Talk:Goodbye Lullaby/Archive 1

Archive 1

Statement should be released today

Disregard

 – And this is why forums are unreliable. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep your eyes peeled on news sources. According to the owner of an Italian forum, the label should release a statement today (or tomorrow, hard to tell). Apparently, Lavigne revealing the title was a slip. Her website is supposed to be updated today as well. It's an interesting read, I would Google translate it. I'm more excited for having documented confirmation for the title though! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Entry into General Namespace

Resolved

 – –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there is (and likely will be) a significant number of edits to this page by multiple people, the move of this article to the general namespace of Goodbye Lullaby should be a MOVE (or MERGER) to preserve the edit history. This will require an admin to perform the maintenance needed prior to the move. When it comes time for this article to be placed into article space, please do not copy/paste the coding into the current redirect article. Instead, please contact an administrator to help with the move/merger. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The redirect can always be deleted via Wikipedia:CSD#R2 or Wikipedia:CSD#G6 (uncontroversial) with the reason "to make way for a move", and then this page would be moved into the freed namespace. I don't think any admin action (besides the deletion of the redirect) would be otherwise necessary. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

True, I suppose. Forgot about speedy deletion. However, an admin will have to follow through with the speedy deletion before we can move this article over. ;D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. One thing we need to remember (which I'd completely forgotten about) is to make note in the edit summary of the page move that text from "Avril Lavigne#...Goodbye Lullaby" was copied into Goodbye Lullaby, and when the text is removed from the Avril Lavigne article, to mention in the edit summary that text was moved to the "Goodbye Lullaby" article. Then we can throw the {{Copied}} template on the AL talk page. We don't need to do this until this sandbox page is moved into the mainspace because, obviously, the edit history of this sandbox will move as well. This will document that certain edits made in "Avril Lavigne" pertain to the text copied over to "Goodbye Lullaby". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, yeah. I didn't even think about that. It seems there's a whole lot more to this than I thought. lol Glad I started this topic to give plenty of preparation for the big move. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your thread reminded me about it (since I obviously hadn't given it a moment's thought till now). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done {{Copied}} added. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Directing contributors here

Another thing that's been on my mind. There are now two types of edits that need to be watched for on the Goodbye Lullaby section of the AL article. Edits pertaining to the time period (2000–present)—which includes clothing line, fragrances, and other miscellanea—and album-specific. Anyone can come along and add information that is album-specific, but how do we direct them to your sandbox? Is there a temporary ambox or similar templated warning we can use just for that section that would direct contributors to add their information here, rather than over there? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way of accomplishing this is through an Editnotice. Having a publicly displayed ambox on a GA to direct editors to a sandbox'd article doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I'm not 100% sure how Editnotices work in the article namespace, but we could have a message that shows above the edit box saying something along the lines of "Have new information regarding Goodbye Lullaby? Consider contributing to the current sandbox article in deveopment here." with a link to this page. That's my idea, at least. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An editnotice may work. It would have to be created by an admin (evidently, though I suppose all you need to do is add "/Editnotice&action=edit" at the end of the edit-window URL, but I won't test this lol). The editnotice would appear for any section being edited. Two other suggestions would be: to simply add a commented out note at the top of the Goodbye Lullaby edit window; or to add {{Main|User_talk:ScottMHoward/Goodbye_Lullaby}} to the section. Whether this latter one is "professional" or not, I don't know. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Name confirmed

Avril confirmed the name and the release date of the album on her official page. --Greeneyed soul (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. Now we just wait until a reliable source gets wind of it. So far, only two forums have reprinted her website's statement. It's just a matter of time. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tracklist

...Seriously, let's just leave the tracks as a tracklist template for now. It's going to become a tracklist at some point anyway, so this is saving a step we'll have to do later. This is NOT an official article yet so it does not have to comply with all (or any, for that matter) of Wikipedia's MoS rules as of yet. When the track list is released, all that will need to be done is a rearrangement of the titles and fill in the blanks. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability

