Jump to content

Talk:Lovebird (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLovebird (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 29, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
June 12, 2013Good article reassessmentListed
July 31, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 26, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the second single from Leona Lewis' third studio album Glassheart was originally going to be "Fireflies", but "Lovebird" was released instead?
Current status: Good article

Release sources

[edit]

AARON• TALK 14:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live performance sources

[edit]

AARON• TALK 14:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


So literally no one can edit this page?

[edit]

" " Lol AARON• TALK 21:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much yeah, it seems IPs can get away with making as many reverts as they want and despite multiple warnings from more than one experienced editor everyone gets penalised because the page gets locked from editing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can now –anemoneprojectors– 10:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video sources

[edit]

Notability

[edit]

This song hasn't charted anywhere notable, which is a real shame since people have put a lot of work into it. But Wikipedia isn't a fan site, despite what some editors think.

Unless someone can let me know why a song that fails to chart is notable, then I'm going to request that this page is speedily deleted (and will keep doing so until it is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.159.49 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea is notable. End of discussion. AARON• TALK 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.159.49 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. AARON• TALK 22:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions?

[edit]

Where is the chart position information for all the other countries that this song was released in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.159.49 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't charted in them yet. But that's a redundant question. It is a single, which is notable in itself.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear to have charted in other countries due to low sales of the album and a lack of promotion. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that should be mentioned, as some people might look at this article and become confused as to why there's no information about it's chart position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.234.15 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. If something doesn't happen then there no need to mention it. There are for more things that won't happen compared to things that will happen. That's like saying we should mention that Lewis didn't perform at the X Factor final this year even though she did every year previously. The fact that 'Lovebird' being performed at the final means that its more likely that it didn't happen rather than it being that someone has forgotten to mention it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observer review

[edit]

I deleted the part in critical reception talking about the Observer review of Glassheart as it was completely wrong. How anyone would think Adele started singing ballads before Leona is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.167.36 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I revert you. Second, she didn't say she was doing it before.  — AARON • TALK 20:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lovebird (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Thoughts to follow. J Milburn (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks  — AARON • TALK 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While critics praised Lewis' vocal performance, the musical structure of the song was heavily compared to one of her previous singles, "Bleeding Love", along with songs by Adele." Why "while"? Are these things somehow contrary to one another?
  • "In the United Kingdom, "Lovebird" was not released as a digital download single, but was released with an "impact date" of 9 December 2012.[22]" What's the difference?
    It wasn't given a single release, it just impact radio that day. If you wanted to download it, you had to do it from the album, not from the single page on iTunes as one didn't exist.  — AARON • TALK
  • "Lewis tells her lover that that time has gone by in their relationship and how she has developed as a person in the lyrics "But the time went on, the wind has blown, and I have grown"." Clumsy
  • What are "power ballad beats"?
    Well, the sort of big beats you hear in power ballads lol. It's how it was described by a critic I think.  — AARON • TALK
    It's jargon- it's not clear what it means to someone who isn't familiar with the subject matter. Is there something that can be linked to? Are they particularly heavy beats? Slow beats? J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked to Downtempo which talks about beats.  — AARON • TALK
  • "The song's hook" Jargon
  • I don't like the "John Smith for Music Publication" format- "John Smith, writing for Music Publication," or "Writing in Music Publication, John Smith..." are a better
  • "due to the inclusion of "big heartfelt ballads" such as "Lovebird" and "Fireflies" being included on Glassheart" The inclusion was included?
  • " Lewis wears an ivory sleeved dress and long skirt while she is trapped in the cage.[36] Lewis wears "jewelled eye decorations" in the video.[" Could these facts not be brought together? That would also help cut the repetition of "Lewis". Also, does she wear something different once she leaves the cage? If not, why specify that's what she wears in the case?
    Because it's sourced.  — AARON • TALK
    Yes, but was she wearing that only in the cage, or in the whole of the video? Your wording implies the former, to which the immediate question is "what was she wearing out of the cage?" J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded to saying that she leaves the cage wearing that the dress, so yes she was wearing inside too.  — AARON • TALK
  • Do we have the video uploaded somewhere by an official source? Worth an external link in the infobox?
    I've put an External link section at the bottom of the article. External links for music videos in the Info box I find look rather untidy.  — AARON • TALK
  • "looked "positively mournful" in the video, and that while it may not be the best advert for feminism, she looks "beautiful"." Tense switch
  • "the reason given was due to not receiving airplay support from radio stations." Could this be rephrased? Also, given by whom?
  • Why are you crediting the lyric video to "Log nu in om een reactie te plaatsen"?
    I've got no idea lol  — AARON • TALK
  • Who's the person whose video you cite as "Leona Lewis- Oxford Street Xmas Lights Switch on 2012 - Trouble and LoveBird"?
    I don't?  — AARON • TALK
    The uploader, I mean. Is this just some user-submitted video by some guy? If so, it's hardly an ideal source. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's NME who reported it and embedded it to their site, so NME is the primary source here. The URL is nme.com  — AARON • TALK
    I'm referring to footnote 13. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, just someone who video Leona her performance and her saying that it is her second single.  — AARON • TALK 18:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the fact that someone who uploaded it should come into it, it's the content of the video we are interested in, and Leona confirms the song as the second single for the first time.  — AARON • TALK 10:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, we can let this slide for now- finish off dealing with the other points, and I'll take another look through the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done all the other points.  — AARON • TALK 09:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Great- I'll have another look through the article soon. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad article- well sourced, answers all the questions. The writing's a little choppy in places, but I'm sure that can be fixed. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through

