Talk:Avril Lavigne discography

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


Corrections?[edit]

It says "I Always Get What I Want" was never on an official release. However, it was on the UK and Japanese versions of Under My Skin. I'm not sure what exactly constitutes a single, but even though "Fall to Pieces" did not have a video, it did have its own CD. Also, can someone clear up the source being used for Canada? The data on the cited site is inconsistent with what is listed on the page (ex: it says "Complicated" only reached 29 on the Canadian singles chart). I have heard many of her songs reach number one on various Canadian countdowns, and I'm not sure which is the "official" one. 68.151.125.216 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Singles Canada[edit]

Everyone here knows that Avril has never had a #1 in Canada. So, I'm taking it away until the person who put it on here realizes this. Tcatron565 15:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's always the same person doing it. But they obviously restored it as the #1's were back up on the page again. I don't see why someone's so desperate to get across something that's not even true. How sad. Someone should block the IP, although it seems the IP the person uses changes regularly. 210.50.189.16 06:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United World Chart[edit]

We are very lucky that both of Avril Lavigne's album are on the all Time United World Chart

Her first album sold 18.000.000 copies

[1]

Her second sold 10.000.000 copies

[2]

This are the most accurate figures and should be used. --Interestedscholar 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her official web site says that Let Go has sold over 16 million worldwide and Under My Skin 8 million. Kraft. 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Media Traffic is considered the most reliable source in the world, and should any information have been on her site about it being 16 million, it would be correct. The highest selling album released in the last decade is Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory at above 24 million so Avril whose 4th place is a respectable one, is 16 million. --lincalinca 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link says Let Go sold 13 mil. and Under My Skin sold 6.5, so stop trying to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.8.179 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under My Sking US Sales[edit]

Check this news (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003522792) from billboard, where it says she sold 3.0 million so far in the US for UMS and 10 mil Worldwide.So please, don't change it, since it's an official source. Thanks. Kajito 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its becoming really frustrating that u continue to change Let Go and Under My Skin's sale.For the last time,Let Go has sold 18 million and Under My Skin has sold more than 11 Million.

I don't see any links here at ALL. Kajito said Under My Skin sold 10 mil, where does it say that? All the link says is that it sold 2.93 million in the US, nothing else. Unless you find a link that says so, we'll just assume you're an obsessed fan. Do not blindly change everything just to fit it to your agenda. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.8.179 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/* Certifications */[edit]

Avril Lavigne herself admitted to having sold 32 mil from Let Go and Under My Skin.The first selling 18 mil and second 14 mil.In South Africa Let Go sold 1 mil going 20 times platinum.In the U.S Let Go has sold over 7 mil and Under My Skin has sold 4 mil in the U.S.United World Chart estimates The Best Damn Thing to have sold 4 mil in 2 months.This gives her a total of 36 Mil worldwide.She is the only artist so far to have every single of her's reach #1 somewhere.United World Chart reports "Complicated","I'm With You" and "Girlfriend" topped the chart.She is now only the second artist in U.K history to have 3 #1 albums consecutively.She is the bestselling Canadian artist in the 2000s.Her singles have sold 22 mil worldwide,giving her total record sales of 58 mil.These statistics appear on a number of official websites and are used in magazines worldwide.

Billboard does not confirm this. The Best Damn Thing has only just passed the platinum mark while those others have not sold nearly those amounts. Where do you get this from? Billboard only indicates US sales, which is less than 8 million for the first album. Your figures are vastly inaccurate. You mention that several albums indicate this, while none of the ones I have seen (you know, the notable ones) confirm this. Rolling Stone from December last year, in fact indicates that Let Go has sold 12.6 million, but I'm sue their source is based on a slight deviation on the one from Mediatracker. The page has been blocked, however, because you need to provide an accurate source of why you believe this to be true. Avril's site, when it indicated how many copes her albums have sold, stated it had sold 13 million (I have that on archive, and can reproduce it too). --lincalinca 10:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I DO NOT see any links. How are we supposed to know you're not just a fan. Please post a link before saying that, because her official website says otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.8.179 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage protection[edit]

Due to the recent disruption from various IPs I have temporarily semiprotected the talkpage. Agathoclea 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 MILLION(HER DEBUT)[edit]

Whoever here keeps puting Let go's sales to 13.1 million is absolutely wrong!!! Media Traffic does not cover sales from all countries so there is always an additional 10% to the sales that it claims. (i didnt make that up, media traffic has said it!!!!check it out). Now think about it 13.1 milion + 10% = 14.5 million + sales through years (6 years have passed since its release), 1.5 million (at least)= 16 million +++++++. Plus: Her official website([3]), her record company ([4]) and all media say ([5]),([6]),([7])[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][-spamfilter blocked link removed-][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]the same thing!!!!!!!! SO STOP IT!!!