My apologies for considering the move uncontroversial. Here is my reasoning why this article is now notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. According to WP:HAMMER, exceptions include albums that have "enough verifiable information for a decent article", and the title of this album is now confirmed fully by Avril Lavigne's release statement on her official website, and has now been reported by reliable secondary sources. In accordance with Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums, this article also has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and "the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources". Finally, although a track listing has not been officially released, song titles have been released and confirmed, and the title and release date both confirm the album will be released in good standing. As of now, Goobye Lullaby does not violate any WP:CRYSTAL guidelines. If the article were simply speculation without the background history, then I can see the move being controversial. Keep in mind that the track listing is not a requirement but merely a guideline. With the absolute confirmation of Avril Lavigne's website, I believe this article is now fully notable. Despite the source being WP:PRIMARY, it's impossible to interpret the statement in "novel" ways. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

lol I had this huge thing typed up to have the same title here, but noticed you beat me to the punch. I think what I'm most bothered about is that there's no 3rd party sources as of yet. The album doesn't release until March and Avril (or at least Sony) only posted today information about the tracks that are going to be included, so I'd just like to give it time to establish full notability by being confirmed in third party sources. If When an article (or multiple is even better) arises which confirms all of the first-party information we have gathered today, I have no problem considering the deletion and move uncontroversial. To be completely honest, a lot of my concern was the body of the article itself. I didn't fully read it and believed it to be mostly about non-album specific events that were pulled from AL, but it seems to describe the album itself very well as a stand-alone article.

Anyway. I just feel that it's important we get those reliable third-party sources first before we make the jump (so early after the release of information). There's time. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is great (start-class) for being so early in the game. I see what you're saying though about the sources. I'll try to squeeze some in right now. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

With the addition of the Billboard ref and the primary bio source now reduced to two citations, are we game for a move? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks. We're not going for "Good Article" status or anything. I'll keep my eyes peeled on any secondary sources that reprint all the tracks, but the official statement should work for now. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The article looks good. I was just wary about creating an article so soon because I've seen other album articles deleted (multiple times), and even PROTECTED until the actual date of release, so I wanted there to be no question about reliable information. Now that we have at least one 3rd party source, that satisfied my major concern (as well as actually proofreading the article--my mistake). Thanks for taking the initiative on the move. You're doing great! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 12:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've been away from heavy-duty Wiki editing for several months, so I won't deny that a lot of info has recessed into the farthest reaches of my brain, but I really still don't understand what you're referring to when you talk about "'one' 3rd party source"... Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, and this article is brimming with them. Entertainment Weekly, MTV.com, The Guardian, Rolling Stone... can you clarify for me what you're referring to? I was stumped when you mentioned it earlier, and I'm still kind of stumped now. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant 3rd party reliable sources as far as a confirmed release date, album name, and tracklist--which is what I saw referenced within HAMMER and NALBUMS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Producers

I know Avril has actually stated that Deryck Whibley, Butch Walker, Alex Da Kid and herself have produced on the album but where is the source for Evan Taubenfeld and Max Martin? I'm sure she would have written songs with them but looking at her past albums, it seems unlikely they'll actually produce anything. Would anyone mind if I remove them (unless theres a source for them of course)? Zylo1994 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall reading Evan Taubenfeld being a producer anywhere, but Max Martin's name was mentioned as "songwriter/producer" on the official release statement sent out by RCA Music Group. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm gonna be bold and removed both and then we can re-add Max if it turns out he actually did produce. I doubt she'll actually use his songs anyway to be honest. Zylo1994 (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The statement doesn't say exactly what capacity they were working in. I think Avril's bio (on her main website) goes into more detail, even saying she single-handedly wrote "4 Real" and "Goodbye". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that is considered original research. Nowhere on the statement did it say Alex da Kid produced music on it, so I removed it. I know I may be a hypocrite and am doing original research myself, but if any songs he did were on there, he would probably be mentioned in the press release. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 21:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll leave the producers how they are for now and see who produces what in March (or hopefully before). Zylo1994 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving refs?

How do you archive a reference? I just ask because I really think source 6 (this one) and source 7 (this one) need archiving. They're pretty valuable and the bio from her website is likely to change right? Zylo1994 (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone at WP:REFDESK suggested I use WebCite, so that's the only archival website I've used.

