Talk:I'm with You (Avril Lavigne song)

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

With vs with[edit]

A solution must be made to the edit wars between "With" and "with". Winnermario 23:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'd suggest checking out how it's titled on the actual back cover of the CD on which the song originally appeared or, if that's not enough to satisfy you (because, after all, it could be a mass produced typo that was either overlooked or ignored by EVERYONE who had to "inspect" and "approve" it before release), check out her official website which ALSO spells it "I'm With You" (unless this TOO is a grossly overlooked or ignored typo). Or hey, check out MTV's album page for "Let Go" . I see a capitalized "W". Another typo? Let's check Billboard.com: hey look, the album page on Billboard capitalizes "W" as well! Could this be ANOTHER typo? Just for fun, let's check Amazon, the sheet music and pretty much any lyrics site you can think of... yep, ALL with a capitalized "W". MORE typos?!?

Does anyone think this MEANS something? Does anyone think that maybe they AREN'T typos?Ginnna 09:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely should be "I'm With You". There is not a massive conspiracy trying to print the 'W' uppercase everywhere. The page should remain where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MZMcBride (talk • contribs)

As I've noted to User:Extraordinary Machine (with no response, I'll presume he's occupied with other matters), I personally am with User:MZMcBride: whether intentional or otherwise—unless a press release or rerelease follows with a correction—we ought not be changing what the artist intended. If a song was titled "HaXx0rZ", for example, it should appear that way; same with film, band or book titles—we don't change 5ive to Five or "Sk8er Boi" to "Skater Boy", and capitals should be treated the same way. Only when a title is ambiguous—The original poster for I am Sam was in all-caps while the video release was all lower-case—should convention override. RadioKirk talk to me 03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the others. When a piece of work is marketted with a specific title, it should not be changed per Wikipedia's guidelines; this would ultimately distort what had been intended. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we wouldn't change the names of the 5ive or Sk8er Boi articles; apart from Wikipedia having no policy about deliberately incorrect spellings (unlike its capitalisation policy), those are the official spellings (I'm unfamiliar with the film I am Sam or its title, though). However, capitalisation is more of a style preference, and Wikipedia has style policies and guidelines that are there to be followed. The word "with" is a preposition under five letters in length, and per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names, it should not be capitalised. If you want to bring about a change in the policy, then Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions is the best place to discuss the issue. Extraordinary Machine 16:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll do that. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—and, actually, on further consideration, there is a more conventional reason to keep the capitalization.
The argument has been made (and, thus far, successfully) on Talk:The Price Is Right that "Is" is a verb in the context, not a preposition (as in, you have to be right [or, technically, closest without going over] with your price assessment in order to win, therefore, in the presumably completed title, You Win if your Assessment of the Price Is Right). The same argument would apply in the context of the song lyrics:
Won't you take me by the hand
Take me somewhere new
I don't know who you are
But I, I'm with you
The lyrics clearly suggest that "with" supplants "going with" and, as "going" is a verb and would have been capitalized, "With" should be. Thoughts? RadioKirk talk to me 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. CD covers often use all capitalisation or none, differ from sheet music and other reliable sources, and change from release to release.
  2. It's standard practrice in just about every publication, on line or off, to have a house style regarding matters like capitalisation in titles. Some magazines, for example, capitalise all words, some none — and this has nothing to do with what's on the CD covers. Wikipedia is no exception.
  3. RadioKirk's comment is odd, though perhaps has to be seen in the context of another comment that I missed. First, who on Earth would say that "is" was anything other than a verb? How could it be a preposition? Secondly, his interpretation of the lyrics in question is dubious at best; what basis is there for thinking that in "I'm with you" the verb "going" has been elided? Thirdly, he slides from talking about the capitalisation of the verb to the capitalisation of an adjacent preposition with no argument. Fourthly, if what he has in mind is that prepositions that form part of phrasal verbs should be capitalised— well, that varies from style guide to style guide, but "go with" isn't a phrasal verb, it's just a verb that takes a preposition.
