Talk:The Best Damn Thing

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

Citations Added[edit]

I've cited all the tracks, please be sure to give links if you're going to add any more. It's a hassle to clean it up. Also, a note should be added that it is in fact a paparazzi picture that has been put up, I'll try and get that fixed. Britishenglish 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever keeps deleting the references, cut it out. There are more references in the article than just the Billboard site. And please quit removing the link to the Rolling Stone article, it is proof of the existence of "I Could Do Better". This is getting irritating. Britishenglish 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sued[edit]

Can we add that Avril has been sued for plagiarism by Tommy Dunbar because Girlfriend sounds exactly like His bands song I want To Be Your Boyfriend? TaylorLTD 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism Allegations[edit]

This section in the main article currently includes the following information about a Paris Hilton song: On July 10, the song "I Don't Have to Try" sparked further plagiarism speculation, after Perez Hilton and Rolling Stone noted similarities between it and Peaches's 2003 song "I'm the Kinda".[11]

While this sentence about Ms. Hilton's song is true, I am wondering what the connection is to Lavigne. This is not a page about current plagarism allegations in popular music. It is about the album "The Best Damn Thing." Should the sentence about "I Don't Have To Try" be removed? GRSUS 07:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I don't know where you got Paris Hilton from. Perez Hilton is a celebrity gossip blogger. "I Don't Have to Try" is on this album. Donkay ote 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, reinstating since people can't comprehend English.Donkay ote (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

This is clearly a biased article. I'm really starting to lose my faith in Wikipedia. The article states that Lavigne was "exonerated" but settled out of court. Settling out of court is not an exoneration, and is usually a sign of guilt.

Also, the article says Chantel Kreviazuk retracted her claims of plagiarism. I can find no article on the internet that says that, and the source cited is an article where Kreviazuk repeats her accusation. Not to mention, this should be in a Controversy section on Lavigne's main page. Clearly this is an attempt to keep a Controversy section out of her article.

You guys should be ashamed of yourself. You should know better than to edit an article for a performer you like and respect. It's unprofessional, and gives us articles like this, which are so biased they're not even worth reading.

Get it together. Christ. Maynard (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.94.63 (talk)

(Confirmed) Track Listing[edit]

The track listing has been removed from the article, was the one which was there was unconfirmed? or it had been confirmed via her Myspace account? Well, if it was confirmed from her official Myspace account, taht must be true.. or at least we put tuhe unconfirmed temporary track listing here? before the official one is confirmed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.247.53.106 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Album cover[edit]

That isn't her new album cover.That is a paparazzi shot of her when she was shooting photos for her new album (most likely for the linear notes). Johnpedia 09:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Do Better[edit]

Added new song from rolling stone article, see article at: http://popoutblog.blogspot.com and that is NOT her album cover. 24.69.67.173 03:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

She is definitely not doing "anything" that can be related to punk rock or pop punk. Please stop changing the genre.

But her music is not related to Rock either. It is something close to a commercial Pop pop music. My opinion is (based on her previously released tracks) that this can be a kind of lame punk pop. Anyway, it's very far from Rock, lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levidos (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
How about power pop? I know it sounds ditzy, but it's actually the label the Who used to describe themselves. Classified by a focus on the melody, and instrumentally being guitar-driven (especially electrically). The genre's morphed to include the likes of Green Album-era Weezer, Fountains of Wayne and the New Pornographers. I wouldn't say that's bad company for Avril, and it's got "pop" built right into the name. DackAttac 06:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, The Best Damn Thing is much closer to pop punk than her previous outputs (Let Go and Under My Skin). I can understand that Let Go is somewhat pop or alternative-rock while Under My Skin is pop-rock. Some tracks on The Best Damn Thing is still pop-rock, but some of them do have pop-punk influence on them. No relation to punk-rock, though.