1. Go to website, click on "Archive" tab at the top
2. Fill in these fields: a. Paste in the URL. b. Put in your email address (I have yet to see a purpose for this; I use a throwaway account). c. Add article title ("Avril Lavigne Biography" or article title). d. Add the author, last name first. e. Skip down a couple fields and add the date. That's all you need to fill in. (You can even leave the Title and Author blank, but I like to be at least halfway thorough. Click submit and wait a bit.

WebCite does not always work. I've had trouble archiving Billboard articles in the past, but that's because sometimes Billboard uses a Flash-based system. Try it with your source 7 and see, it may or may not work. After you submit, WebCite will go to a new window and provide you with two links: the shorter version, and the super long version. I always use the super long version since it's the direct access to the archived article, no messing around with forwarding or any extra steps that may fail. Finally, in your reference code, just add |archiveurl= and |archivedate= and you'll be set for life! :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay I think I've done it...I'm just waiting for the confirming email. This was much easier than I thought it would be!Zylo1994 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Genre: hip-hop?

Does some songs having a hip-hop influence count as the whole album being classed as hip-hop? I know very well that genre sources can come in all shapes and sizes but haven't we recently just made the different between STYLE and GENRE very clear in other articles? Perhaps we should do the same with INFLUENCES and GENRE? Zylo1994 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope my bad. The source does seem to state that hip-hop is a genre. Zylo1994 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The songs Alex Da Kid produced on the album were the ones he had written with Avril. In an official statment she released to fans she claims that her record "has (had) been finished for a year now". Avril started writing with Alex after this period, so I presume the songs he wrote and produced will not be on the record so I shall remove the 'hip-hop' genre until we get a tracklist with writing and production credits. In this move I am also inclined to remove 'Alex Da Kid' from the production list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.157.33 (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well there is a very high chance that What the Hell was written with Alex Da Kid. Also, it's been stated in several articles that he will produce on the album so I'll re-add it. Zylo1994 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

IP, Wikipedia is not based on assumptions, but on reported information from reliable sources. However, if genre additions and deletions become too commonplace, I would simply remove it entirely until the album has been reviewed by critics. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Like the other 3 album articles, I think we should simply put the genres in the infobox as pop and rock. Then we can have a more elaborated genre section (which we already have forming in the 'Composition' section) somewhere in the actual article. Would anyone be up for this? Zylo1994 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection for the article, but otherwise, I may just start practicing genre-free editing from this point forward, with possible exceptions. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Even more reason to simply list the infobox genres as rock and pop? I'm confident it will reduce constant genre changes. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bah, just leave it without a genre, though it will probably be rock and pop, but no one knows, besides adding genres would be personal research since the album hasnt come out yet 24.139.117.90 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hip hop, really?

I think that should really be removed, as it wasn't really said to be the genre of the album. Maybe remove all the genres all together, as it is still a big early to say. No real sources of genres appear until near or after the album's release. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay since genres are causing problems, I'll be bold and list the genres in the infobox as pop and rock (just like the other album articles) and then we can elaborate on them in the Composition section. The composition section doesn't have to directly list hip hop as a genre but instead explores it as an influence. I think it will really work. Zylo1994 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there has to be a genre listed at all. There's no point. The album is 4 months away. This article is actually truly a mess, and I don't think it should have been moved quite yet. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with having no genre at all. If an album isn't even released yet, there can't be any confirmed 3rd party reviews/sources on the overall genre of the album. I also agree that it was somewhat early that this article was moved to article space, but since it's semi-protected I'm completely OK with it.

Speaking of way-too-early, what's with What the Hell (song)? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree as well. As you said under the Producers section, nowhere on the press release did it say Alex da Kid produced music on the record. My guess is that everything that happened after the Max Martin sessions were deleted. Alex da Kid said that his songs would be hip hop, but really didn’t seem to know what the other songs sounded like or the status of the record (at least that’s what I took out of it). So he probably didn’t know when he was giving that interview that his songs weren’t picked-up for the album. He also may have known about the Pharrell Williams sessions, so he may have figured that Avril was going for a hip-hop album.