  4. The idea that typing the title without a capital "W" would "distort what had been intended" is for these reasons, at least, peculiar. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By point:
  1. Every media I've seen lists the song as "I'm With You" with no variation;
  2. ...and, I'm arguing that Wikipedia's "house style" should be to default to the original title if there is total consistency with its style, as appears to be the case here;
  3. I'm repeating the argument made at Talk:The Price Is Right (without comment as to its accuracy) to press the verb-use issue. Your assessment of my "slide" is based entirely on your own argument re elision of "going"—naturally, if I assume "take me" (especially when repeated a second time) followed by "I'm with you" would be "wherever you take me, I'm going with you" if properly structured, "with" supplants "going with" and assumes the purpose of a verb; and
  4. Not at all. :)
RadioKirk talk to me 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis is correct in the sense that album covers and CD single covers are frequently incorrect since they tend to either capitalize all or none of the letters. However, the majority of the press releases, documentations and television programs that I've accessed and have taken the time to watch since this issue arose a few days back, it appears as though from the knowledge I have gathered that it is likely Avril Lavigne's record label Arista had intended for the word "with" to be spelled with a capitalized "W". It is most definitely true that "with" is commonly not capitalized even in songwriting, but when taking into consideration the song titles such as T-Pain's "I'm N Luv (wit a Stripper)", Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone", Usher's "U Remind Me", these are not corrected due to Wikipedia policy ("I'm in Love (with a Stripper)", "Since You've Been Gone" and "You Remind Me"?). Personally, I believe that the word "with" should be capitalized in this article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I do not believe that my comment "distort what had been intended" is peculiar — could Mel Etitis please explain what he means by this? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain as to why this article is still incorrectly named. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The article gives the correct title, and gives it in Wikipedia Manual-of-Style typography.
  2. The notion that using a capital "w" is an essential part of the "artists's" intent is peculiar (and purely suppositional). Is the claim that the record company sat down and decided that, in this one case, the capitalisation of a preposition was central to the artistic integrity of this imnmortal artwork? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't rehash the preposition/verb argument; however, I will state that, by "correcting" the title as it appears here, Wikipedia, too, engages in supposition (as in, "the [artist/record label] must be wrong"). If an artist (or record label), film director (or studio) or author (or publisher), etc., is consistent in his/her/its presentation of a title, then we ought not be "correcting" it. RadioKirk talk to me 19:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The preposition/verb argument is unsound, so it's certainly best not to rehash it. There is absolutely no way that "with" here can be taken to be part of the verb, any more than "on" in "I'm on Top of the World".
  2. It's not a matter of correcting them. Their manual of style may well prescribe capitals for preopositions, in which case that's correct for them; ours prescribes lower case, which is thus correct for us. The standard approach in publishing is that titles are given in accordance with the publication's own manual of style, except in special circumstances (such as cummings' poetry, etc.). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this at the Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever, and although this is soooo lame, I'd go with what the artist and a host of other websites say, "I'm With You". Why? Because it is a TITLE. Perhaps WP:MOS won't apply here, especially if it was the artist/actress/person's idea to have the spelling/capitalization that way. Perhaps it was intentional. Perhaps it was a lapse in judgment. Perhaps it was all of them. The rules of the subject-verb agreement and of grammar can be bent when you use titles, right? And oh, if this is "I'm with You", then why Sk8er Boi not at Skater Boy? Howard the Duck | talk, 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS specifically applies to titles (as do other manuals of style); it concerns typography, not choices of spelling. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. It is not up to Wikipedia and its manual of style to decide what is right and wrong; if a book is published with the title I'm With You, it wouldn't be spelled I'm with You across the market or on this website. How does the manual apply to situations such as these where it is unknown whether the title should be capitalized or not? I believe it should be written as per Arista Records and the track it was issued and/or released under, and in this case, with supporting references such as Avril Lavigne's official website, the sheet music, the CD single, the promotional posters and images, and the album Let Go, the title should be "I'm With You". —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, agreement or disagreement isn't really relevant; this is the way the world is. Every publication, every publishing house, every serious Web publication has a manual of style of some kind, to which they adhere in matters of, for example, capitalisation. You still don't seem to understand the point: it's not a matter of "what's the right way to capitalise a particular title — it's what's right for us, for all titles, whether of records, books, operas, films... Some music magazines capitalise every word in titles, regardless of how the capitalisation appears on CDs, record-company blurbs, etc.; we follow a more standard line, as found in most major manuals of style. If you think that Wikipedia should change its policy, and give up the universally held notion of consistency in typography, then you should be arguing at the Manual of Style, not here (but don't expect to get very far). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there still appears to be a problem with titles such as Since U Been Gone, I'm in Luv, U Remind Me, etc.; I'm not about to believe that these are specially exempt from such rules? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They perfectly fit the rules as I've explained them; the typography involves initial capitalisation of all words except prepositions, articles, etc. As I've already explained, spelling isn't the issue here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following your logic. This is the point: Usher wrote the song "U Remind Me" with the letter "U" in place of "You". Therefore, his record company released the song with the same title. In Clarkson's case, the situation is similar: her songwriters replaced "You've" with "U". Now Lavigne wrote the song "I'm With You" alongside three others. If they titled the song with a capital "W" — and I've said this before — it is not for us to choose what is wrong and what is right. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this reads like a set of non sequiturs, as well as ignoring what I've explained already. Spelling and grammar aren't subject to manuals of style, typography is. If a film poster or title screen reads, for example, Honey, I Shrunk The Kids, we don't correct the poor grammar, because that's part of the title, but we do change the "t" of "the"; the choice of upper- or lower-case for initial letters isn't normally considered to be part of the title, so we change it in accordance with the MoS. I realise that you don't like this, but you're not arguing your case, you're simply repeating the same point over and over again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I strongly disagree, regardless of the style of the MoS. I am very aware that the song should be spelled with a lower-case "W", however, I'm not certain that Lavigne had intended to release the song under poor grammar — it may have meant something personal to her which we do not know (as a result of the lack of research, presumably). Correcting the grammar could be misleading if it had been intentionally spelled a specific way; moreover, we don't know whether the single was issued incorrectly. Therefore, I find it irrelevant to lower-case the "w". —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of time has passed without a response. I am going to make the move once again. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying we're using our own manual of style. Okay, that's fine. However, why is it only being used for this case and not, say, Since You Been Gone? I don't understand. 2_of_8 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because our naming conventions concern typography, not spelling. This has already been explained. Extraordinary Machine 13:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case — and per all the commercial merchandise — it seems that "With" is part of typography. I don't understand why this would be intentionally spelled with a capital W on the album, Lavigne's website, and commercial products, but it is, and it's only wise to assume that the correct song title is "I'm With You". Velten 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste move reverted[edit]