[edit]

Time for a second look through the article.

  • "and how she has to fly away." Could we put this in quote marks or something? Metaphors don't gel well with the impartial tone of an encyclopedia article
  • ""Lovebird" sold fewer than 600 copies upon its release, failing to attain one of the top 200 chart positions on the UK Singles Chart. However, it did peaked at number 22 on the South Korea Gaon Single Chart due to strong digital download sales." Ok, having some trouble with this. It sold few copies and didn't chart in the UK, but, if I understand correctly, it wasn't actually released as a single? Or was it? In the background section, you say that it was publicised as the second single, but then say that "In the United Kingdom, "Lovebird" was not released as a digital download single, but was released with an "impact date" of 9 December 2012.[22]" Further down, it's implied that it was released as a single- "As of December 2012, "Lovebird" is Lewis' lowest selling single, and her first to not chart in the UK". What's going on here?
    • It is the official second single, yes. It was given an Impact day, so a day where it was sent to radio and you could download it from the album, but not as a standalone single like you could with "Trouble". Rihanna's "Stay" was also given an Impact day release and could only be downloaded from the album, not as a single.  — AARON • TALK 17:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the song is about how Lewis informs her lover" Clumsy
  • "that time enough time" Ditto
  • "informs her lover ... since their relationship" He's her lover, but time has passed since their relationship? Or do you mean since the beginning of their relationship? Could this be clarified?
  • "Lewis wore a figure-hugging red dress with black high heel shoes, had a "coating" of red lipstick on and "heavy" black eye makeup.[31]" Who cares? This feels a little too gossip mag, and is perhaps even a little sexist. Would we list what male singers were wearing? Probably not.
    • We always include what they were if a critic has picked up on it.
    • No, we're not obliged to report on every little thing reviewers pick up on. This point struck me as being not only sexist but of little relevance. I removed it a few minute ago, before even seeing this comment. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to Digital Spy, the reason cited for its commercial failure was due to not receiving airplay support from radio stations." According to Digital Spy the reason is cited by whom? Clumsy. Are you meaning to say something like "Writers for Digital Spy speculated that the single was a commercial failure as it received no airplay support from radio stations."?
    • No, that Digital Spy reported that was the reason. Media outlets rarely go on to to say by whom. According to and speculated are kinda the same thing.  — AARON • TALK 17:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not quite there. The question mark hanging over its UK release is a pain. J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third read through; closing review

[edit]

I'm starting to feel that this review has taken its fair share of my time, but I'm still seeing real problems. While some old problems still remain, I'm seeing new problems based on how the article is changing.