A pop-punk influence does not make her pop punk. She sounds nothing like Screeching Weasel, Descendents, or Lagwagon, which are REAL pop punk bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SumwhatDecent (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parental Advisory[edit]

Is this really noteworthy? It's not like she hasn't cursed on an album before, plus I don't believe one F-bomb is enough to get the sticker on some labels. The Strokes, also on RCA, managed to drop two of them on Barely Legal, but its album Is This It didn't get the explicit stamp. I suppose given the era of all-ages pop-rock Avril's career originated amidst and the cultural connotations with that label, it would be noteworthy. But only if this disc gets the label.

And for the record, the censoring wasn't really appropriate. If an album says fuck, its page shouldn't be so shy. DackAttac 06:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani only used two fucks and she got one. P!nk only used three fucks as well and look at what happened to hers. But then again, Britney Spears got away with one fuck on her "In The Zone" CD. -24.92.43.153 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no universal standard for the stamp, each label has its own set of standards. P!nk's on Arista (plus that CD had nine fucks on it) and Gwen's on Interscope. But if that deluxe cover's for real, it's all moot anyway. DackAttac 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never noticed any "fuck" on In The Zone. Alex43223 T | C | E 15:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cites[edit]

The first two cites in the article, from MTV News, don't confirm either the title or the release date, yet they are in a position in the article where one would expect them to confirm those things. It's misleading. Cites should correspond to the actual information they're backing up. Everyking 09:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holding On[edit]

A new version in the Album?Yeah, right....Xr 1 21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new version of it on the leaked version. Sounds pretty good. Joe D 07:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the version I've heard is the same as in the Eragorn Soundtrack (and as in the single) and it's from the album.Xr 1 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC) "Originally, a different version was to be included, but the original version made it instead." Well ok.I thought I was so unlucky...The original sounds amazing :] Xr 1 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

If you ask me, I think that whoever added the singles section should make it smaller because it's way too big. If no one changes it, I will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Musictomyears (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I formatted the page a little bit. Now it's not like a timeline anymore. Plus I added stuff to the album description (the first paragraph). I took most of that from the Avril Lavigne Wikipedia page. I know that the album made its radio debut on on Hot 89.9 at 6 pm on April 14. Maybe someone can find a website to site it from because that information isn't on the internet yet. Avril and Deryck 4ever! 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Standard version[edit]

When you say Standard you mean 'I will never Find the {Only Good}Bad version so instead I have to listend to Shhhh, Hey, Mother____ crap'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.108.4.72 (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sales/Shipment Citations needed[edit]

You need a lot more citations for the Sales/Shipments section. The Taiwan G-Music Charts only show the percent of the chart that the album has sold, so it makes me curious how you know it has sold/shipped 20,000 already. X2RADialbomber 01:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On May 5th, "Girlfriend" reached #1 on the Billboard Hot 100,[edit]

wait what? May 5th?

From the billboard hot 100 article:

Each chart is dated with the "week-ending" date of the following Saturday. 

   Example:

       Monday, January 1 – sales tracking-week begins
       Wednesday, January 3 — airplay tracking-week begins
       Sunday, January 7 – sales tracking-week ends
       Tuesday, January 9 – airplay tracking-week ends
       Thursday, January 11 – new chart released, with issue date of Saturday, January 20.

― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but[edit]

Can we add that the album is dumb and she lost most of her old fanbase because the album is weak and horribly written? TaylorLTD 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can't unless we have a reliable, written source--84.129.125.88 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this is her penultimate album. Not a reliable source, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.173.55 (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add other CATEGORIE[edit]

add this album (the best damn thing) to the categorie of "pop-punk album" (Gabo 084 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

yes we should

Josh Freese[edit]

If i am not mistaken, didnt josh freese drum on this album? Where is this pages personal section?

Fair use rationale for Image:Tbdt avril dvd.jpg[edit]

Image:Tbdt avril dvd.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 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4th Single?![edit]

The following singles have been released so far.

special single: "Keep Holding On" (Eragon Soundtrack)

"Girlfriend" , "When You're Gone", "Hot"


Here now my critics:


"I Can Do Better" ... In a vote the 2nd most believe it as next single. I think it would be to risky since Avril Lavigne said she recorded the song when she was drunk,but it is one of here favoutires. It's not so catchy IMHO but still rock.

