Talk:Avril Lavigne/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Black Star Fragrance

As the perfume has been released maybe the use of future tense is a bit off? 'Lavigne will be releasing her first fragrance' ' will be released in summer 2009 in Europe'. And maybe a mention of the other products, the shower gel, body lotion and deoderant. There are gifts, including a bag, a braclet and a tshirt. A link to the official site would be nice too.

Filmography

This TBA movie that she's supposed to be in, in 2009..there's not a lot of info on it, would it be worth trying to find some more info, or at least deleting it until more info is available?

separation from Deryck Whibley

Announced on Avril's website at http://www.avrillavigne.com/node/7436

"Deryck and I have been together for 6 and a half years. We have been friends since I was 17, started dating when I was 19, and married when I was 21. I am grateful for our time together, and I am grateful and blessed for our remaining friendship. I admire Deryck and have a great amount of respect for him. He is the most amazing person I know and I love him with all my heart. Deryck and I are separating and moving forward on a positive note.

Thank you to all my family, friends and fans for all your support.

Avril"

Catholic or Baptist?

The article currently says her family was Catholic, citing this 2007 article from The Independent - [1] - a reliable source. However, this 2004 article from the Times Online says her parents were Baptists - [2], as does this one from 2003 - [3]. Anyone have a definitive source on this? All Hallow's (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 hey!!! (UTC)

Proactiv

She's in the new commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK3lWbebNV4. Maybe a mention of that somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.91.51.37 (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions! A quick reminder, please place new sections at the bottom of the talk page (or click on the "New Section" tab at the top of your screen). Also, always sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Unless Lavigne's representation with Proactiv was career-changing or career-based, the information is really not encyclopedic or notable enough worth mentioning, and it could be construed as advertising (WP:NOTADVERTISING). –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_talk 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I think the controversy section should be merged with the article for The Best Damn Thing. The lawsuit in mentioned in that article however the allegations by the other songwriter she worked with in the past are not included in that article. The controversy section only revolves around that album and I feel that its best if its included on the page for that album. --Alextwa (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed The section is listed under "Public Image" and could be construed as almost disparaging. Lavigne was innocent, so the section relates less to her public image than it does to the history of the album's release. The allegations were false, the incident isn't notable and is no longer relevant (WP:WELLKNOWN), and according to WP:BLP, Lavigne's biographical article should presume to favor privacy; moving it to The Best Damn Thing satisfies this advice. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved I moved the section to the article on her album The Best Damn Thing. --Alextwa (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Great work, I think that works perfectly. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon Kat-tun?

Should we mention somewhere she was on Cartoon KAT-TUN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.167.166 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link for this? –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The fifth episode of DAT-TUN 5, I believe. I'd give a link but I'm in a rush right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.167.166 (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

as a native...

as a native of Belleville Ontario...shouldn't we make it clear she is from Napanee, not Belleville, totally two different places... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.53.121 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

for the 100th time, she was BORN in Belleville and GREW UP in Napanee ;) --Darth NormaN ^(talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New picture?

I wasn't sure how to go about this so I'll just put it here...seeing as she has a new album out soon and shes changed again, I thought maybe we should have a new main picture? There are some photos here (http://wireimage.com/ItemListings.aspx?sr=41&igi=418447&nbc1=1) of her at the Alice in Wonderland premiere. What do you think? Zylo1994 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is the key issue, especially for biographies of living people. Those images are all copyrighted by their owners (photographers or publications) and most likely haven't been released to the public with a Creative Commons license or released in the public domain. Without very specifically worded permission from the copyright owner, the images cannot be used. Copyrighted images you will see on Wikipedia include album covers and posters, used with a fair-use rationale that should be explained on the file's/image's page. If you're interested, go through the Avril Lavigne article and click on each of the images. Read the resulting fair-use rationales and why each image is allowed to be used. Some images were found on Flickr and were given CC permission by the authors. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What about a picture from the dailymail I saw on their website? Would that be eaiser to give credit to or are copyrighted images simply a no-go? Zylo1994 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, all images are copyrighted by their authors; but without that image being released to the public domain or under a Creative Commons license, we have absolutely no right to use it. Once the image is released under a Creative Commons license, then pretty much anyone can use that image (following certain rules, like attributing the work to the original owner), and most owners aren't down with that. The DailyMail is using an image probably with permission to promote the artist, or they may even be using the image illegally. Wikipedia, of course, has users keeping an eye out for illegal image uses. You can look in the Wiki commons for Lavigne images here, and they've all been cleared for use. Btw, if you look below the edit window, you'll see that you are releasing your contributions under the Creative Commons ShareAlike license and the only attribution (credit) you get is a link to the article... your name of course appears in the edit history. The images you want to use have to be released in a similar fashion. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I just came across this user's page that has some good information simplifying the licensing issue a bit, with links to more detailed information: User:Moonriddengirl#Image-based_copyright_concerns – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

???

The massive list of genres in the first paragraph looks absolutely ridiculous and seems completely unnecessary. It just looks like somebody couldn't make up their mind. I'm also bothered by the giant list of inspirations. Just like the list of Avril's genres, it looks ridiculous. I don't understand how somebody decided that any of the artists listed are Avril's influences. It really looks like somebody just listed a bunch of random celebrities for no reasons. Both sentences should be removed, because they definitely don't belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.36.150 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello IP. In the future, please be sure to sign four tildes (~~~~) after posting so we can see who you are! As for the list of genres, technically it should be moved down to a more appropriate section. The reason I personally haven't done it sooner was sort of for psychology reasons. This article used to see a lot of genre "warring," so I collected everything into one paragraph to appease everyone, and requested a discussion on which genres should be listed in the infobox as a "summary" of all her genres. A consensus was reached, more or less. All the genres people kept adding were piled together and since then, I haven't seen too many problems with genres. Since that paragraph has been there for awhile, it can definitely be moved elsewhere. I wouldn't get rid of it, unfortunately, because someone will come along and add their favorite genres somewhere, somehow.