--Scary Boo 10:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Girlfriend has now sold 4.1 million copies, please update. (In total: 4.145.000)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • if anyone wants more sources i can give more!!!!! the hole web sais the same thing. there r probably over 100 sources thet claim the same thing but it would b very boring 2 put them all...

scary boo - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.30.223.1 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 June 2007.

Well maybe we should change the ref link for it then? because its saying 13.1 million ^^ Darth NormaN 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO THE SINGLES CHART[edit]

After doing several hours of research and confirming with several sources, I have gone ahead and made numerous changes and corrections to the singles chart and associated footnotes. Before everyone has a heart attack about it, I wanted to post some notes here regarding these changes.

I will go by column.

1) U.S. - This column is based on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart. I checked all of the peak positions, but made no changes as they all appear to be correct.

2) U.S. Pop - The Billboard Pop 100 Chart didn't go into effect until the single "Nobody's Home", but it is very misleading to leave dashes for all previous singles as it makes it appear that they did not chart at all. I looked for a similar chart that existed during this time, and decided to go with the U.S. ARC Weekly Chart (Radio) Top 40, which is compiled based on both radio airplay and singles sales. A footnote has been added regarding this. I also double-checked all peak positions on both the ARC chart and Pop 100 chart.

3) U.K. - This column is based on the U.K. Singles Chart. I checked all of the peak positions, and the ones currently listed are the correct ones.

4) IRE - This column is based on the Irish Singles Chart. I could not confirm the peak positions listed, so I did not make any changes.

5) ITA - No comments.

6) CAN - The Canadian BDS Airplay chart has been used in the past for this column, however, some people have listed the peak position of several songs using the Canadian Top 50 Singles Chart (because they peaked higher on this chart than they did on the BDS). IT IS VERY MISLEADING TO USE MULTIPLE CHARTS TO LIST THE BEST PEAK POSITION! One chart needs to be used if the songs are to be compared accurately. I decided to keep the Canadian BDS Airplay chart and not use the Canadian Top 50 Singles, because #1) the BDS has been used for most of the songs prior to my edits, and #2) singles sales in Canada have declined significantly (as they have just about everywhere) over the last decade, making the chart less and less accurate. The BDS chart monitors radio airplay. In June 2007, Billboard introduced the Canadian Hot 100 Chart, which is compiled based on radio airplay AND singles sales AND digital downloads (which are becomming pretty big). Therefore, starting with "When You're Gone", I used this chart instead of Canadian BDS Airplay with the intention that this chart will be used for all future singles. A footnote has been added regarding this. I checked most of the peak positions in accordance with the above, and after some changes, and the ones currently listed are correct. "Complicated" did go to #1 on the Canadian BDS Airplay, and this is her only #1 single in Canada to date.

7) AUS - This column is based on the ARIA Chart. I checked all of the peak positions, and the ones currently listed are the correct ones.

8) NZ - Checked and confirmed. The peak positions currently listed are correct.

9) NET - I could not confirm the peak positions, and therefore made no changes to this end. However, it is very misleading to list the three songs that charted on the Tipparade as #9, #1, and #13, as this makes them look like hits when they really did not even crack the top 40. This column is based on the Dutch Top 40, so, assuming the Tipparade follows the songs outside the top 40, I corrected these three peak positions. I also kept the footnote previously added.

10) MEX - This column is based on the Mexican Singles Chart. Could not confirm, made no changes.

11) SWE - This column is based on the Swedish Singles Chart. Checked and confirmed. The peak positions currently listed are correct.

12) EUR - This column is based on the Euro 200 Singles and Tracks. Could not confirm, made no changes.

13) WW - This column is based on the United World Chart. I checked all peak positions. Some that were previously listed were incorrect, and I made corrections as necessary. The peak positions currently listed are correct.

In addition to the above, I added a row for the unofficial upcoming single "Hot", and added a footnote mentioning its status as an unofficial upcoming single with no release date yet announced.