"Runaway" ...Most belive it as up comming single. I don't think so because it wouldn't have a surprise effect on release, as it's already in the ng under of the billboard charts. It's more pop than rock, not so catchy at all and a bit boring IMO.

"The Best Damn Thing" ... Well it's got the same tintle like the album and has charted in the billboard bubbling under and so not unknown anymore. But it is very catchy I find. As it's boy bashing it's more natural avril style than songs like e.g. Hot,Contagious. It does rock, but I'm not sure if it's most powerfull than the other remained songs.

"Everything Back but You"... This song has a good mix between Avril's natural elements like "boy-bashing", and reminds a bit on the punky touch. And the slang words. I dont't find the best choice(not the most powerful) but avril may choose it.

"Innocence" - Here I agree with that what other think: "If this song comes up as new single, people may say she releases always power ballades". But this doesn't say I dont' like the song. It's may just not be so good choice marketing technical. Also it has been been played in some North American radio stations already and the rumours about an italian single relase and it's also been in bubbling under charts. It's just maybe to well known.

"I Don't Have to Try" - This song I find is most powerfull of the remaining songs,(when we take the standard album). It's also a bit heavy metal I would say. And the bonus that is not known so much.

"One of Those Girls" -I personally do like the text of the song. But objective I don't think it's superior minded to the others.

"Contagious" ..I believe the song is to short to make a video. And it's it's not so special.

"Keep Holding On" ..Why should the song be re-released. Marketing technical a crazy idea.

"Alone" - This song was the B-Side of Girlfriend. But it's very very catchy, super music maybe even better than Girlfriend.When I think about this song I had good ideas for a video. If it wasn't alredy a B-Side it would have been marketing technical an interesting idea to release this song now and then afterwars release the album again with the song "Alone" know added. It is on the "Limited Edition" I know but one can't get this album everywhere.

"I Will Be" Maybe good idea, but may have the same effect like Innocence/Keep holding on that she releases to much ballades.

Conclusion

  • Opinion of Others:

According to AvrilBandaids most find Runaway best choice for 4th Single.

  • My opinion: Avril Lavigne newer ever has released song's that contain of more than 3 words in the song title.

So subjective I'd find really the best song to release could be Alone because it's catchy also boy bashing..

So if I let the stupid fact away and stay objective and think about what's possible I would say to release I Don't Have to Try is the best way. The punkish fans would like it and it's powerfull and boy bashing too IMO.

  • But I can't really say what Avril will do only what would be best to do.

So I think she may choose Everything Back but you (has punk edge and is on a DVD performed (Live). I also think she maybe doesn't release a 4th Single but that would be a to easy solution and Avril is rather a bit "Complicated" so that doesn't fit together *g*. N00bh4ck3r (talk)--

Can't we just WAIT till the next single is confirmed/released? Darth NormaN (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the single's gonna be the title song "The Best damn thing". --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Alledged Plagarism[edit]

"Keep Holding on" sounds alot like Chemical Romance's song "Welcome to the Black Parade". The beginning instrumental parts and sound of the song sound the absolute same! Some one even proves this with a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymUhCCxDPVk&NR=1) So should that be added?

The Best Damn Tour[edit]

Why was it merged into the album? It doesn't match anything tour related on Wikipedia at ALL!!! 209.89.227.122 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah because after all its just a tour.. this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_Damn_Thing#Promotion is everything that has to be said about the tour imo --Darth NormaN (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but then under your reasoning, The Return of the Spice Girls, Get Loose Tour and Dignity Tour shouldn't exist then? --WestJet (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well there was a discussion about deleting the tour article.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Best_Damn_Tour Darth NormaN (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what about merging it more like we did on the other albums? I prepared something, look: The Best Damn Tour
- Darth NormaN (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance and sales -> <- Charts[edit]