As for the inspirations list, I wholeheartedly agree. I removed about 50% of the list months ago, and I wouldn't mind seeing it disappear entirely. Notable inspirations that have a lot of coverage, along with a paragraph of elaboration, would be far more appropriate than the random list of band names we currently have, cited or not. I think after the release of Lavigne's fourth album, this article should get a sort of revamping, with an intent to gain A-class status. Leading up to the fourth album's release, a lot of interest will be generated in this article and it will probably start seeing an influx of random and at-times-unhelpful contributions. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I moved the genres down and threw away the entire inspiration-to paragraph. Inspiration-from should be expanded at some point. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Lavigne's family is mentioned as being Catholic in the article, with a reliable source that states so. However, other, earlier newspaper sources stated that she was from a Baptist background - i.e. here and here. Is there a definitive source as to which it is? I also removed the citation needed-tagged part about her mother being Franco-Ontarian. Her mother's ancestry is traced here and here, and it doesn't appear that she is French at all. Lavigne's father is only half French himself (his mother was named Lucie Dzierzbicki). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Where would this go?

In 2007, Avril was voted the 29th sexiest woman in the world by FHM. Here it is. Is this worth adding? Where should it go? Zylo1994 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The only place it would appear to fit is in "Personal Live" but it doesn't even quite fit well in there. It's interesting trivia that I admit I didn't even know and others might find it useful to know as well but I don't think it's really needed. There'd have to be more substance to the magazine's voting results (such as "The top 50 women voted were then given modeling contracts for a year" or something) in order to include it, in my opinion. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 19:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'll leave it out. Thanks. Zylo1994 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Location

Although Avril was born in Belleville. She says she is from Napanee, Ontario. This page is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.237.193 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This page isn't incorrect. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Belleview and Napanee are very close to each other and there's a possibility for mistakes. The source regarding her parents says that they live in Napanee. Is there any proof that they went to a hospital in Belleview? It makes sense since it's the closest big city, but where is the citation stating that she was indeed born there and not in her home town of Napanee? Simply disagreeing doesn't seem like a productive use of a Talk Page response. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 18:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The info that is metiond in the article is right ..born at the Belleville hospital..then move 4 years later to the Napanee a town just down the 401 from Belleville page 8, [4]...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Good article?

I was going to nominate this article for Good article status. I was just wondering if anyone had any objections? Zylo1994 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only recently been familiarizing myself with this article (and with Wikipedia for that matter), but I notice it has a copyedit notice that is fairly recent. Would this be contradictory? It's a "good article" to my standards, but would it be up to WP's? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But now that I look a little closer, I see no discussion regarding the addition of the copyedit tag. This tag was added by Buzzzsherman on January 4th, 2010 as a replacement to a generic "cleanup" tag. There have been various edits since then citing "copyedit". I have no objections to this article being nominated for Good Article and also don't see a need for the copyedit tag anymore. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 20:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome I'll nominate it then. How do you remove the copyedit tag? Zylo1994 (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Soft oppose That wasn't much time for discussion. The fourth album will be released in a few months and there will be a flood of young editors contributing, and this article will probably be unstable for the remainder of the year. Also, I don't think the article is nearly as comprehensive as it could be, but it does a fair job of summarizing Lavigne. So I can't say I'm not without curiosity as to the outcome of the GA look-over. But since I'm not as active as I used to be, I think you have every right to nominate it if you really believe it should be. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree but I think the individual album page will be more of a problem rather than the actual Lavigne article. The process takes about a month anyway I'm guessing so we can still tweak things here and there. Plus, we get impartial feedback on how to improve which is always good. Zylo1994 (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a Wikipedia:Peer review before GA nomination...PS i have removed the tagBuzzzsherman (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wavin' Flag and other Singles

This doesn't particularly pertain to this specific article, but I've noticed that the new song "Wavin' Flag" is credited as an Avril Lavigne single numerous times on various pages throughout the Avril Lavigne realm. To my knowledge, no physical disc has ever been released (digital downloads aren't technically considered to be "singles"--which is another issue completely regarding some of her other "singles"), but the main issue I have is that this is not an Avril Lavigne song. This is a song in which Avril supplied her vocals for a portion, but I feel this shouldn't be listed under her singles lineup.

I also notice that there is an article for each one of her "promotional singles". Again, this is not considered a "single" as most of them only received airplay (and some only in her local area). Some of these pages contain little information which gives them any notability on their own and should probably be merged with their respective albums and/or deleted altogether.

I'm new in respects to the Avril Lavigne articles on Wikipedia so I am unfamiliar with any previous consensuses that might be in effect (I like the "reference cleanliness rule", by the way), but it just seems as though there's a lot of work to be done on these articles regarding the singles (we can still include them listed in places, but called "songs" instead--and only for NOTABLE ones). I'm not going to go jumping into these changes since I'm new here, like I said. I just want to bring this to someone's attention to see if there's any agreement out there. If there's someone out there who doesn't think I'm crazy (or who can provide an explanation on why these are listed the way they are), please make a comment here. I want to improve the Avril articles as best I can. But I don't want to overturn a previous consensus.

Thoughts? =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 00:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wavin' Flag is not an Avril Lavigne single, and just now I removed it from the "Alice" article. I opened up a discussion on that talk page nearly a month ago and no one seemed to add any particular reason why Wavin' Flag should be listed. Avril's next single will be the first one off her fourth album. There was some very minor warring going on with the WF single on the "Alice" page, so I just left it hanging in hopes someone else would take up the cause to remove it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you're one of the top contributors to the Avril Lavigne articles and was hoping that you'd reply. At least I know I'm not dreaming things up now. I don't quite know why but that was really bothering me =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 02:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. 'Unwanted' and 'Innocence' did actually chart in one or two countries but they didn't have much of an impact. 'Mobile', 'Take Me Away' and 'Fall to Pieces' were actual singles but were alternatives to singles she released elsewhere. Seeing as they did chart I think we should keep them and they are appropriately listed as 'Promotional singles'. Zylo1994 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The only single that appears to have actually been released anywhere other than radio play is "Fall to Pieces". Unwanted, Mobile, Take me Away, and Innocence are all listed as being released to radio only (which is the definition of promotional single). These songs don't hold any special notability since they are only sent to radio stations for the sole purpose of promoting the album in which they are taken from. These pages should be merged with their respective album pages if even mentioned at all since NONE of them are available for sale--promotional singles are sales-prohibited.

