format is still used, and if you delete the original reference call (which could be located anywhere within a large article--LDR places them all in the logical place: the References section), it will error on all the other ref calls to it. Even if there is an error from bad reference maintenance, since LDR requires all references to be named, it's easy to find the information that is causing the error instead of looking for blank <ref> tags.

But anyway. The point is that for every point of opinion, there is a counter-point for the opposing opinion. Just as I said before regarding Template:R, some people hate it, some people love it, but the consensus in these particular articles is to keep it. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing complicated about it at all. And it makes editing pages much easier since you don't have to sift through massive amounts of references just to get to the next word, phrase, or sentence. And like Scott said, WP:LDR works with the old style. And {{R}} isn't required either, but it, too, makes the process so much easier (typing "<ref name="xxxx">" gets really old, really fast). If you're making major edits, just keep the references copied at the bottom of the edit window or in a separate text app. They should have never been integrated with the text. No author of real-life encyclopedias or biographies or history books, etc. would ever do that. It's completely counter-intuitive. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As you 2 have just pointed out WAY not the norm for our readers.Moxy (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no "norm". There are simply options, which is pretty much the way a lot of things are on Wikipedia, hence the word "guidelines". There are various ways of building up a reference section, for example. There are various ways of citation (Avril Lavigne uses LDR). And every choice is mandated by consensus. Consensus for List-Defined References was reached in May 2010. Consensus for Template:R was reached in August 2010. If you don't like the LDR method, then simply ask for a consensus to change back to the old way (or another method if you prefer), and we'll see where that goes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image proposal

Thanks again to everyone for their vote. The new Black Star Tour image can be found at File:Avril Lavigne (Black Star Tour) at Kartika Expo.jpg and I've made a derivative crop located at File:Avril Lavigne (Black Star Tour) at Kartika Expo (crop).jpg. Since the current infobox image is from 2007, I propose this 2011 image for the infobox. Otherwise, it could fit nicely in the Goodbye Lullaby section. I've added it to the Black Star Tour page, and Zylo recommended it for the Abbey Dawn page, so Zylo if you see this, have at it! I'm only making a proposal here; anyone can be bold and add it wherever they like. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to thank the photographer and thought he'd like to see the image on the main article (plus I really like the image, even though it wasn't even my first or second choice!) but feel free to revert, I won't be offended. Thanks again! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

photo

[[File: avril looks awful in this photo please change it she don't deserve this please revert back to the old one or upload a new one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiwiki (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the above consensus established for the current picture. It's the most recent picture which as the proper copyright licenses for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you have another image which is copyright-free, by all means, suggest it for inclusion. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"she don't deserve this" That gave me a good laugh. Anyway, another kind photographer licensed his image for free use, and I've placed it in the Goodbye Lullaby section of the article. If you, or anyone, feels this would make a better infobox image, please say so. We can switch the two images (and captions) at some point. Just at the moment, our stock of 2011 images is quite low. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

iam glad that i amuse you. your photo is better. i like it i think this photo should be placed as the main photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AvrilVancouver.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiwiki (talk • contribs) 09:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The photo you suggested is from 2004. Typically, the most recent image(s) available are preferred for infoboxes, especially for living people who are still growing older. Avril looks much younger in that image, and it currently has a home in the Under My Skin section. Also, can you please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)? It will add your signature and date stamp to your comment. Thanks :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The pic you suggested is also good. could you place it as main pic. Thanks Rafiwiki —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

I agree. I hate to make such a fuss over a photograph but I really would prefer this one for the main picture. It could be swapped places with the current main picture? What does everyone else think? Zylo1994 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. At the time, the current image was the only 2011 image we had. I'm fine with switching them out. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So please change it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.131.153 (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 Switched! Looks good, too. I have two new images as well, but I'll upload them later today. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi! How do you tell whether a picture is copyright protected or not? Please reply. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aralyn1999 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aralyn1999, that's a good question : ) Most images taken by photographers are automatically copyrighted (All Rights Reserved) to the photographer and the images cannot be used. However, sometimes someone will post a picture on their website or on Flickr, and they will license the image for free use. They still retain the copyright to the image, but people like us are allowed to use the image as long as we follow the license rules (for example, we have to credit the photographer, and we're allowed to make derivatives of the image, like cropping, fixing brightness, etc). One way I'm aware of where the photographer does not retain the copyright is if they release the image into the public domain.