So what do we know? Avril said that [the majority of this] will be less pop-rock, focus on the emotion, and be driven by the vocal performance, pianos, orchestral arrangements, and acoustic guitar. So what genre does all of that really fit into? My best is adult contemporary and soft rock, but it does seem to match “Alice,” and that’s listed as rock and pop.
As for the other songs, I believe that Avril said she would be channeling “Sk8er Boi“ while working with Max Martin, so "What the Hell" will probably be pop rock, pop-punk, and powerpop. And after Avril posted those photos from her video shoot, I got a very strong TBDT vibe (unfortunately). "Smile" is indubitably an ode to Brody Jenner, and my guess is that it‘ll match WtH. "Stop Standing There" seems interesting; described as being fueled by an early-‘50s girl-group feel. This makes me think of doo-wop like The Supremes. I could be WAAYYY off base here, though, but I’d love that! If Avril wants to focus on more beats for a song, doo-wop is the genre I’d love to hear her do. But only for a few songs.

So, if I were to pick genres right now for the info box, I’d personally select adult contemporary, soft rock, and pop rock. However, many of you have stated that we don’t really need a list of genres yet. As we don’t know what any of the songs sound like, and it’s already hard to peg what she’s described, that may be the best solution until the record is released. —Blackarachnophobia (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2010 (Central)

Blackarachnophobia, you have to remember that genres, like anything else on Wikipedia, have to be from an external, reliable, secondary source, and the source must state the genre (like Allmusic.com). Speculation, guesses, etc. are not acceptable, which is why the article became protected. In regards to the move, it would have been hell to battle each IP and user who came along to turn the redirect into an article, to revert each and every time, and to continually direct contributors to the sandbox. After Lavigne released her statement, the views for that page would (and did) shoot through the roof. There simply had to be an article in place. So call it "early", call it what you will, I think I was right in my decision to move the article contemporaneously with the statement. As for the article needing work: yes. This article was written in the context of the entire Avril Lavigne article, and it worked well in that place. It definitely needs to either be rewritten or have a good thorough copyedit; I think the information included, though, is pretty solid, considering. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"What the Hell" single cover

I don't know what exactly is going on with the "What the Hell" article but the single cover has been revealed. Here it is.

The article is locked until Goodbye Lullaby is released due to a dispute over whether the article should be created or not. There is already a file on Wikipedia with the cover art, but it's soon to be deleted because it's non-free content that isn't used in an article. Gonna have to wait until March. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Track listing confirmed

The track listing has been confirmed. Since there is a lot of information to add to the table, I suggest we keep every tiny detail sourced until we get a big bulk of confirmed information (from Discogs, for example). This way, everything is accurate and (hopefully) there will be no conflict over what is true and what is false. What do you think? Zylo1994 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How reliable is ASCAP for songwriting credits? It looks quite user-submitted to me. Zylo1994 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see where you sourced it. There is no way ASCAP is user-submitted. I don't see where it could be user-submitted either. I would think ASCAP is a fantastic source because their information is not unlike the US copyright office's. The information would have to be legit for potential rights and legal reasons. I think you're safe with that source. As for the website itself, it's just "easy to read". I don't think they've ever had a frilly site. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I have to admit, I did judge it based on its appearance; the errors in song titles and the general layout reminded me of those dodgy lyrics sites you always see...Anyway, thanks for clearing that up! Zylo1994 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I double checked and I still don't see any user submission area. We'll have to assume errors are on the part of the admin staff at ASCAP. :( – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediabase

Can we do something with this source? Source:[1] --Greeneyed soul (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And this, Avril said in a interview: He’s [Alex da Kid] just really cool and young. Actually none of the songs we did together are going on this album, but we’re gonna do something with that, stuff I’m just not sure what yet. Source:[2] --Greeneyed soul (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We unfortunately can't use the first source because it's behind a password-protected site. Maybe if you were to somehow be able to archive it (which I don't believe archiving websites can access password-protected sites), we could then use the archived source, but it looks like Mediabase might be off limits.