Delete:  Done "Unwanted" has seen very little improvement since it was created in September of 2009. The article itself has only two sentences and two identical references which point to only a one sentence discography page.

Merge Delete:  Done "Mobile" is also a promotional single but seems to at least be used in some notable films. The entire second section of the article repeats information from the first section and the only source is the chart information in New Zealand; however, it was never offered for sale. I would say that this article should be merged with the Let Go article, but the information regarding "Mobile" is already stated nicely in the "Promotion" section and does not need its own article.

Delete:  Done "Take Me Away" is already mentioned in the Under My Skin article (though the "Release" section needs some attention as well). The only additional notable information regarding this song mentioned in the the article that isn't mentioned in the one sentence in the album article is its AOL performance. The rest of the article is just "filler" talking about specifics such as genre (which doesn't even match the infobox) and "Don't Tell Me".

Merge:  Done "Fall to Pieces" has some information that can be included in the "Release" section of Under My Skin. Since the song is mentioned, it's possible to elaborate about the circumstances of it not making its way to sales and only being released for radio play. But it does not need its own article. Chart information can simply include their peaks with references for more detailed information.

Merge Delete:  Done "Innocence" seems to just have 2 large quotes as "filler" to the page. the information in the intro paragraph can easily be integrated into the "Promotion" section of The Best Damn Thing.

I only suggest these changes since I feel the Avril Lavigne "singles" definition goes a bit too far (as stated previously) and it seems cluttered with unnecessary "filler" information. If someone were to come to these articles looking for information, having all of this information spread out onto different pages is redundant, confusing and a waste of time for readers. I simply want the best for the Avril Lavigne articles, and this is the best starting point I can come up with to keep these up to Wikipedia standards. I'd make the changes myself but I feel discussion is needed beforehand to prevent some sort of editwar. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Take Me Away and Mobile weren't alternative singles? I thought they were along with Fall to Pieces? I'm all for the merging/deleting as necessary, like you said, they really don't provide much information but I really did think that Take Me Away and Mobile were actual singles though in some countries? Anyway, if you were to delete or merge them then I wouldn't have a problem with that. Zylo1994 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if they were singles that were available in other countries, they simply don't have enough notability on their own to have a need for their own aritlce, in my opinion is all. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal

Hi guys i am Buzz (Moxy) ... i do portals ...So when this is rated G of FA i wil make a portal...you guys have suggestions on what should be in the portal?...Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre Watch Program