The other footnotes were cleaned up where necessary and renumbered. Almost all of the changes I have made above can be confirmed by legitimate outside sources or by music chart archieves. If anyone has questions/comments regarding these changes and corrections, or finds a mistake or problem, consider discussing it here before everyone starts making tons of changes. (This literally did take me hours to do.) I'll also answer any questions anyone has or provide web sites where some of the above was confirmed. Thanks. Weatherworld 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales[edit]

Why do u people keep changing Under My Skin's sales to 8 million when it has clearly bedn proven to have sold more than 11 million copies worldwide and Let Go has sold in excess of 18 million copies worldwide.And for the peak positions of The Best Damn Thing,in Australia it peaked at number 1 but the list shows a peak of 2,she debuted at 2 but did rise to the top.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.30.118.76 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 August 2007.

Points[edit]

Check the United World Chart's Top Achievements to get the actual total points. If the data on this is true, then Girlfriend and Complicated would of charted. But only Complicated charted with 5.9 million points, NOT 6.4 million. And Girlfriend would have to be way lower or else it would of beaten some songs on the Top Achievements Chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.8.179 (talk) 13:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Youtube: avrillavigneofficial or avrillavigne?[edit]

I'm a bit confused.. both seem to be official but which on is the original?

http://www.youtube.com/avrillavigneofficial or http://www.youtube.com/avrillavigne ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth NormaN (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Hits[edit]

Does Avril have any #1 Dance hits?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.21.247 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single charts changes (Germans childish)[edit]

Like you see here 4 days ago all chart placements were correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avril_Lavigne_discography&diff=225255664&oldid=225255125

And now it got totally changed to incorrect again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avril_Lavigne_discography

OK, it's not such an issue there are 2 number one hits in Canada too much(4 total listed) or 1 too much in Australia(3 listed) but... I can't describe how false it is, when there are a total of 4!!! number one hits listed in the Germany coloumne, as the truth is there NEVER was an number one hit single by Avril Lavigne in Germany. So why these German cannot except that, that's kinda childish and fooling on many people who rely on this informations. Someone may lookup the old edit to correct it, I'm unable doing this work again and again. --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions[edit]

Someone needs to lock this article, as it seems that people are playing with the chart positions. Speaking for New Zealand, Avril has had two number ones on the chart (Complicated and Girlfriend). Don't tell me reached number 13, and both My Happy Ending and Fall to pieces didn't chart (no physical single was released). Complicated was certified Platinum, Sk8er Boi, Platinum, Girlfriend, Platinum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.115.15 (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

corrected, i'll keep an eye on this, thanks --Darth NormaN (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singles chart[edit]

Hi! I think that there are so many singles charts in this page, I think we should remove some, for example the Danish singles chart (Avril had only 4 singles charted here, it's not very notable). And I think we should have consistency between albums and singles chart, for example in the album charts Canada is the fourth country listed, but in the singles charts is the first. Last we should check if all the singles certifications are true a we should fix them in a more clear way. --Smanu (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non-English[edit]

aren't the non-English versions of Girlfriend, Hot, ... different singles? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they are like remixes, so not, they don't count as differente singles --Smanu (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General articles changes[edit]

hey guys i came across this article earlier today whilst randomly browsing and i noticed quite a few problems with it.

  • there was tons of info in it that was completely unsourced ie sales and certifications, which i have removed and am looking to find proper sources so that they can be reinstated. if anybody finds any please add them :)
  • i also wanted to separate the singles table because i ive been looking at other FA discographies and it seems to work and look best separated into sections.
  • i also wanted to remove Austria, Italy and Switzerland from the singles table and replace them with Ireland. as the guidelines suggest that roughly 10 countries should be included and Austria and Switzerland are very minor markets and the Italian charts arent very reliable according to http://acharts.us/help#wikipedia and WP:BADCHARTS
  • i'm also working on finding sources for the other appearances table because none of it is at the moment, hence has grounds for removal.