  • "The lyrics of "Lovebird" focus on how Lewis informs her lover that enough time has passed since their relationship ended for her to have developed as a person." This is poor writing. The lyrics do not focus on her method of informing.
  • There's still this huge ambiguity: "she introduced "Lovebird" as the second single and performed it for the first time", but "In the United Kingdom, "Lovebird" was not released as a digital download single". Was she wrong, then, and in fact it wasn't the second single? You also write that "As of December 2012, "Lovebird" is Lewis' lowest selling single, and her first to not chart in the UK". This implies it was released in the UK; if it wasn't, surely the fact it didn't chart is a truism? I'm just not following this.
    I've told you this before. It was released as an impact day release. And I've explained what that means.  — AARON • TALK 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you say that this is different from it being released as a single. The article seems to say (and, indeed, you seem to say in this review) both that it was and that it wasn't released as a single in the UK. This is a problem. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never said it wasn't released as a single. It evidently was. Impact day is the day from when it is played on radio and you can download it from the album and is the day promotion of the single is implemented. Could also be seen as limited release in one respect.  — AARON • TALK 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's run it like this. I'm not a particularly dimwitted person, and I've closely read this article several times. However, I'm still really struggling to understand whether the song was released as a single, not least because the article says "In the United Kingdom, "Lovebird" was not released as a digital download single". Even if the article doesn't contradict itself, it needs clarification- if I'm coming away confused and unclear, I think readers will too. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • début or debut?
  • "Lewis informs her lover in the lyrics – with the lines "But the time went on, the wind has blown, and I have grown" – that enough time has passed since their relationship started for her to have developed as a person." This doesn't read that well. Also, it implies that she is still in a relationship with this person, while the lead's "The lyrics of "Lovebird" focus on how Lewis informs her lover that enough time has passed since their relationship ended for her to have developed as a person." implies that the relationship is over. On a related note, surely he's not her lover if they're no longer together?
  • "Lewis wore a figure-hugging red dress with black high heel shoes, had a "coating" of red lipstick on and "heavy" black eye makeup.[31]" Again, this is trivial, and borderline sexist. You've got potential BLP problems here. I'm currently being dragged over the coals for using the DM as a source about a living person in one of my articles- this just reeks of gossip, and I'm not sure how it's relevant to this article.
    How it is sexist??  — AARON • TALK 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Would we write what a male singer was wearing? Almost certainly not. It's implying that we should be judging Lewis based on how well she's dressed and how nice she looks; this is patronising. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, probably. People always comment on what women wear more. It's exactly the same in media, commenting on what designer dress women wear to events and award shoes. Men are sometimes mentioned because they only wear suits. So no, it's neither sexist nor patronising. I actually find that quite absurd.  — AARON • TALK 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "People always comment on what women wear more ... So no, it's neither sexist nor patronising." Wow. I'm not really interested in arguing about sexism, but the fact that the detail is trivial and the source not ideal remains. What Lewis wore at a particular interview is not important as regards this song. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while others are light and colourful." Do you mean "well lit"?
    No, light.  — AARON • TALK 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not clear what is meant here. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lewis leaves wearing an ivory sleeved dress and long skirt while she is trapped in the cage along with "jewelled eye decorations" in the video." This is very strangely written. I know we've covered this before, but is she wearing that in the whole video? If so, why not just say that? And are the "jewelled eye decorations" sitting in the cage next to her, also trying to escape? That's what's implied...
    Again I've said this before, no, she does not wear that one dress for the entire video, hence why I say in this clip of the video.  — AARON • TALK 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not said that before- at least not to me. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's above in the first read-through...  — AARON • TALK 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "Reworded to saying that she leaves the cage wearing that the dress, so yes she was wearing inside too." You did not say that she wore anything other than this in the video. Why are these other outfits not discussed in the article if this one is? J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to Digital Spy, the reason cited for its commercial failure was due to not receiving airplay support from radio stations.[22]" Again, this is very poorly written- it does not say what you think it says. The reason was not due to x; the reason was x. These are not the same thing. The former barely makes any sense at all. I've checked the source to see what you're trying to say (as it's not at all clear). Presumably, you're drawing on the "source" who said "Crucially, it didn't capture the imagination of radio bosses and got little airplay." This needs to be reworked.
  • I still really hate the fact you're citing a YouTube video from nobody in particular. Sure, Lewis is in the video, but is everything she ever says a reliable source? I don't know. I doubt it. This seems to be especially true considering (maybe- as above, I'm still not sure) what she said turned out not to be true.
    But it was released as the second single, and "Fireflies" was never released. It came from her mouth.  — AARON • TALK 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're contradicting yourself. You said above that "It wasn't given a single release", but now you're saying "it was released as the second single". Was it released as a single, or wasn't it? This is the question. The article says both, you say both. Can we work out which is correct and straighten out the article? J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I've said it was released as the second single, but you could only download it from the album, not as a separate [single] release on iTunes with its own dedicated page.  — AARON • TALK 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is this "release" any different from a non-single track on the album? J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't parse this sentence: "Lovebird" was mixed by Phil Tan at the Ninja Beat Club in Atlanta, Georgia and mastered by Colin Leonard at SING Mastering using SING Technology, both located in Atlanta.[1] what precisely does the 'both' refer to? The text seems to imply that it is SING Mastering and SING Technology, yet NBC is already mentioned as being in Atlanta. My guess SING Technology is not an entity nor a locale, hence my bewilderment. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the problems I've identified above, I still feel that this article is not ready for GA status, and so I'm going to close it. The article seemingly contradicts itself, has a few instances of very poor writing and problems with sourcing/BLP concerns. These are not things we should be happy to see in a GA. I recommend you fix these issues and then renominate. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the second time you've done this. Last time you AFD an article which passed GNG and NSONGS.  — AARON • TALK 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The second time I've done what? Closed a GAC review when the article wasn't ready? I've done that a lot of times. The article's not ready for GA status; I'm not going to promote it. Meanwhile, I'm going through it for the third time and still finding major problems. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should have been more thorough first time round. There's hardly 50 bullet points. I've spent much longer reviewing articles of the same length and writing more to address but not failed it.  — AARON • TALK 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thorough. Many of the problems remain from earlier readthroughs or have arrived since the earlier readthroughs. I have also spent longer reviewing articles (often only to fail them anyway) but it's incredibly frustrating to review an article that acquires new problems when you're not looking, or retains problems you've already identified. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a corollary, and although I'm not the reviewer, I agree this article doesn't make the grade. I've made a few changes to it. I find that there's a bit too much glitz and chintz and the prose could do with quite a bit more work. I've done all the copyediting I want to do because I have no interest in reading all the background citations. Good luck. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And oh, BTW, I find the citations section too heavy. The {{citation}} template documentation states that periodicals do not need the '|publisher=' filled in. When they are, I find it's too much clutter, especially when the majority of these are linked. That was the case here, and when I attempted to remove them I was met with resistance. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've never come across an academic publication which cites the publisher of periodicals (like newspapers or academic journals). I don't know why so many pop music editors are so keen on doing this. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lovebird (song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 19:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well. First of all, this article is fairly nearly there, but it has some issues.