Avril Lavigne seems to have had a history of genre warring (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). As it stands, the infobox has listed Pop rock, Pop punk, Powerpop, Post-grunge, Rock, and Pop. (Rice Krispies comes to mind when I'm reading that.) The citations used are clumped together, somewhat unfairly, which results in a major lack of clarity and verifiability, lest someone sneak in a genre that isn't actually cited. What I'd like to propose is this: the infobox is a summary of the entire article, and so the genres should be "summarized" to two genres, with the remainder, and any additional/sourced, genres listed somewhere in the lead-in. This is usually done with heavy metal bands' articles; bands who've become the recipients of a half-dozen or more genres. If others agree, let's discuss which one, two, or three genres should represent Avril in the infobox. Right off the bat, I think Pop and Rock are pretty generic and fit the mold nicely, but a sub-genre of Pop would work well too. "Post-grunge" ... everything these days is "post-grunge," so I'm not sure this represents Lavigne's work in any unique way. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, good point there. I'd say "Pop Rock" and simply "Pop" is fine. --Darth NormaN ^(talk) 22:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been more than seven days and the consensus on this heavily debated topic is pop and pop rock. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate to come in at the last minute and ask to change...but I would summarise her genres as Pop-Rock and Powerpop. I only say that because Powerpop is often missed out from things like this so I was wondering if you had considered it? If not I can just slip it into the actual article with the rest of the genres. Zylo1994 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just to add also pop-punk, because there is a lot of good source where you can see that. Also pages as her own myspace affirms her pop-punk music style into her music (you can see it in the genre info, an also in the bio). Also some review pages confirm that influence. Please do not remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gas3191 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Zylo1994, if you have a source for power pop, I think that should be squeezed into the article. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have these two...are they reliable enough? http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-161290531.html http://www.metrolyrics.com/powerpop-genre-list-a.htmlZylo1994 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, no, unfortunately. Encyclopedia.com is a search site that just compiles sources together, and metrolyrics wouldn't be a reliable source. The encyclopedia.com result, BusinessWire, didn't turn up in any online searches, and what Lavigne articles did turn up were written like advertisements. I would stick to notable reviews, articles, and interviews to meet WP:RS guidelines. I did a quick Google search for power pop and powerpop and did not find any sources that specifically say, "Lavigne is powerpop." There are references to a 70s band (Rubinoos) lawsuit (the Rubinoos band was powerpop) and artists self-labeling themselves as powerpop who are influenced by Avril. Avril's MySpace I think lists "power pop," but not only is this a primary source, it's been argued (on other pages I've seen) that most artists' opinions of their own genres shouldn't be used as reference. In order to be considered reliable, a source should have a consistent means of mentioning genres that are in consensus with other sources... so finding one article that calls Lavigne "power pop" probably wouldn't suffice (especially since genres can be so opinion-based). So you can keep digging if you want, but what I would recommend is just working on whatever you feel like, and if you see the words "power pop" come up every so often, keep track of it by bookmarking the sites. Posting the sites here, like you just did, is a fantastic way to get a consensus on whether the site is reliable enough or not (someone may come along and disagree with me, for example). –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Are they okay for me to place powerpop in the actual article? Theres a section where it says 'Her music has been described as...' so I figure since those two sources only touch upon her genres including powerpop, it should be enough for that? I'll put it in but if the references really aren't enough just remove it.Zylo1994 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Avril Lavigne is really really hot!!! I think that to keep this article rated B-class and to eventually make it reach GA (good article) class, metrolyrics would simply not fly. It's a lyrics site, and these sites aren't known for their notability, mostly user-submitted content. Encyclopedia.com would be a last resort and after some thought, I think maybe it would suffice; but I found the entire article elsewhere anyway, so I replaced both references with the one article. I hope that works for you as well? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, are we really going to put her music in a genre anywhere close to Rock? It shows no examples of what rock embodies, other than distorted guitars, which are ubiquitous as it is. Also, if I'm not commenting here correctly, feel free to tell me I suck and how to do it properly. ThatDamnBlueCollarTweaker (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't suck lol. I've seen this around so much...people despising Avril Lavigne because she is in an awkward limbo between pop and rock. Like it or not, she does have rock songs (try listening to Unwanted, Losing Grip, Take Me Away or Forgotten) and I would say that she can be considered a rock artist. We don't list her as heavy metal; pop-rock sums her up very well and trust me, we try to keep the genres fair and accurate throughout any Avril Lavigne article. If you don't like her being listed as Pop-rock and Pop-punk then feel free to nominate some other genres (preferably with sources) and we can all discuss it. It was pretty hard to cut down to two genres seeing as she is pretty varied (see her music career section).Zylo1994 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy, Moly! I can understand the need for a warning about genre warring, but should the warning message be so huge? I figure a simple message such as: <!-- Any unsourced genre edits will be removed and reported as vandalism! --> in the genre line would be enough to get the message across. No matter where you put a warning message, people who vandalize will still vandalize. I just think we can make the edit windows a little better looking (and higher quality). I've seen no real evidence of genre warring (someone repeatedly replacing genres of their own opinion in the articles); once an edit is removed, it seems to not be replaced. I don't see a need for such an exclamatory warning message at the top of every page which only affects one line of the article. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 12:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Since another editor dropped by and removed some of the MASSIVE warning messages I took that as an agreement that they are in fact.. TOO massive. I have added a simplier in-line warning message to all song/album pages. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 04:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on whose the current major editor. Also depends on your chosen line count for your edit window (see preferences). I know I've used several large genre warnings on several articles I work on... I got the idea from the Guns N' Roses article (or similar) and when I saw it, I thought it was a pretty good idea. I still do, but only for articles that are susceptible to genre warring. I remove them if the articles are stable. I think it's the call of the major editor at the time. If I'm heavily involved in an article, I'll have a lower tolerance for genre warring, and the warnings go up. Avril Lavigne's article seems to be pretty stable in this area, actually. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There have been a few people adding unsourced genres, but I have yet to witness any genre editwars. The Avril articles are very stable (so far) from what I can see... ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 05:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I was a fairly new contributor to the AL article, but I remember a few of the genres being consistently changed to suit the opinion du jour. Zylo and I collected them and threw them into a paragraph with citations, and since then it's been pretty calm. Honestly, it's most likely a coincidence, but it never hurts to be able to enforce genre policies with talk page discussions and all that. I doubt it'd stop any multi-reverters, but I've only run across one of those so far in my entire time being here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I actually thought that the big message was good. It got the necessary information across and was very bold and clear. If the edit box looks untidy does it really matter? In fact, I just had to reverse a genre change on one of the single pages...I'm sure there's no correlation with the changing of the genre warning and the changing of the genre but thee articles are certainlynot stable. Fair enough they aren't persistent changes but they're still changes. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the singles have been changed and your genre warning has been removed as well. I've just gone through and reverted all changes and reported it as vandalism.Zylo1994 (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

One of my concerns is the GA nomination. If there's such a 'major problem' with genre editwarring that it is necessary to use such a large warning message, people might immediately believe the article to be of a low quality. Genre edits take place all over wikipedia (from what I've noiced), so it's nothing unique to AL. It's just the nature of a wiki. If we allow anyone to edit, anyone will and will do what they like. There's just no easy way to stop it no matter what warning messages are used, so it might as well be something neat and clean. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 15:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point. I guess we just need to hope that editors have enough common sense to not remove a genre that has a reliable source. However, check out this message I got on my talk page. Ianmacm said that the message was uacceptable and that any disagreements should be dscussed on the talk page...to be honest I didn't really understand his message but I'm pretty sure he was referring to the genre change warning. What do we do now? Should we just set up a discussion on every talk page regarding genres? Zylo1994 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at several of these, and while the warning message seems reasonable as such, it does seem to be being used in conjunction existing citations that are not from reliable sources. last.fm, for one. So it'd be unfortunate, and could be seen as over-claiming, if this were to be read as saying these were not to be changed. Not that flip-flopping those is a good thing, either. (That this happens all over WP is certainly also accurate and fair comment.) Smartiger (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne Templates

I've noticed that on various pages, there is an "Avril Lavigne" template and/or an "Avril Lavigne singles" template. I see no reason why these separated templates cannot be re-merged together to form ONE template for all Avril-related pages. I am unsure of the reasons behind the separation, but I am finding myself unable to navigate properly between all the different pages in the Avril-verse because some pages only have the "singles" template, and others don't have the general Avril template.

I have created a new template as a user subpage to "test" what one would look like with all the information combined.