I have made a version of the articles witht the chages i propose in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mister_sparky/Sandbox

anyways let me know what you think :) if there is no objection or nobody leaves feedback then i'll go ahead and make the changes. but it will still be up for discussion Mister sparky (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, the source used for Italy is reliable. Austria should stay too. --♫Smanu! 09:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay italy and austria should stay, but switzerland can go Mister sparky (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ireland in the table, do you have any source for it? --♫Smanu! 13:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i doooooo http://irish-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Avril+Lavigne Mister sparky (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good ;) let's add it --♫Smanu! 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done. made the changes :) Mister sparky (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Star[edit]

please can people stop adding it to the article! there hasnt been any official reliable confirmation yet. and until there is it will be removed every time, so dont waste your time adding it without a source... Mister sparky (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Damn Thing Worldwide Sales[edit]

Why was my edit saying the album sold 6,500,000 worldwide with the reference [28] reverted, if the same reference for the worlwide sales of the album was accepted in the article The Best Damn Thing? Pikiwyn (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for pointing that out. that has now also been removed. a forum fails WP:RS because anybody can post in them whatever they like, with no proof whatsoever if it is true or not. all refs containing forums in the lavigne articles are in the process of being removed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
adding all the sales numbers of the countries on The Best Damn Thing gives +-6,300,000 would that work?Pikiwyn (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nope because half of the information was unsourced so has now been removed as well Mister sparky (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

https://i.ibb.co/X2NXLRY/Screenshot-20210301-060626.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.133.34 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Avril Lavigne Song[edit]

A Kohl's commercial features Avril Lavigne, Lenny Kravitz, Plain White T's, Vanessa Carlton and The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus performing a song called "Love Revolution". This should be mentioned in the discography. Here's a link to the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8PDpx8Ncro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.193.43 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Revolution[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BKuey-Fpk0 Here's a link to the full 3 minute version of "Love Revolution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.193.43 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack Singles Chart - JPN[edit]

I see no reason why the Japan Hot 100 cannot be listed on the soundtrack singles chart history. Just because none of the other singles were listed in the JPN chart, that shouldn't dictate what can or cannot be listed in the soundtrack singles chart history... Please leave your comments here before continuing any editwarring. I feel this is a valuable contribution, but if there is a rule that says it cannot be included, please provide a link to where this guideline can be found and I'll agree that it should be removed. But in the meantime, let's leave it where it is. It's not hurting anything. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 17:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't see any problem there. Also, with the Japanese chart listed, we would have charts from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia, what would show readers the worldwide performance of the song. That user apparently invented that "rule", since I haven't seen anybody talking about it before. Decodet (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be consitency between the singles charts. You CAN'T have Japan in the soundtracks chart but not having it in the main chart because discography shouldn't be dispersive and showing only ONE position for Japan is really dispersive. So basic on your toughts I can add the Slovak peak for Alice or the Romanian peak for Keep Holding On if I want --♫Smanu! 18:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we can. Per MOS:DISCOG: "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart." Decodet (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the article MUST have Japan on the main singles chart if you're going to put it on the soundtracks chart. It's useless only one entry for Japan! And anyway (citing you): "[...] but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart." It said "OF THE ARTIST" not just of ONE sucessful song on that chart--♫Smanu! 18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That part you cited means for songs that have charted in more than 10 charts. Then, we should only add countries that the artist is more sucessful. While we don't have 10 charts, we can add any chart in the table (if they are reliable per WP:CHARTS, of course). Remember the soundtrack table is a separate table. To conclude, Rihanna discography is a Featured Article and lists Spanish and Portugal charts in "Other charted songs" although those countries are not listed in the main singles table. Decodet (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the "other charted songs" in the Rihanna discography haven't charted in any of the country of the main chart which is not the case of Alice --♫Smanu! 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And? I would not being discussing if the country in question was Slovakia, for example. But Japan is one of the biggest music markets in the world and since the song charted there and we haven't reached the limit of 10 countries, we can add it to the table. There's no rule claiming what you're saying. If you are not able to show me where you saw it, I think the discussion is ended. Decodet (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But other Lavigne's songs charted on Japanese chart and if you're gonna add Alice, you should add the others songs too... And anyway there isn't any limits of then countries in the discography --♫Smanu! 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the article needs more working. I'll limit the country list to 10 later. About Japanese chart, only Alice has charted there per Billboard. Since the soundtrack table has only two songs, there's no problem to add that chart but if the table had 10 songs and only Alice had charted, then we should remove it. Did you understand my point? Decodet (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but still against, because having one country only for one song is useless and inconsistent --♫Smanu! 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for more opinion, then. Decodet (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This chart should remain OFF of this article for the time being as Decodet and Smanu have agreed above. "Waiting for more opinion" means exactly that. To let things be until an unrelated third party comes along with further opinion whether this should be included or not (not simply waiting a week, and re-adding it, regardless of the previous discussion). My initial stance was neutral to the inclusion of this chart and remains neutral. The article is fine with or without it. Since there is obvious objection (at the moment) toward its inclusion, it should remain off of the article. edit warring will only get someone banned from Wikipedia, and the numerous edits back and forth don't help the article one bit. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this on a new day and from a new perspective, I'm voting that this chart remain off of this article until more songs are included on the chart. This article is specific for Avril Lavigne's discography. I now feel that if a chart is included to demonstrate Avril's song popularity, it shouldn't be specific to one song, but Avril as a whole. The song has its own article and if it's specific to that song, it should be listed there and not in the general article unless the chart is general to Avril. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice gold status in Canada and Brazil?[edit]