I'm sure the 2nd source can be used in the article. Perhaps in an area talking about how he WAS a producer of multiple songs, but none of them made their way to the final album. Maybe once some information on B-sides are released or something. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Added the second source. It was quite useful actually - it would be good for her philanthropy section on the main article. Zylo1994 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PAYWALL, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". Along similar lines, according to WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So in short, password protected sites are definitely appropriate for referencing on Wikipedia. Several major news outlets require a paid subscription, as do private online journals, etc. But it would be up to the editor to make sure the site is still reliable. I'm not familiar with Mediabase, though, so I don't know if it's reliable or not. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the FAQ, looked at the USAToday PDF file link, and skimmed through our Mediabase article and it's definitely a reliable source. How it can be used, and who would have access to it, I don't know. (I attempted to gain access to the site with a few choice passwords, but no go haha.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alice

"Alice" wasn't produced by Deryck Whibley, was he? It was Butch Walker only. Deryck mixed. I only just noticed this, and I checked only one source, but if it's true, then his name should be removed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes thats what I thought but then in the personnel section it lists him as the producer of the track. I didn't want to remove sourced info, I thought this might be original research? Zylo1994 (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have the german CD signle and it says: Alice, performed by Avril Lavigne, written by Avril Lavigne, produced by Butch Walker, mixed by Deryck Whibley. I can scan the booklet, it's not reliable but you will still see who is the producer. --Greeneyed soul (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just gonna changed 'producer' to 'mixer'. That would be okay right? Zylo1994 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done The source that listed Whibley as a prodcuer is used in the Alice article as a reference for him being the mixer and Butch being the producer. I think it was just a mistake that he was added as a producer. Zylo1994 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Greeneyed soul, you needn't scan the booklet, but the booklet itself is definitely a reliable source. (You just can't link to it, but you also can't link to most books, unless they've been scanned online professionally.) Somewhere, there is a special template for referencing liner notes. Zylo, I added the Personnel section and used the track list info as a guideline, so I definitely got sucked into the mistake of putting Whibley as producer for track 14. Credits for track 14 were the only credits I didn't double check against (I figured the article itself was correct). Glad it's all sorted out now though! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Alice" liner notes

User:Greeneyed soul, since you have a copy of the single's liner notes, would you be willing to confirm that Avril did indeed play the piano for that track? That would be a stronger source than the one I had to use. Or if it's easier, if you could scan the booklet at high-res, we would be able to add the information as well; this would pertain to the Alice article also. Although the liner notes for "Alice" and Goodbye Lullaby will be different, credits for who worked on that song should remain entirely the same. This would be greatly appreciated! To cite the liner notes, use this template. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm able to do this. However, here are the scans [3] and [4]. --Greeneyed soul (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the scans. I see what you mean, there isn't really any information we don't already know. Well, the GL liner notes should be a little more specific, or at least I hope so. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone's song review of What the Hell

Source: [5] --Greeneyed soul (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's great to hear more about the song - I really can't wait until New Years Eve now! This will be great for the single's article but I'm not sure when that will be made. We had it a few weeks ago but it was really bare and pretty pointless. However with this we have a "Critical Reception" section made and we already know about the "Background"... Zylo1994 (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

More info on "What the Hell"

I traced the article's content around and I think the originating source is PopEater, but there's some slightly new info on the single, the album, and the fragrance. She compares the new album to her repertoire and says it's the most consistent one. She repeats the idea that the album is about "being a singer" and confirms its "stripped down" approach. Her new fragrance will debut in August. Here is an archival link to the article should anyone like to cite it.

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popeater.com%2F2010%2F12%2F30%2Favril-lavigne-what-the-hell-new-years-eve%2F&date=2010-12-30

–Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Added to Goodbye Lullaby and Avril Lavigne. Zylo1994 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Radio release date of "What the Hell"

It says: January 11, 2011 impacting songs, Avril Lavigne - What the Hell

http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases

--Greeneyed soul (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, can I just get one thing straight - the Amazon source in the article states it will be out 7 January, but thats just as an MP3 download right? So the song will actually be on the radio in the US on 11 January? And in the UK we get it on 17 January.(source) Zylo1994 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think so, and we've got a new review from MTV.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1655190/20110103/lavigne_avril.jhtml

--Greeneyed soul (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Release History

Could somebody please check the release history refs? It's just that I'm not sure I filled everything out correctly - I'm not too familiar with foreign sources. Also the German reference wouldn't archive properly - it says "archived from the original" but it doesn't give a link to the original...any idea why? Thank you. Zylo1994 (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks fine, and I fixed the Germany link. If you were citing a foreign language source's text, then I think the language parameter (I don't recall what it is, specifically) would be filled out. But in these cases, the reference is for citing the dates, which are all given in Arabic numerals, so I don't think it's a big deal either way. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

More informations

Here are some more information about the "Deluxe Version" and the length of the songs. --Greeneyed soul (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like it may be a CD/DVD pack, but it doesn't really say. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Track List

It appears the track list lengths were taken from here. But I don't see that as a reliable source, though it is likely to be true. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And from there, the information was sourced from here. Who knows if that can be considered reliable or not, though if anyone re-adds the info with that as a citation, I won't remove it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Acoustic a genre?