I think this is much better than having TWO templates. Over-organization leads to disorganization and confusion. Having one central template that's collapsible is perfectly fine. However, I am unsure what the original reasons were for dividing them into two templates. I did a quick research but found no discussions of this change. It was just simply done. So I am at least adding this here for discussion to figure out why there is a need for two separate templates. Thoughts? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 06:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the merging of the two but I think that Keep Holding On should be highlighted as being a soundtrack song rather than proper released and promoted single. I also think 'Acting career' should simply be 'Acting'. Zylo1994 (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, is an acting section really necessary? If we have her acting on the main article then I think thats enough to be honest. Zylo1994 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that too. It was originally titled "Films and television" and I had completely deleted it (if you view the revision history of my template), but considering those were films that she is credited as starring in (as opposed to a simple cameo--like American Idol), they're relevent to Avril Lavigne as a person, even though she is more known for her music. I'm not sure about juts "Acting" though. But I agree that "Acting Career" sounds corny. =P Feel free to click the "e" in the upper left hand corner of that temporary template to edit anything you feel might be a good change. I have moved "Keep Holding On". =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made some significant revisions to the template (which you can see reflected above). Overall, I'm pretty happy with it. But I'm a bit biased since it's a subpage in my userspace. I'd like others to comment (vote?) on the replacement of this template if at all possible. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 07:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it. This will sound a bit OCD but...in the other songs section can they be chronological? So Keep Holding On would be listed before I Will Be and I Don't Wanna?. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to chronological order based on when the song was released. I also ordered the films, EP's/DVD's in the same way. Feel free to change it back if you don't ike it. Zylo1994 (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's great! That was my intention, but with the combination of other groups, I guess I lost it =D. Good work, I like it! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 16:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added comments to each of the templates which are affected by this proposed change. If there are no reasonable objections to the replacement of the two templates with the one condensed template, the process will take place on 27 March 2010 (7 days after its first mention). If you have any objections, please state them and your reasons below. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 17:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Drums

When has she ever played drums? Just curious. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing. On a quick search, I did find some images of her with drum sticks, but that's hardly reliable. However, hours later I stumbled upon this. Check out "track" 15. I guess she'll sometimes get behind the drum set for a few songs while live on tour. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeeze, you're right. And all I had to do was Google and there're images and links and everything of her on a hot pink drumset! YouTube video of her drumming here. That's what Wikipedia is for: ya learn things :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the vid. I didn't think she'd be so kick-ass at drumming lol. And to sing at the same time? That's some real talent! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem; you linked me to that track listing, so I was looking for that song in particular (preferably professional footage lol), but when she started singing at the same time, I sort of dropped my jaw. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry...I added the drums. Well, glad you liked it ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We noticed : ) But I was just a little disbelieving at first. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Updates?

This article could use a few updates. In addition to Black Star, she now has a new perfume coming out called Forbidden Rose (she did a radio interview about it but the way it's uploaded online, I don't know how to link to it). Her two backing dancers have been out of her band since 2009 (I believe it was Lindsay that joined a group on America's Best Dance Crew). Also, the last line in the Abbey Dawn paragraph seems to have been butchered, and is not sourced. 68.151.125.216 (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I added some sources and a section on Forbidden Rose! Hope it's okay. Zylo1994 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! 68.151.125.216 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Track Listings

I see no reason why an additional track listing cannot be placed within the singles' infoboxes. This is defined within the Infoxbox template as a perfectly valid use of the "Misc" parameter. It adds useful information at a glance to what album(s) the song is found on and what track number it is as well as providing a quick link to the next track in the album. Please discuss this major change here before making any such major changes. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 17:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Any navigational links which are present link to notable songs by Avril Lavigne. Any song which is not notable and does not have an associated article does not have a link. Any non-notable songs have also since been deleted and delinked. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, such additional chronologies are entirely unnecessary. This "information" is easily obtainable from the album page. No other single articles include the album tracklisting. Infobx chronologies are purely a navigational aide. In the vast majority of cases no articles exist (or ever will) for the songs, thus rendering them pointless. It is up to you to justify their inclusion, not for me to justify their removal. Without clear reasoning for their use, I will remove them again. Consensus is clearly against you here. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Let the discussion last longer than an hour before saying "consensus is clearly against you," please. Anyway, it's all entirely up to the editors of the article whether that information should be included or not. The second track, "The Poison", obviously doesn't have an article, nor should it, but that isn't the point. According to Template:Infobox_single, the misc field "allows you to provide more infobox data". That's all it is: information showing that it's track 1 on the Almost Alice disc. It's information that is neither required nor disallowed. I don't see why it can't remain. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But can you give a reason why it should remain? Especially as such info isn't included on any other such articles. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because "most" other articles don't have the tracklist (the entire set of Evanescence singles have it listed, for example), that doesn't dictate that these articles must have it removed. What difference is adding a track list to the infoboxes than adding the chronology of singles? Can the list of singles not be found on a related discography page? For that matter, why have a discography page at all since by your reasoning, the information there can simply be found on their respective album / single articles. This information adds ease to finding information that someone might want. And there is certainly nothing against that and, in my opinion, it adds value to the infobox. The "misc" parameter of the infobox-singles template was created for this purpose and so it is being used. If there is such a strong disagreement to ever add this to any singles page, perhaps you should start a discussion on the template to have it removed. Until then, an editors' consensus (an edit which has stood for a long period of time without contention) is withheld and the information should remain unless there is a new consensus to have it removed (see WP:CONS). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 18:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Nouse4aname (talk · contribs) Other articles have nothing to do with this article. Like I was saying, it's up to the articles' individual editors. Articles don't make a consensus, editors do. I gave my reason for it remaining; it just wasn't some earth-shaking revelation of a reason: I believe it should remain because it adds more information and it doesn't detract from the article in any way. If the song were included on Lavigne's fourth album (hypothetically), I would hope an editor adds another {{extra track listing}} to show in which order "Alice" lies on that album. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, consistency between articles is an admirable goal. In this case, I think Nouse4aname was quite justified in removing the links. They are navigational in nature, and, when there is nothing to navigate to, they are useless.—Kww(talk) 18:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But they aren't navigational in nature; if they were, then the template instructions would say so. Nothing is useless simply because it doesn't navigate somewhere. That would defeat, for example, a track list of an album that had no singles (or no notable singles). What's the point of having a track list if you can't navigate to at least one of the songs? In the case of "Alice", the extra track list template merely serves to show that "Alice" is the first track of the Almost Alice album, without the reader having to visit the Almost Alice album article to find that out. It's an optional template, meaning there could never be consistency (no matter the goal) between articles, and the editors here chose to include it. Nouse4aname is justified in removing it, but ScottMHoward is justified in wanting to keep it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "information" is being thrown around lots here. How exactly is the track number of the song on the album in any way informative. Further, how is using a navigation template for songs with no articles useful? You fail to give any valid reason why the misc chronology should remain. By the way, the misc section is intended for collaborations, where chronologies for more than one artist are required. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the direct quote regarding the use of the "misc" parameter:

This field allows you to provide more infobox data such as additional chronologies using {{Extra chronology 2}}, a track listing using {{Extra track listing}}, or extra covers using {{Extra album cover}}.