hey, i looked through the article today and somehow i dont like that those two sections are seperated from each other.. what about moving them together? i thought about the following: 1. remove all the text that is written about the singles; 2. moving the chart table to "charts performance and sales" and 3. update the chart table properly with the REAL peak numbers would shorten the article a lot in my opinion, what do you think? Darth NormaN (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darth_NormaN/The_Best_Damn_Thing tell me what you think, please Darth NormaN (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Damn Tour[edit]

please STOP ADDING THE TOUR DATES! its against WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:OR and WP:NN. The article also gets way too long and all information about the dates and setlist are referenced in the passage concerning the tour. thanks. --Darth NormaN (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to add the tour dates other way? There's no longer an extra page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli W 93 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "List of The Best Damn Tour Dates" Oli W 93 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well all tour articles consisting out of tour dates only got deleted (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bonez_Tour, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Promotional_Tour_2004) and why do we need the tour dates in an encyclopedia? i mean if you want to visit one of her concerts, just go to her website, the dates are there. Wikipedia should only inform the reader, that there IS a tour and MAYBE link to the dates/setlist of that tour on the artist's site. --Darth NormaN (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there you're right. But please link to sites which won't remove the dates after they are over. So the official site is not the best idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli W 93 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP with the Genres![edit]

What's the problem putting a lot of genres that avril doesn't sing too? It's really absurd I think that it'll better if we put genres with some source... and stop to adding a lot of non-sense genres to this album. PS: there are a lot of genre than the best damn thing's songs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.39.188 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the related discussion at Talk:Avril Lavigne#Genres D0762 (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other bonus tracks[edit]

On the Limited Version of the best damn thing i bought "Girlfriend Manderin Version (Clean)" is a bonus track and "When You're Gone" is an iTunes bonus track on the Deluxe Edition on itunes (at least in Canada). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.193.43 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i ment that "when you're gone acoustic" is a bonus track on canada itunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.193.43 (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class?[edit]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of seeing the "stub" banner at the top of the page. I have checked the article and the stub template has been removed, so if someone more qualified than me could make a fair assessment of the article that would be great:) Lowri (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

get off of my cloud[edit]

On July 2, 2007, songwriters for the U.S. band The Rubinoos filed a lawsuit against Lavigne, her publishing company and Dr. Luke, stating that the song "Girlfriend" was very similar to The Rubinoos' 1979 single "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend". This single was plagiarized from "Get Off Of My Cloud", which song of The Rolling Stones and was released in 1965. [11]

The hastily written second sentence about the Rubinoos song plagiarizing the Rolling Stones song is not supported by anything in note 11. I'm leaving it alone because I don't really care.

75.68.160.188 (talk)Sean —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merging The Best Damn Tour[edit]

hey there, it would be nice if someone else could look into The Best Damn Tour 2008 to pick out the most relevant infos of the tour and merge them into this article. I've already started doing so but maybe I overlooked something important. Thanks --Darth NormaN (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Don't merge tour dates![reply]

GA?[edit]

With a bit of expansion to the opening paragraph, I think this could be a Good Article. Anyone else agree? Zylo1994 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget I said that o_o Zylo1994 (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MIX magazine[edit]

Awesome article here with all sorts of goodies on the behind-the-scenes of this album. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 09:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre (2)[edit]