I've never been sure if acoustic actually counts as its own genre. Is it a genre we can keep in the infobox? Zylo1994 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. You will hate my answer because it is a yes and no response: I would actually consider acoustic to be a style, not a genre. "Electric" is not a genre. However, our article, acoustic music, is listed as a "music genre stub". Acoustic is more of a description as to how the music is performed. It could still be of any genre, jazz, folk, classical. So I would not include it in the infobox as a genre; however, maybe the infobox "genre" section should be more open to styles, because apparently having an "acoustic" album—or deluxe edition 2-CD set, where one CD is entirely acoustic—is peculiar (?) enough to be listed. I mean, this sort of crosses that blurry definition of "genre" that's being discussed on the AL talk page at the moment. However, in specific regards to this album, I can think of an argument and a counter-argument: 1. No one knows if the album even has acoustic songs on it. The media has assumed there may be, and Avril has described the album as softer and quieter, but that was two years ago when the album hadn't been in the hands of the studio yet. So let's wait to see what reviewers say. 2. Just because several songs on the album are performed acoustically doesn't mean the album is an acoustic album. But the infobox may list several genres pertaining to different songs, I suppose, so I would leave this up to the editor to decide. Not too helpful, but there we are! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree 100% with your second point. Plus, like you said, acoustic can fit into ANY genre. So would anyone have any problems with it being removed from the infobox? Zylo1994 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the vagueness of what I wrote earlier, I would think that's a legitimate edit. I would leave it. It's sourced, and there is a specific quote in the article where Lavigne says the songs are mainly acoustic. Since Wikipedia is merely reporting what's been reported, I don't see any reason to not have it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But like you said, isn't acoustic similar to calling something 'electric'...and you wouldn't get that listed as a genre! Plus, the acoustic theme is touched upon a few times in the actual article. I don't want to kick up another genre fuss but thats just my say on the matter. I'm still unsure about it so if you think it should stay then I'm quite happy for it to stay. Zylo1994 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Saying "acoustic" is actually different then saying "electric", but I was just using that as a devil's advocate type of argument. According to the article acoustic music, "acoustic" is a retronym. So saying an album or a song is acoustic is more like saying, "It's not electric". This gives the word "acoustic" a slight advantage, I think. I haven't read or looked at the Goodbye Lullaby article in a long time, so if it mentions Lavigne's quote already, then you're right, there doesn't need to be a source in the infobox (that would be my mistake, since I removed it yesterday due to lack of sourcing). But do you see how confusing and muddled this whole affair gets? Like Scott said on the AL talk page, genres just gets blasted with WP:OPINIONs in so many ways; obviously, it can be argued that the word should be removed just as well as for the word to remain. I don't mind it being in the infobox. The article says the album will be acoustic. (Well, because of "What the Hell", we know for a fact that it isn't entirely acoustic.) But can you argue that the article is saying the genre of the album is acoustic? Or would you rather argue the article is referring to the style? Which one should be allowed in the infobox? Because of this quandary, I am neither for nor against the word "acoustic" being in the infobox. If an editor believes it should be there, then why shouldn't it be? However: you and I are never going to solve this problem. If you want an absolute consensus with the Wikipedia community, then this very issue should be brought up at a WikiProject discussion page. According to page view stats, WP:WikiProject Albums discussion page gets more views each day than the WikiProject Music Genres page. I did a quick archive search of both pages, and no one has asked this question, it seems. "Is acoustic a genre, or is it a style, and should it be listed in the infobox if a source refers to the album as 'acoustic'?" To quote Peter Sellers in Murder by Death, "Answer simple... but question very hard!" – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Black Star Tour"