Furthermore, only 4 of the 14 articles which had this information removed had "nothing to navigate to". This portion of the infobox is not meant strictly for navigation and should not be removed only because it fails to provide navigation. Readers interested in the single will come to this article and the infobox will provide them with the albums it is found on as well as their track number found on that album. Readers shouldn't have to SEARCH to find information when can easily be provided here. Not saying this is the case for all readers, but some may find it useful, and as Keraunoscopia said, it doesn't harm the article to have it there. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 18:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A link to the relevant album article already exists at the top of the infobox. Further, just because something can be done, doesn't necessarily should be done. What does it actually add to the article that would make the article worse but it not being there? As I said above, the additional chronology field is intended for collaborations. Nowhere does it suggest that an album tracklist should be included. 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)~~

See Template:Extra_track_listing. Nowhere on this template in question does it say it is for use in collaborations (let alone exclusively). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well aren't we just going around in circles here? Nobody can give a valid reason why it should or shouldn't be there. Personally, I think it should stay. I see nothing wrong with it and it's just a little bit of additional, organised, tidy, time-saving information. After all, an infobox is for information, right? Zylo1994 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal style & public image

Should this sub-heading be changed to "Style and public image"? It's already listed under "Personal life". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of "Loshaw"

So here's my opinion on the inclusion of "Lavigne's mother is an ethnic Jew." I don't think it's needed at all. Avril's father is referenced as being French Canadian because the next sentence explains the origins of the name "Avril" being the french-canadian translation of "April". Explaining that her mother's last name is in a book defined as having Jewish descent is vague and irrelevant. And even if it were relevant, there is no citation provided (at least not yet) that specifically states that Avril's mother has Jewish ethnicity and so the statement itself qualifies as original research. The statement should be removed because it is WP:OR that lacks WP:N and WP:RS in a WP:BLP. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It is generally not safe to draw conclusions about somebody's ethnicity from their name alone, even if we have sourcing that the name may generally be associated with a certain ethnicity. In a BLP, unless we have clear sourcing that a particular individual actually identifies with a given ethnicity, we can't talk about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne has moved to LA after Napanee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.57.112 (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Some changes...

As HJ Mitchell has made some suggestions, I thought we should get on with some improvements. I've already moved the footnotes into the article.

• As for dating her film work, how about we just move the filmography chart into her film career section? Would that be allowed?
• Is it worth having a small section in her personal life about her changing styles, how some fans felt she became too upbeat and her influential tie and tank top combination?
• The opening paragraph seems to have a lot of "voted......of the 2000's" which is good but I feel it's overused. Can we change it a little bit?

What do you think? Zylo1994 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see progress is being made. I won't rush this but it would be nice if we could speed it up a little bit. I would advise against moving the filmography table- almost all actor biographies have them at the bottom. Though they are the subject of heated discussion, it should probably stay where it is. As for #2, if you can source it, go for it and #3, yes, the sentence structure should be varied if possible. My talk page is always open if you need anything! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks! Would her personal style go in her personal life section? Zylo1994 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could put it there if it can't be easily fitted in anywhere else. There's no harm putting it in one place and then moving it around later if it doesn't fit. That's what being bold is all about! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there should be a line about fans questioning her style. It's too subjective, because obviously not all fans were disappointed by her change. Even though it's sourced, it's still only sourced to one person's opinion. 68.151.125.216 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I would say the majority of fans felt disappointed with her change. This is original research and can be seen all over last.fm and YouTube so even though the source is for only one persons opinion, I think it could be used to speak on behalf of many fans. You can't deny that her changing style had an impact on her and her fans and she even acknowledges it herself. I can see where you're coming from but for a 'personal style' section I think it is necessary and suitable. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I just did a whole load of stuff to her 'Personal life' section - please tell me what you think. That small section about her eating Matt's burger...is that really necessary? What does it even mean? Zylo1994 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

o_O Obviously it's out of context, whoever this Matt person is. A sort of practicing vegetarian, but not? I say remove that entire Seventeen quote and follow-up sentence, that's about the lousiest piece of information on Wikipedia lol. Definitely not encyclopedic, who really cares if she eats meat every so often? You're doing an awesome job, btw. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I removed it. I'm glad I'm doing everything right. Just a quick question, I referenced her styles with links to pictures of her. So for example when it talks about her tie and tank-top combination, the reference is a link to a picture of her wearing a tie and tank-top. Is that okay? Its just that this information is more a visual thing than something that that can be written down and recorded. As for that manga comic that features her, I'm going to put it in her personal life section because it's more to do with her fame. She has nothing to do with the making of the comic, shes just featured in it.Zylo1994 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... that's a good question, I don't really know. Could using a picture be considered original research? I'm not sure what the answer is to that. Incidentally, on another article for a band, I referenced an article, but the article had a picture of the lead singer playing the keyboards (the keyboardist was previously fired)... so I mentioned the lead singer was seen playing keys. Is this original research because the author didn't specifically write about it? That'd be something to ask at WP:N? I think. We may both be wrong. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there may be an issue of linking directly to a non-free image source, not sure how that works either. Feel free to ask at the help desk since your situation is a bit more unique than mine is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, just for the record: Matt is her brother. As far as the linking to pictures is concerned: I wouldn't recommend it, instead, link to the appropriate article about neck-tie and tank-top (if there is any). What about moving the personal-style-stuff into the albums sections? That way the personal life part would stay nice and clean. Also, be careful with things like "some people say.." those are weasel words. Thanks --Darth NormaN ^(talk) 17:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Erm, not in logical order I'm afraid, but I can attempt to answer most of that. Right, linking to an external non-free image should be OK as long as that website isn't infringing a third party's copyright. Using a picture is bordering on OR but I don't think it's quite there, though you wouldn't be able to use it for anything more than a description of what she is wearing in that photo so I think it's probably best avoided. If you can find better sources, that would be ideal. As for the vegetarian thing, I think the quote must have moved since I first read through the article because I remember it making sense, but it's not that important, though the almost-but-not-quite-veggy thing is worth a mention if it can be sourced. Oh, and, yes, you are doing a great job. Let me know if I can be of any more help! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'll leave the links to the pictures as a temporary thing and try to find some articles in the next few days. Darth NormaN, I'm sure I remember clicking on the 'Matt' link and it took me to another musician (Matt Brann I think)...I'm pretty sure it isn't her brother. Thanks anyway though.Zylo1994 (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there should be a line about fans questioning her style. It's too subjective, because obviously not all fans were disappointed by her change. Even though it's sourced, it's still only sourced to one person's opinion. 68.151.125.216 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph we need something that makes Avril Lavigne, Avril Lavigne right?