Everything was okay, until somebody came to add just Pop and Rock. I think it shouldnt be just that two (generally)... it's better to keep the old source. Because if somebody wants to add Punk it's well, because avril herself add Pop/Punk/Rock to Myspace when The Best Damn Thing was released. In this case... where is the Pop influence? just in teen pop? avril is teen pop but in a rock/pop-rock style of music... remember that teen pop also encompass hip-hop, rock, rap, r&b style, in the term of TEEN. If we talk about pop-punk and pop-rock... that genres are more into the Rock style than Pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.170.30 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with that entire statement. You use terms such as "somebody wants to" and "we talk about"... these all point to original research and possibly opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which (ideally) posts only information which has been published by reliable sources. If the USA Today describes her as goth, then so be it. Notice that all genres in the Background section of this article are sourced to the specific location that a reputable publisher has described Avril's genre to be.
With all that aside, I think that the infobox was fine just saying pop and rock. Those are the two main areas her music is described within, using sub-genres of those categories. However, adding the link to the specific section in the article which explains her genre in more detail is also a good idea. But I think we can have the best of both worlds with something like "Pop, rock (more details)" or something along those lines. I'm not quite sure what the proper wording for that should be, though.
Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bad idea removing it or keeping it (since generally, I'm against editing anything to do with genres anyway), but just remember to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when you edit! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can meet in the middle with the way it is now, can't we? Infobox needs to summarise information; rock and pop summarise the many genres TBDT is considered and then there is a list with individual citations, as before. I personally do not see what you don't like. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who you're really talking to.. The article is exactly how I suggested it right now... but I don't really have a personal preference either way. Listing them in the article is a fine way to add more detail, I just don't think the infobox should be left completely empty. The article looks fine now. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 12:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I was talking to the OP. I agree with you; the infobox shouldn't be left empty, it should simply be a brief summary. However, maybe this is irrelevant but I'll say it anyway, I really think that the Avril Lavigne singles should have more in-depth genres WITH citations just to stop the genre wars. Plus, most of the singles are a bit bare so it's not like there's a 'background' section to add the genres to like we did with the albums. Zylo1994 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Since albums typically contain a variety of songs, it's good here to generalize. Songs, however, are more specific and can list them all without issue. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 12:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So looking at your answers... it's better to add a new section, about the album's style ... because putting it in the background doesnt look good at all ... What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.161.36 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but would a seperate section specifically for the genres look good? I agree with you that it should be moved but I think we need to be careful about where we move it to. On the Let Go article the ggenres are in the 'writing and recording' section. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that I think our own judgement and common sense may be needed for genre adding; some sources list hundreds of genres that don't even come close to Lavigne's style (punk music, for example). What I'm saying is that try to assess the reliability and accuracy of the source before adding it - we only want these articles to improve! ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre (3)[edit]

