Jump to content

Talk:Goodbye Lullaby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 200.8.76.248 (talk) at 19:28, 2 July 2011 (Musical style / genre?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAlbums C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Remove Smile as a single

Can someone remove "Smile" as a second single, as the website is inaccurate and as "Smile" is not confirmed as a second single by Avril and/or her record label —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.232.237 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I've removed "Smile". I was a bit skeptical when it was added, but there was a source. I didn't know the reliability of the source, so I googled and came across numerous places RUMORING the song to be her second single, but could find nothing to confirm it or rule it out. So I left it. Now that someone else has an issue with it too, someone needs to find proof that it's going to be her 2nd single. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Smile has now been confirmed by Avril Lavigne herself as the second single from her debut album Goodbye Lullaby. The music video has been filmed and it is due for release on 16 May, 2011. Aralyn1999 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture

Are we really allowed to use this picture? If so then it would make a good main pic for the Avril Lavigne article. Zylo1994 (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the link doesn't appear to work, and I can't seem to find the file (nor can I find reason for its deletion). But I believe I've seen the image you're referring to and I thought it was sketchy when I first saw it. But it was confirmed by the bot that validates Flickr files, but I went beyond that and verified that it wasn't posted onto Flickr by an unauthentic user. It was posted under the proper licences by the photo's creator, so it's fair game anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned.
Luckily, Google Chrome keeps complete history of EVERYTHING you go to (and it's searchable!) so I was able to find the Original File on Flickr. I don't see anything wrong with re-uploading it and using it somewhere (or just keeping it in the Avril Images category for future potential use). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that. I'm apparently blind and saw where it was deleted: "Removing "Avril_Lavigne_on_Walmart_Soundcheck.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Shizhao because: Copyright violation: walmart.com/soundcheck." The reason is that according to Commons:Licensing, "Commercial use of the work must be allowed", which is not the case for this file under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. Can't use that file after all apparently. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this new one is okay to use? Zylo1994 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. While there exists a file with proper copyright status, it can be used. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had my suspicions, but I assumed good faith—but after one user made a location change to the caption on Avril Lavigne and an IP did the same on the image description page, I did a little hunting and the image turned out to be a definite copyright violation, and I've tagged it as such. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HIP HOP?