• So I was thinking we could say that she is probably most well known for 'Complicated', 'My Happy Ending' and 'Girlfriend' seeing as they are the most listened to tracks by her on last.fm (I've also seen it on various other websites. Does this need referencing?). They also represent the albums they're from equally.
• Would it be fair to say that she is well known for her pop-rock music? Her genres seem a bit ambiguous as we already know and I would say that her recognised sound is a pop and rock merge, right? last.fm also list her as the most listened to artist tagged as pop-rock.
• Can we simply remove the Shania Twain bit? There are quite a few "voted....of the 2000's" and this one isn't even referenced.

Now I know that I've listed last.fm twice as references but I would say that in this case they are suitable. Both her well known songs and her individual sound is an opinionated matter but last.fm has data from millions of listeners who all seem to agree with this point. Tell me what you think. Zylo1994 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shania Twain bit has been removed but I need to know if I can use last.fm as a reference in this context? It gives a popular opinion which I think would be fine as a source but I want to double check so I don't drag this article down. Thanks. Zylo1994 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very careful using lastfm as a source and if you have to use it, just make minimal use of it. As for the "best known for...", what about "Sk8er Boi"? How are we doing anyway? Do you need anything more from me? It would be nice if we could get this towards GA status within the next week or so if possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I only listed Complicated, My Happy Ending and Girlfriend because they're the most listened to Avril Lavigne tracks on last.fm by millions of fans. It's one from each album, three of her most successful (her breakthrough single and her best selling single). I wouldn't say she is BEST known for Sk8er Boi and last.fm sort of proves that? Zylo1994 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm just gonna go ahead and do this...there's always the 'undo' button, right? Zylo1994 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your two last.fm contributions. "Complicated", "My Happy Ending", and "Girlfriend" are already listed in the sentence before as number one singles worldwide. I think "popularity" is a fine line in this case. The sentence is non-neutral cited with a non-reliable source and should be removed. Your other contribution (1 million listeners' tags) is also a touch WP:NPOV because it favors those two genres (her genres in general are dealt with elsewhere) and the tagging bit is yet another popularity contest that's unscientific and doesn't hold any water. I would therefore consider it unencyclopedic. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Dammit...what about if less focus was put onto the last.fm data and instead was just an additional piece of information about Avril Lavigne? I'm just pretty desperate to expand the opening paragraph(s) so that this can become GA standard.Zylo1994 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't add stuff tot he lead just to pad it out- it's supposed to summarise the most important facts in the article rather than serve as an introduction. Size isn't a huge issue, but I'd like to see it more of a summary and less of an introduction. Also, some of your references are still too bare for GA- you need title, work and retrieval date at the very least and publication date and publisher if possible. Other than that, I'd say it's getting close to GA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've removed it. I don't really know how we can sum up the main points of the article any more than we have. We say that she is a singer-songwriter and list her other professions so that sums up her music, clothing line and acting, right? Zylo1994 (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the lead section of Miley Cyrus- it's not ideal and it's not a GA, but it's the closest comparison I can really think of and it might give you some ideas as to what you can chuck in there. My talk page is open if you need me, of course. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay how is it now? I think I used italics too much o_o Is the content alright though? Zylo1994 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. You're still lacking a few accessdates, though and you'll need to deal with the reliability issue tagged in the lead. Also, make sure that everything in the lead also appears in the body and move the references out of the lead and into the body. One last thing, I don't think Ancestry.com is a reliable source, especially for the material it's being used to cite (making it a possible BLP violation). We're getting close, though. Good work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:Lead section, the lead section "should be carefully sourced as appropriate." So references don't necessarily need to be moved out entirely from the intro paragraphs. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing edits

Zylo1994, I saw your edit summary. Kww (talk · contribs) undid a bunch of edits from Rcababyjane (talk · contribs) who is a suspected sockpuppet, so there were some edits that may've been lost in that transition, including the song leak. I'm not too sure about the rules of song leaks being mentioned, though I do know that they can be mentioned if they are notable enough. Anyway, possible explanation for your question in your edit summary? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No the bit about the song leak was put back in. It was the stuff about her shooting the album cover and how it was going to be released in April etc. Anyway, it's not a big deal but thanks for letting me know. Zylo1994 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No prob, I was too lazy to check what was altered from the situation. The album cover shoot was definitely a good contribution. Thanks for noticing it was missing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Signed in November 2000?