First, though, the good. This article handles the reviews and analysis sections a lot better than most pop song articles, and they flow really well. Sources are a little sparse, but - correct me if I'm wrong - I believe the singer is still primarily known in the UK, so gets less coverage abroad? So we can let that pass.

However, there are a few issues with the opening few sections (the Lead through Production and composition). In general, this could use a copyedit, and... well, honestly, that's pretty much it, but I can be a bit more specific.

Lead:

  • "The subject matter of the lyrics focus on how Lewis informers her lover that enough time has passed since their relationship ended for her to have developed as a person." - ignoring the glaring typo (should be informs), that's awkward phrasing, and has a lot of superfluous words, as well as a lack of clarity. I think what's meant is something like "The lyrics consist of Lewis informing her ex-lover that enough time has passed since their relationship for her to have moved on and to have developed as a person."
  • "To promote "Lovebird", Lewis performed the song on Daybreak and Loose Women in the United Kingdom, in addition to La Voz in Spain." - Perhaps it's me not owning a television, but I have no idea what Daybreak, Loose Women, or La Voz are, and I'm certain people not from Britain won't either. Add a few descriptive words for each programme.
    • You don't need to own a TV to know what they are. I've added a description for each, but to be honest, if you don't know what they are, then click on them, that's the whole point of wiki-linking.  — AARON • TALK 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, but it's better if it's not necessary, if it's likely a significant proportion of the audience won't know what they are. After all, pop music is international, and it's not that unlikely a lot of Americans will be reading this as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure: The structure is kind of a mess. By the second paragraph, very fewconsecutive sentences have at all similar themes. The lead needs reconstructed into a basic narrative.
    • It is in a basic narrative. This is how all (well-written) music articles are written. It's certainly is for the 68 GA's of mine that have passed.  — AARON • TALK 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise: let me clarify. The structure of the lead is a bit of a mess. I think a little reorganising to put related ideas together will help. It's not a huge mess, but it feels a little disjointed, and I'm not quite sure the paragraph divisions are in the right places. This is, however, one of the more difficult things to get "perfect" in an article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • The end of the first paragraph should read: "...had worked on a track with Scottish DJ Calvin Harris, and that Fraser T Smith would be producing for the album." Done.

Production

Live performances

  • "Lewis leaves wearing an ivory sleeved dress and long skirt while she is trapped in the cage along with "jewelled eye decorations" in the video" - that makes no sense. She leaves the cage while being trapped in it?

A decent start. As I said, mostly copyediting. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I disagree with some points.  — AARON • TALK 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One additional point: Besides the typo of "where", what, exactly, is wrong with this reverted edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lovebird_%28song%29&diff=566326524&oldid=566324840 I was trying to simplify the explanation by making it apply more specifically to this video. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lil-Unique reverted it because he might have felt that the addition of "the occasionally used" but might have been unnecessary and a bit pointless to include.  — AARON • TALK 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looked everything over, and made a minor edit to deal with the last thing holding me back from full support. I am now happy to ✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks  — AARON • TALK 18:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lovebird (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lovebird_(song)&oldid=1238115664"