Having a section just for the genre of her album's is just downright stupid. There's no point in it all. As User:ScottMHoward pointed out, genres get vandalized a lot, which is true. But what is the exception here? ALL genres get vandalized from time to time. It's simple to revert it. I've tried to change it, a few times, and it kept getting reverted. Is it so hard to do that if someone changes it? ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 20:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the introduction of a musical style section (this is definitely not the only article which has one, by the way), genre vandalism has dropped tremendously; however, the reasons for introducing this section is not based solely on vandalism, but the large quantity and wide range of genres associated with each album. It is easiest for the reader (and editors) to only list the most basic genres in the infobox and then explain in more detail within the prose. Not all articles have to be identical in style and form. Every article is unique and different methods work for different articles. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but this is actually quite pointless. It barely has that much genres, and I've seen a whole lot more that contain more. Obviously trying to bring this up is a waste of my time, as the same people will only reply, shooting everything down. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well having 8 genres and 8 references crammed into the infobox looks very disorganised and very confusing. The infobox should be short, sharp, summarising information and since all these genres are either subgenres of rock or pop, it works out perfectly. Plus, as Scott has said, the vandalism has pretty much stopped since we've introduced it (on all 3 Avril Lavigne album articles - this is not the only one). So actually, it isn't pointless; it keeps the infobox tidy and easy to view, as well as reducing vandalism. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be waiting for an unbiased response/someone who didn't do it in the first place to reply. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree with Ending-start. Having a section specifically for the genres is pointless. The infobox is meant to sum up outstanding information from the article and be short and sweet, yes! But adding genres to the infobox is as short, sweet and tidy as it gets. It's better than having a very short (unnecessary, might I add) section for it. Besides, making the section won't reduce vandalism...that's bull. People will vandalize any which way. And about your approach on explaining the genre in more detail, let's be a little more substantial and not add such things like "The Best Damn Thing is not easily defined by just a few genres." Well obviously.. a lot of albums are "not easily defined by just a few genres" nowadays.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gariseiro (talk • contribs) 02:06, November 15, 2010 EST
Ending-start I am far from biased and I'm sure Scott M. Howard is too. We're both impartial editors who only want the best for the article. When we first discussed this on the Project Album's talk page (view the discussion here) I was also very against it. However I have to say it really has reduced vandalism a lot, since most vandalism occurred due to genres. The infobox should be a summary; why have 8 genres (each with up to four references) when you can simply summarise them with 2? Zylo1994 (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By biased, I am talking about those who did weren't involved with doing it in the first place - that is indeed biased, sticking to your plan and saying it's just fine. People like Gariseiro, is who I am referring to. All albums can't be defined by just a few genres, but they are listed the best way they can in the infobox, WHERE THEY BELONG. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've just said what we've been saying all along! "All albums can't be defined by just a few genres, but they are listed the best way they can in the infobox" I completely agree with you that albums can't have loads and loads of genres stuffed into the infobox. That is why we made a section specifically for genres. For this article, the genres are listed the "best way they can" - by summarising them in the infobox and going into more detail in the actual article. Zylo1994 (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What he is saying is that ALL articles have problems with a too-broad selection of genres and they are dealth with differently, so why should this article be any different and have its own section.
With that possible misunderstanding out of the way, Ending-Start is right that genres do belong in the infobox, but there is no policy on wikipedia that dictates that all genres must be placed in the infobox, and the infobox only. As we have stated in the past, the current method of creating a "musical style" is best fitted for this article (see Evanescence for an example of another successful article using this method) to avoid vandalism and to better display the wide variety of genres. I agree that it is might not be as well-written as it should, but the fact remains that genre-vandalism has nearly been eliminated from this article (and what little has been done is much more obvious by this method) and there's no rule that says it can't be done this way. If it works, why fix it? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seems fair enough but expand on the section a little more. I mean, if you can, name each song and define it's genre and.. just try to expand on it a little more. It looks unorganized with like, "pop[1][2][3], powerpop[4][5][6], alternative pop[7]. It may confuse the reader and make them wonder why those numbers are there...and because of what is currently written, it doesn't seem like it should warrant it's own section. Do you know what I'm saying? I'm sure there is information and you seem like you know what you're doing more than I do anyway. Garry says OK (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with that as well. If it was more detailed, it would be fine. But it still doesn't make sense to have it at all. I think the best way to decide is to just use one source - not a million like done here, because obviously different places are going to say different genres. I say either expand the section, or move them to the genre section, where they do belong. And by the way, do you guys not think that the section could be vandalized as well? ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity + Where Did The Slant Mag. Review Go?[edit]

Out of curiosity, why is there a semi-lock on this article? lol

Also, where did the Slant Magazine review go? I realize that they're insulting Avril (Which makes me want to lkajgkajs them) but it still provides an unbiased look on this article, besides saying "Slant magazine gave it poor reviews". 66.60.210.32 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a dead link so it probably got removed. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit[edit]

Are only two songs on this album explicit? "Girlfriend", and "I Can Do Better" -- CDK (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Have to Try and Everything Back But You are also explicit. --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 03:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Important Fact is Missing[edit]

I've read this Wiki article and those pertaining to the singles released from this album and I have yet to find which studio(s) the songs were recorded in. We have producer's credits, songwriting credits, session musicians, etc. etc. but nowhere is the studio listed. Can the gatekeeper of this Wikki article please include this information. Thank You. By the way, just as an aside, it's interesting to listen to Avril's recordings at this late date and hear in retrospect how much Taylor Swift and Ke$ha's productions/songs sound like Avril's. She is clearly a leader. 184.76.56.97 (talk)JSJR 01232014 —Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Best Damn Thing. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Best Damn Thing. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Best Damn Thing. 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) 13:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Best_Damn_Thing&oldid=1199918519"