The images used on Wikipedia are either licensed by the photographer for free use (like with Creative Commons licenses: CC BY (attribution/credit), or CC BY-SA (attribution, ShareAlike, which means any derivative works have to be released under the same or similar license)) or they are in the public domain. There are other options as well, and you can read about them at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses.

Some images are not released under a free license. If you find an image that you like on Flickr, and it says "All rights reserved", the image cannot be used on Wikipedia (or anywhere, as a matter of fact, without permission). So Wikipedia has a neat page at Wikipedia:Images#Obtaining_images that shows you how to obtain those images by legally explaining free licensing to photographers and requesting them to license their images for free use. The "Requesting images from others" section has some links that will be helpful to you as well. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any more questions about this. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi thanks so much for replying! its so nice to know an admin who is so friendly with everyone :) Aralyn (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not an admin, but thanks anyway. And admins shouldn't be given preferential treatment; they're just like anyone else : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL... :) just meant to say ur the best person i know on wikipeda upto this day :) Aralyn (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Vote for new images

Voting is closed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Image ID	Description	Votes
5772287753	looking serene with eyes closed	1
5772835110	singing into mic, looking at camera	1
5772837160	profile, singing into mic, eyes closed	3
5772307415	singing into mic, but leaning out to "hear" crowd	2
5772312471	singing into mic, playing guitar	1
	Total:	8

Another photographer on Flickr has kindly offered to release images for free use. As of right now, there is no limit to the number of images, so feel free to vote on your favorites. I will tally them up at the end, just like last time, and the photographer may limit it to one or two (or not at all). Please visit the set of images here.

Sort of related, and just FYI, I have intended for some time to replace File:Avril_Lavigne_Geneva_June_09_2005.jpg (currently located in the Tattoos section) with a tighter-cropped version of the more up-to-date File:Avril_Lavigne_singing,_St._Petersburg_(crop).jpg (currently located in the Goodbye Lullaby section). She has an extra tattoo there. A new image for the GL section would be nice, maybe from this set. Have at it, thanks so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it... if she has more tats now we should try and show them.Moxy (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

K, my favorites are:
5772287753 (looking serene with eyes closed)
5772835110 (singing into mic, looking at camera)
5772837160 (profile, singing into mic, eyes closed)
5772307415 (singing into mic, but leaning out to "hear" crowd)
5772312471 (singing into mic, playing guitar)
– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My favourite one is the third one. The fourth one would be great for the tattoo section. I'll update my vote into the table. Zylo1994 (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Any other votes? I'm going to contact the photographer soon. Just to be clear, the images in the table aren't the only ones available; link to the whole set in the original post. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 13:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I had a quick flick through the others but it looks like you picked the best. Zylo1994 (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Slick — I love the "leaning tower of Lavigne" image, it turned out really well I think, and I admit I had doubts about it. I took your suggestion, Zylo, and added it to the tattoos section. The image of Lavigne falling asleep at the mic is at the Goodbye Lullaby article for now. I like that image too, but that one is tougher to find a home for. I moved images around, but obviously people can revert me if they feel it all sucks. Although I'm very happy with the small collection of 2011 images we're getting, I'm concerned that they're all from the same concert (she looks like she hasn't changed t-shirts in months). So here's hoping for a new show soon. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my only concern as I saw all the diffs of images moving around that the images seem to all have the same shirt/etc. I've been sortof staying out of the image debate this time, though. Even though it's late-ish, I have to say I like "profile" the most of any of those. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, by "profile", I meant File:Avril_Lavigne_profile,_St._Petersburg_(crop).jpg, not the "profile" listed above. But that one is also good. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I really like "profile" as well. I actually wanted it on the main page, but wasn't sure what people would think because it's not her, face on. But I'm not as big a fan of File:Avril Lavigne singing, St. Petersburg (crop).jpg because it looks like one eye is falling out of its socket. Do you want to replace that image (in the 2009 section) with the profile image? That would also hide the t-shirt issue. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good idea! Also, I loved the "one eye is falling out of its socket" comment. Made me giggle. Zylo1994 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict: Thanks, Zylo =P) That sounds like a great idea! ...And can I say, these nick-names everyone has come up with for these images crack me the heck up. It's amazing how critical we can be when making decisions on where to put pictures, and I'm in hysterics over a lot of the things ^^^ there lol. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)