Is this true, because the link of CRIA doesn't work? --Greeneyed soul (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold status in Canada, yes or no? --Greeneyed soul (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I Don't Give" on American Wedding[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Wedding#Soundtrack "I Don't Give" is definitely featured on the American Wedding Soundtrack. You can check iTunes or the Wikipedia link above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.135.25 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contribution. Just remember that other user-edited websites cannot be used as references on Wikipedia (especially other Wikipedia articles). With that said, I have added a reference to your addition using amazon.com's listing for the American Wedding Soundtrack. Thanks! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Cheers (Drink to That)"[edit]

"Cheers (Drink to That)" uses an interpolation of "I'm With You". Avril isn't featured in the song, So I took it out... Crazychrisr92 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

The refs list is... unusual, to say the least. For some reason the refs are defined as a parameters of the {{reflist}} template and then the template {{r|ref_name}} is placed where normally one would put <refname="ref_name" />. While this isn't necessarily disallowed, it's messy and incredibly frustrating to sort through. I'm editing the article so the first instances of a ref will use the <ref></ref> format. Any refs used twice will be named refs, but I'll use the {{ref}} template. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, scratch that; it's a large edit, so I should probably wait for consensus. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{ref}} template is typically used for notes, not references. {{r}} is used to define reference citations through WP:LDR. The purpose of using this method (on all the Avril Lavigne articles) is to clear up the editing space for editors to make it more organized. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to edit information and having to weed through URLs and authors which can take up several lines of editing text space when all you want to change is visible text. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can see the advantages of that... I just wish it didn't mean having the ref text being at the bottom of the article. It's really hard to navigate to fix cite errors. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 06:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't imagine a compelling reason for the Avril Lavigne articles to use a different style of formatting for its refs than the rest of Wikipedia, but if that's consensus then that's consensus. For editors that want to draw attention to broken citations for the benefit of editors familiar with the tangle of Avril refs, here is an easy solution: Tag the article with {{citations broken}}. It's much simpler than trying to untangle the mess. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK never mind that. The "citation broken" template doesn't exactly make sense since the issue is not that the references' urls are broken but rather that the refs produce cite errors because they are not used within the article. A better solutions is to add the following tag: {{Cleanup|reason=The references at the end of the article are improperly formatted and they produce cite errors}}. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The references are not "improperly formatted", they're simply unused. Solving this means either "hide" the references (in case they need to be used in the future) or simply deleting them. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see now. Is there a reason that the unused references are being preserved in a commented-out section of the article? Wouldn't the talk page be more appropriate? Or even simple deletion of them? -Thibbs (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Edit conflict on that one. I understand why they are preserved now, but wouldn't the talk page be a more appropriate home for them? -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. I've never really known any norm for saving references, I just began the practice when I was fixing ref errors throughout Wikipedia and I didn't want to delete something that may have been of importance to the article that I may have overlooked in the edit history. If the discussion page is the more appropriate location, by all means have at it. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cheers. I've placed them into a subsection below. I think this will be less confusing for editors new to the page. If they are archived at a later date then they can be manually moved back onto the main talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart references[edit]

The references of singles' positions in the Canadian Singles Chart and Other charted songs are not relevant. — Parapazzi (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retired references[edit]

The following references have been shifted into talk from the main article as they were no longer in use. These references are mostly reliable references and may be re-inserted into the article by any editor if they are needed for reference. Further unused references may be shifted into this talk subsection as well. -Thibbs (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in category "Pages with incorrect ref formatting"[edit]

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "Spanish" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "translate.google.com-3" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "www.digitalspy.co.uk" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "business.highbeam.com" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "translate.google.com-2" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "translate.google.com" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "books.google.co.cr" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "jam.canoe.ca" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "voices.yahoo.com" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).

--Frze (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Avril Lavigne discography. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Avril Lavigne discography. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avril Lavigne discography. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avril_Lavigne_discography&oldid=1199226810"