Are u serious? how this album can be hip hop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.168.48.63 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album is not hip-hop, but there was speculation in the media because Avril was recording with Alex da Kid. The article states the hip-hop songs were not included on the album. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's still the label on the genre box... could someone remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.19.40 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. It's never said hip-hop in the genre box, not from what I've seen. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing hip hop on the genre section --200.8.19.40 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox only says "Rock, pop, and acoustic", and "hip hop" is mentioned twice in the body of the article. Unless you are confusing this album with another, there is no "hip hop" or "hip-hop" in the infobox of this article. Case closed. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that "Wish You Were Here" be merged into Goodbye Lullaby. My rationale for this is because I believe it fails WP:NSONGS, whereby "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" [emphasis mine]. The article has seven references, but five of them are actually reviews of the Goodbye Lullaby album; they are not song-specific. Naturally, "Wish You Were Here" may be mentioned in any given review for Goodbye Lullaby. This leaves only two references from Billboard's website, which refer to the song's charting; however, one of them is dead/unverifiable—according to this Billboard page, the song has never charted. According to this second Billboard reference, the song has charted. I am not proposing the article be deleted; apparently the song has charted and is notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but I do not believe it deserves its own article. Because the song was not released as an official single, there will never be a single cover for the infobox. The critical reception section is composed of five sentences and will undoubtedly never expand beyond this, because each quote is a reference to the song in passing—again, from an album review. The composition section contains one sentence that actually belongs in the critical reception section. The point is, these two sections are so weak as to basically be only filler to expand the page somewhat. What it boils down to is that this article will never grow beyond a stub, and the charting and possibly a few "critical reception" quotes are the only barely-substantial information, and this info could easily be merged into the Goodbye Lullaby article. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 09:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I think that if Wish You Were Here (Avril Lavigne song) should be merged here, it should be shortened because the whole article of Goodbye Lullaby should contain a little information based on composition, rating, reception etc. of each of the songs. You can also view this video on YouTube for additional information. If Wish You Were Here was a single it would be suitable to create a separate article for it then. Other than this, this is a great article. :) We'll hear.....
Aralyn1999 (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the song were to become an official single, the original article and its editor attributions can be reinstated—keep in mind, the page wouldn't be deleted anyway. The page would simply be overwritten with a redirect. As for it being shortened, that's a necessary step. As far as I'm concerned, the only information worth bring over are the charting positions. How critics describe the song ("jangly") is not very significant. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 23:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've beaten this one to death (two redirects reverted, and an AfD that resulted in "keep"), so I won't waste my breath other than a support. My opinions as to why are listed under those links. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I think Aralyn1999's !vote was a support as well. I saw the AfD and it just didn't make sense to me. Like you'd already explained twice before, the article fails WP:NSONGS, an argument stronger than the list of "keeps" that couldn't argue anything at all. I think the closure of the AfD was per vote, not per strength of argument, which is supposed to override consensus—or so my understanding is. Despite the closer's statement ("Consensus is for keeping despite a lack of in-depth direct coverage"), I think time was the ultimate proof that the article was never going to become any stronger. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again this user Keraunoscopia!! OMG, this is the 3 times that you wanted to eliminate this article, the wiki already proved that is a notable single e i don't support this merged. --Vitor Mazuco Talk! 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So much is wrong with that above:
  • I think you're confusing him with me. I've never seen a reason to have this as a separate article (it's only a stub and doesn't appear likely to become anything else). And I've turned it into a redirect on multiple occasions and requested it for deletion.
  • Define "the wiki". You say "the wiki" proved that this is a notable single. Who? What?
  • This isn't even a single. It's only one song that happened to chart without any valuable coverage in the media outside casual passings describing all songs on the album (why not make a separate article about every song on the album, then? They all have the same amount of limited coverage).
  • What are your reasons for not supporting this merge other than the fact that it's been requested to be eliminated 3 times? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vitor is obviously confusing me with someone else; this is the first time I've had anything to do with the song article. And Vitor, I'm not requesting deletion, I'm requesting a merger. The song page would not be deleted, it would just be turned into a redirect. And, no, the song fails WP:NSONG, as I reasoned out above. I noticed that you participated in the song article's AfD, but your rationale for keeping the article was, "because this is a superpower song in this album, and it will be a super sucess in the world." This isn't really an argument (just an opinion glorifying the song, not the article), and I don't see your argument as to why the song article shouldn't be merged. Since you are the only one opposing the merger, I suggest you make an argument before the next couple days, please. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support, because this is a super song, according to Rolling Stone, and debutes on charts, in U.S, Canadá and Korea without relased by the RCA. --Vitor Mazuco Talk! 00:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor, maybe you're not fully clear on what you're saying. Saying a song is "super", here in America, is like saying a song is "great". It's just an opinion. If you're trying to say the song is performing well, then you should explain your argument in that way. Also, your Rolling Stone link only links to the Wikipedia article. That's not helpful to your cause. Can you point us to the article on Rolling Stone that proves or supports your statement? I looked at the "Wish You Were Here" article and the only RS reference is to a review of the Goodbye Lullaby album. I also searched the Rolling Stone website for an article on the song and found nothing. Also, please keep in mind why I'm proposing the merger. The fact that the song may or may not have charted without being a single isn't necessarily why the article should be merged. It's because the song article could never possibly grow beyond a stub and the song simply isn't notable enough for its own article. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like 46.217.62.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) went ahead and made the merger, though a solid consensus had been reached at any rate for the song article to be merged. So I will do a non-admin closure of this merger proposal and complete the follow-through steps. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Musical style / genre?

We should do a section about this! what do you think? the previous albums describe things about the style or genre, but i don't see any description about this on this album. thx200.8.76.248 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]