If user:Velten thinks Wikipedia should give up the idea of establishing consistency in capitalisation across articles, she can go ahead and make her case at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Requested moves, though I doubt she'll get far. She should also be warned not to move pages by cutting and pasting, which she knows isn't allowed. Extraordinary Machine 00:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't cut & paste, it was in fact reverted. I've posted a very explicit statement (the last in the previous discussion) about the commercial release; if you honestly believe that multiple distributors spelled this song's title incorrectly (and purposely), you're missing a very significant point that you're passing off as trivial. Velten 02:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not a cut and paste? (For everyone else reading, fixing Velten's cut-and-paste move required temporarily deleting the article so that the split edit histories could be merged.) It's been explained to you that in this situation there's no "correct" way of capitalising prepositions in song titles (your reference to incorrect spelling in a discussion of capitalisation is rather confusing) - our Manual of Style stipulates that they remain uncapitalised, Arista Records' apparently doesn't. It's as simple as that. Unless, of course, Lavigne or someone associated with her label has gone on the record to say that they capitalised the "with" deliberately for some other reason. Extraordinary Machine 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to explain that it was reverted again, I'll bite my head off. It doesn't matter what the MoS states — if the song was deliberately released with a capital "W", then the correct article name would be "I'm With You". This also applies to songs such as "Since U Been Gone", which was spelled deliberately with a "u" instead of "you've". It also doesn't matter if they fall under different categories (spelling and typography); what matters is that if it's commercialized specifically, the spelling (which it appears to be in this situation) should be properly followed. Velten 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Etitis and me have explained manuals of style (and their importance) to you; you're simply repeating the same flawed argument over and over (with the incorrect notion that spelling and capitalisation are the same thing). I doubt anyone would like to be stuck in a circle with someone who dispenses such antagonising retorts as "If I have to explain that it was reverted again, I'll bite my head off", so this is the last I'll say about the matter unless you follow the links above and start discussing it there. Extraordinary Machine 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, you're the one whose repeating arguments over and over. I don't understand how mine is "flawed"; the songs "Since U Been Gone" and "I'm With You" were marketted this way — one was intentionally spelled incorrectly, so we left it at that. However, the other was capitalized intentionally, so it should've been left the same way. It's becoming more evident that the users who oppose this are under the impression that it wasn't marketted like this. Velten 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reading all of the appropriate rules and discussion (see my last post above with my old-style sig), apparently, Wikipedia accepts intentional misspellings, but not intentional grammar mistakes. Our encyclopedia at home displays "I'm Happy Just to Dance with You" with the decapitalized "with", although I suspect the Beatles may had marketed the single with a capital "w".
However, I'd like to believe that "I'm With You" with the capital "W" is the more prevalent name, as such, since WP:NC trumps over WP:MOS, it is not that wrong to move this page. But, if this page is moved to "I'm With You", it might open a host of problems on articles with articles that have proper nouns as their article titles. --Howard the Duck 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one seems to care about this topic anymore, but it has currently stumped me. I suggest that if the article should be named "I'm With You" based on the CD cover, press releases, publishers, etc. than the song "Too Much to Ask" should be "Too Much To Ask". However, in my experience, capitalisation in song titles is very fluid. I even have personal struggles whether or not to capitalise "it" in some songs. What I have come to do is to just look at the song title, and if it isn't pleasing to the eye, I will change it. And this doesn't only apply to capitalisations, I'll change grammar if I have to, putting commas when other people wouldn't even dream of changing it (eg. Hey, Jude). With the Rolling Stones' cover of Chuck Berry's I'm Talking About You on Out of Our Heads, I was faced with the choice of naming it "Talkin' 'Bout You" or "Talkin' 'bout You", the latter of which follows my standard protocol. However, I felt both looked horrible, especially considering the two apostrophes are one after the other. So I settled on changing it completely, to "Talkin' About You", almost reverting it back to the Chuck Berry title. (The Wikipedia title is "I'm Talking about You", and almost nauseates me). So anyway, what I'm saying is, instead of following protocol, or reading the titles on the CD as if they're divinely inspired, we should be looking at the title and seeing if it at least looks good. I think the first time I named a song with an uncapitalised "w" was when I was naming Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. The agenda behind that was to make it spell LSD. Even before I'd done this, I'd named the earlier I'm Happy Just to Dance with You with a capitalisd "With". But since then, I've generally decapitalised "with". Conflict usually arises with three-word titles with the middle word being "with" (eg. "Cows with Guns", "Live with Me"), and I generally stick with my established form. However, looking at the title as "I'm with You" actually makes me feel like breaking protocol. "I'm with You" looks too small and actually compromises the æsthetic of the title ("I am with You" would be even worse). So I'm sticking with "I'm With You", not because it is the most prevalent name, not because it is spelt on the CD like that, but because I believe it looks better that way. And while I still concede that it grammatically should be "with", I won't compromise myself on this matter. Revolution 9 (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] till it looks good [...]" your point of view is exactly the reason why theres such a chaos on that topic.. Wikipedia made up a rule about that -> Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization), means that "I'm with You" is correct, and even if there wouldn't be that kind of agreement, imo, its better to just take the exact title of songs from the cd cover where it should be the original title as it is supposed to look like (by the author). in this case "I'm With You" would be correct.. so yea, we should just stay in line with Wikipedia's rule and leave the title like it is now. --Darth NormaN (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Imwi.JPG[edit]