Avril basically lets the audience decide the name of her tour with this official YouTube video (though she played a nice card force there at the beginning). Still, I think it's a first that I've seen this happen. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Record label fight

More details on what the record label wanted the new album to be like here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's sort of a splash page to the full interview. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This should probably receive it's own section in the article. It's quite essential information about the release. ℥^nding·start 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done There wasn't really enough for its own section but I did give it a quote to show its significance. Zylo1994 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Japan sales

31,935 sales in less than a day and #2 on the oricon daily chart. [6] --Greeneyed soul (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Release by country

What about Canada? Her born country? NO release dates have been write in the section of the pages? This is kind of strange. Since she is from Canada and she have lot`s of reader from Canada, someone taking care of this page should do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.65.122 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Region Date Label Japan[34][35] 2 March 2011 Sony Music Japan Australia[36] 4 March 2011 RCA Records Germany[37] Ireland[38] Netherlands[39] Sweden[40] United Kingdom[41] 7 March 2011 Brazil [42] Sony Music Russia[43] Mexico[44] 8 March 2011 United States[45] RCA Records

CANADA????

 Done Canada has now been added. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting edit

Is is possible to delete this bit "Music critics noted that the songs were very equal to each other, calling the album non-original and basic" that's not a neutral statement to add at the overview of the article IMO, and there's no sources, just leave it for the "critical reception" part 186.89.213.154 (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I'm assuming that this line was a contribution added during editing of the old Critical Reception section. Before my copyedit, that section didn't even make logical paraphrased sense.

Since that line of text does not even appear in the section below, it has no business being in the lead. Only information already stated in the article should be in the lead section. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Making of Goodbye Lullaby

"Making of Goodbye Lullaby" has some fantastic information that can be put into this article. I do not own the deluxe edition of this album, so I can't offer any details required for citing (director, camera, whatever may be important), but the video itself is—for the moment—up on YouTube and can be used for the information; the DVD itself should be cited as the originating source: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I just came across this article; although it's been reported in various outlets that the label was the cause for the album's delay, this one specifically uses the phrase "dance album", which I think is important. (There are several articles about this topic by now—the few I've checked said Lavigne told this information to Billboard, but I cannot find the actual Billboard article, so maybe it will be published in the future?) I haven't checked up on our album article in a long while, so I'm not sure where it stands in terms of what information is included or not. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Genre

It's missing the genre of the album. I suggest putting pop and pop/rock.--79.168.89.241 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Once there are sources for genre, they will be added. Those genres will likely be placed there, but all genres have to have a reliable source. We can't add whatever we want. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

ok now that allmusic refresh the style on this album, could it be added in some (or apart) section, like avril's previously albums, the style that in this case according to allmusic focus on Alternative, indie, and teen pop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.42 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Charting

It came out today that Wish You Were Here debuted on the Canadian Hot 100 Singles Chart at #64. Billboard issue March 26, 2011 . It charted based off of strong digital sales of the track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.178.245 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But that's already in the article. See Goodbye_Lullaby#Other_charted_songs ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But this new one is okay to use? Zylo1994 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 (~~~~). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still seeing hip hop on the genre section --200.8.19.40 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Unsourced Charts

I've removed a lot of the charts that are unsourced, such as Indonesia, Argentina etc. However, i've kept Brazil as Brazil works on an ABCD system, and Avril has been certified as having shipped 32,000 copies of her album. --StephenN17 (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan Sales

I'm having trouble with putting Taiwan as a new certification. According to these 2 sites (http://twimg.edgesuite.net//images/twapple/640pix/20111228/EN16/EN16_004.jpg) and (http://tw.nextmedia.com/applenews/article/art_id/33918343/IssueID/20111228) she's sold 49,000 albums this year, but it's not letting me do it without saying there's an error. Help anyone? Thanks!--StephenN17 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've repaired the coding in your edit. If you wish to add another reference, you may do so. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Goodbye Lullaby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120131103352/http://www.amprofon.com.mx:80/Archivos/PDF/top_anual/Top_100_Album_2011.pdf to http://www.amprofon.com.mx/Archivos/PDF/top_anual/Top_100_Album_2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)