In this section, I had to tag the source given {{failed verification}} because I couldn't find the November 2000 audition/signing date. Did I miss it? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

What does "Lavigne released her debut album, Let Go, on 4 June 2002 in the United States, where it reached #2" mean? What does #2 mean? I'm pretty dumb when it comes to charts, so as a casual reader of this article, I wouldn't even know what #2 was referring to. Is there a main chart that means "all" of the US? Does this go for the Australian, Canadian, and UK charts as well? Just curious. Remove tags as needed (I tagged the Let Go section twice). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I clarified that the "#2" referred to the Billboard 200 album chart. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourth album section

Just a quick FYI. I can never read what's going on in the edit window, so since I was working a little more detail-oriented than usually in the fourth album section, I went ahead and moved all the references down to the references section. I use list-defined references on the articles I'm more intimate with because the edit window becomes clean and easier to read through, and usually these articles have little editing traffic. I won't convert the entire Avril Lavigne article because a lot of editors don't like this method since you have to add the references to the References section after you've already made your edits. This is a small price to pay for the amount of time it takes to weed through some of the URL messes hidden within these articles. Anyway, I hope no one is bothered by this decision. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

RollingStone.com changed their design and a lot of articles were lost in the process. Current discussions have been taking place (links can be found on my talk page as of May); in the meantime, not being able to find any corroborating articles, I was forced to remove some details purportedly (unverifiable, at the very least) from the article titled "Avril Lavigne Strips Down Sound for Introspective November LP". This included the song title "Gone" and some producer information. I recall very well that the sockpuppet Detty2.0 (talk · contribs) added some of this information, and I also found that he'd copied almost verbatim out of certain articles. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the stuff about the references section and URL messes and stuff o_o However, I do understand sockpuppets are bad.

Anyway, at least we're closer (personally I think we're there) to GA status!! Zylo1994 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think we have a ways to go. I've found quite a bit of work to do, going through section by section (and only reaching "Fourth album" earlier this morning). There's still one dead link that I saw yesterday, and I've tagged a few {{fv}} or {{cn}} that need to be looked into. I don't know how these affect the GA process. As for the references thing I was talking about, I can explain that pretty quickly. Using list-defined references (WP:LDR), references are placed in the References section, not within the body of the article. <ref name=xxxx/> tags are used entirely in the article. Because of their brevity, they help make editing and reading in the edit window much easier. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think I'd be too good at that more technical editing but if there's anything else that needs to be done, don't hesitate to tell me! ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lavine/Whibley began dating in February 2004

According to our own article... but can someone help me by finding a source for this? I can't locate one immediately. I tagged the phrase {{cn}} in the Marriage to Whibley section. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the EXACT statement (laptop problems) but I know 100% that she made a statement (on her official website I think) about how they met when she was ...18? Then she said they went out for 2 years and then became enagaged. So from that you could find out what year they would have started dating eachother. Sorry I can't be more help. Zylo1994 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try searching using some of those keywords. Otherwise, search results keep bringing up Jenner, even though I'm looking for Whibley. There's almost too much news on Lavigne lol. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it. “Deryck and I have been together for 6 and a half years. We have been friends since I was 17, started dating when I was 19, and married when I was 21. I am grateful for our time together, and I am grateful and blessed for our remaining friendship,” here. So they would have sarted dating in 2003 or 2004. Since her birthday is towards to end of 2003, I'd go for 2004. Is this source reliable enough? Zylo1994 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference 97 actually has this exact quote if that is easier to use? Zylo1994 (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Use Reference 97 again, that's a good reference (the other was fine too, may as well just use what we already have though). Instead of saying February 2004, try to incorporate what she says in that sentence, that way there is no month (which isn't given). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done What do you think? Zylo1994 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks so much for finding and incorporating that, I'd actually forgotten. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

LDR

So over the past few weeks (months?) I've notice extensive editing to this article in attempts to make it a Good Article. Since I've seen some discussion about List-Defined References already here, is there really any objection to converting the entire article to the LDR system? I did a complete overhaul of all the Evanescence-related articles making them all LDR-compliant (I even have the technique down to a science; though I must admit, I stole the "Be Advised" header from the Alice article =D) and I have no problems doing that here. It seems to be going well there and to be honest, the only reason I didn't do tihs article as well when I did the Evanescence articles is because the references were a mess! But with all this improvement recently the references are much better. So. Any objections to the change? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Every article I've created uses LDR and I'm a huge proponent for it. Btw, I was the one who added the LDR comment in the edit window, but I actually no longer do this (although I have no qualms with it being there... since you reminded me, I'll remove it from the Alice article). I'm a major contributor to Stone Temple Pilots (album), and I've found that many contributors, including IPs, actually "get the hint" right off the bat, and have placed the references in the References section. I still leave the comment <!--Please place references above this line. See WP:LDR for more information--> within the {{Reflist|refs=}} template. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done No objections, so I went ahead and did it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Look ok but is there any way to make it 2 columns??Moxy (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood the two-column thing... how can the references be wrapped in two columns with that much text? If you'd like to test it, though, click Edit (or whatever the word is) at the top of your screen so you're editing the entire article, scroll down to the References section, replace the first line, {{Reflist|refs= with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em|refs= , hit preview, and see if that does the trick? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, K! I was just gonna do that today if nobody had any objections. Beat me to it! =D As for the references being 2 columns, I've seen other articles that have them in some sort of field with a scrollbar. I can't remember where i've seen it, but it was on a page that had well over 100 references (if not a few hundred). Not sure what the coding was to do it, but that really cleaned up the bottom of the article. Think this would work here? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I was actually itching to do it. The edit window is so nice and clean now. Anyway, as for the scrolling thing, I've seen that as well, but according to MOS:SCROLL, it really shouldn't be used as it "hides" information, including references. In addition, since list-defined references doesn't change the way the References section appears on the article itself, I was sort of surprised at the sudden request for two columns. I can see it working with a reference list full of "Cyrus, M. Hyperion, p. 7" references that are short... but maybe I'm not understanding something. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood the 2 column thing either. I use dual monitors and I've extended the browser window the span of over 2500 pixels and the 2 column coding doesn't even look right at that size. Even if it's turned into 2 columns, there's so much information there that the overall height of the reference area will still be about the same as many references will then take up multiple lines. I think it should stay how it is. :: shrug :: ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting test! Then I agree, we'll leave it as is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)