Image:Imwi.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im With You is a Waltz[edit]

You can see in this scan of the Let Go Sheets Book that I'm With You is, in fact, a Moderate Waltz:

http://gallery.avrilbandaids.com/displayimage.php?album=2767&pos=0

Thanks Avril Bandaids for the scan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.92.187 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Avril Lavinge Im With You" Genres[edit]

Please no one change the genres or anthing else I update. But I wanted to discuss with you that I will be putting music samples and the music videos and I will be putting genres and getting them reliable resources for everything I article I update. I will be going to (AllMusic) and (Billboards) for the music genres and making the music samples with (Audacity) and making each one thirty seconds total. I think I will just be editing the templates and not the whole article. Im not really that good at updating sentences. But please if I ever do anthing wrong that beyond wiki purposes feel free to put it on my talk page or anthying I update just correct the mistakes. Instead of deleting them. I will be putting them on different pages of Avril Lavinges albums/songs to let everybody know that I will be updating Thank You Sprite7868.

Update: I figured I should just update about the songs that Im getting infromation about, well I went to AllMusic and found out that most songs and the album is Pop Rock Post Gruge and Adult Alternative. This song has three genres that I found Pop/Rock, Adult Alternative Pop/Rock and Teen Pop. And by the way I had too get the [Australia CD] link because thats all they had.--Sprite7868 (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

waltz[edit]

I'm all for keeping "waltz" in the description. I tried searching for a source and found DOZENS of websites which call it a waltz, but many websites I had never heard of and wasn't sure if any of them are reliable sources. But I really have no reasons for removing "waltz" from the article, even without a source. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm With You → I'm with You? caps —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't there a huge debate on this a while back? I don't have a side in this yet, but I bet it's controversial. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the article's talk page, there was much discussion regarding With vs. with about 4½ years ago. I've always been for "with" but previous consensus seemed to be for "With" using the idea that it's been marketed as "With" so that's what should stay. Since there's a new album with the name I'm with You, I have proposed an alternate move to I'm with You (song), found below and on the article's talk page. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm With You → I'm with You (song) – With the creation of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' new album, I'm with You, there has been new focus on this article. There was debate 4½ years ago regarding the move from I'm With You to I'm with You which resulted in leaving it as a capital "W" on the basis that the song was marketed with a capital W in all instances; however, there appears to have been no definite consensus on the matter. MoS dictates that the word "with" should be stylized as lower case for article titles in music, unless it is the first or last word in the title. Adding '(often stylized "I'm With You")' in the prose would be enough to satisfy the stylization aspect. Another user has already requested this page be moved to I'm with You on the Requested Moves page, but I believe there is more to it now. I feel that this article should actually be renamed to I'm with You (song), since the RHCP album may obtain more (or similiar) notability than this song and thus this article would be come a disambiguation page instead of defaulting to this song, avoiding bad links before they start for users who wish to link to the new RHCP album. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:CAPS and the fact that the album will likely be just as notable (probably moreso.) I'm with You should become a dab or the album's page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Agree with Justin above. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:CRYSTAL reasoning about the album. This is an award winning top-10 hit song. The album has not won any awards yet. 65.94.45.185 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the album does not obtain any awards or chart in any way, there still exists two articles by the same name "I'm with You", and per WP:NCM, a differentiation should be made. With that aside, and even if "(song)" is agreed to not be added to the article title, per WP:CAPS, the article should at least be titled "I'm with You" vs. "I'm With You". ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 12:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is not WP:CRYSTAL, the Peppers are big enough that their album already rivals a US #4 song as primary topic even before its release. So currently there is no primary topic; My crystal ball tells me that the album may become it, but that's for the future. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The W should at least be changed to lowercase as that's what we do with prepositions per WP:CAPS. Jafeluv (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What consensus?[edit]

This page was just moved citing "consensus on the talk page". I see no consensus to capitalize "with". In fact I see much consensus against it. I see no discussion at all in the past year or more. Please explain. Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit lost on this one myself. Why stir up trouble nearly a YEAR after the move discussion has already been completed without incident or any further disagreement? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on I'm with You (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm with You"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of I'm with You is under discussion, see talk:I'm with You (album) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on I'm with You (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 17:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 22:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 19:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_with_You_(Avril_Lavigne_song)&oldid=1202887940"