Talk:Wish You Were Here (Avril Lavigne song)

Song Charting
This article has used this Billboard page as a source to show that "Wish You Were Here" charted on both the Billboard Hot 100 and the Canadian Hot 100. While this was being sourced from the official website, I was very confused since Goodbye Lullaby showed only charts from "What the Hell"; furthermore, the tracklist linked to this Billboard page, which never had any charts listed.

Both Billboard pages have since been stripped of any evidence of charting, leading to the belief that there was an error made and this song has never entered the charts. Thus, it is not notable and has been redirected to the album's article.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  22:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Internal error. even more it happened, the offline magazine itself is the source. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the offline magazine sourced? I don't see it referenced anywhere. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not live in the States, I do not have the magazine, but the issue must be from the week ending March 19. I don't know why you cannot assume good faith and believe people who saw that that song charted. You could access to it one week, if you didn't want to do it, it is not my problem. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 17:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has suggested that the content of this page should be moved to Goodbye Lullaby as it has not yet been officially confirmed as a single to have its own article. I don't know who created this page or the admin, but I must say I was not the one who nominated it for deletion or any such thing. I'm just suggesting you move this content to Goodbye Lullaby. But its a really great article otherwise and can serve aas means of future reference if this song becomes a single. :) Aralyn1999 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Release Date
There seems to be some conflicting opinions on what date should be used in the infobox by multiple users. I agree that physical release should rule, but where exactly is that defined? I looked at WP:SONGS and found only information regarding what category to use based on release year. The page also directs infobox information to Template:Infobox single, which states: "Released: This field should refer to the earliest known date, using a single occurrence of Start date as, for example " July 31, 2007 ". (Use "  " if only year and month are known, or "  " for just a year)." This does not define whether preference toward radio release or sale release should be used. Someone help me out here, I'm tired of seeing the ediwarring. =)  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  00:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really at SONGS, but here. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  00:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger that. I can see my statement of "multiple users" was quite the understatement based on that lengthy discussion. Consensus definitely points to "release" meaning "available to the public" via some kind of exclusive sale (not just a download FROM an album). Aka - September.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Okay, now I'm confused. Why has it been put back to the radio airplay date if apparent agreement is that it should be first physical release? ..? o.O (edit: I've rephrased my previous statement to be less vague as to what I meant?)  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User Bigwhofan keeps putting the release date back to July....i keep reverting his edits and put it back to September...but he's not stopping...what should i do? 68.62.240.86 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Before we take this to any kind of noticeboard, I've invited the user to participate in this discussion. As there have been no comments made regarding the definition of "release date" by all parties involved in the changes, it's best to make sure the user is aware a discussion exists first.  If no consensus can be reached from simple dialogue, administrators should then be contacted. (be patient)  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the first release for "Smile" in the infobox, the release date shown is the radio airplay date (also the first release of any kind from the single), so I think the same should apply to "Wish You Were Here". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigwhofan (talk • contribs) 12:41, September 3, 2011
 * Please forgive me, but using that article isn't the best of examples, since you were the one that added it there, too (here here here and here) despite numerous reversions there, as well. The discussion linked above at WP:SONGS seems to have consensus that all articles should list the first physical or digital release, not a radio airplay release.  Do you have any reasons why that consensus should not be used here?  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  22:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When the page for "Smile" was first about, the first release date published in the info box was the first radio airdate, even though phychical release dates were listed below, making me think when it was changed to a phychical/digital release date, was was wrong - so I did the same for "Wish You Were Here", but now thinking about it, the infobox release dates on both articles should have pychical releases listed instead, so that makes me go on to say, should the radio releases even be listed at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigwhofan (talk • contribs) 12:50, September 4, 2011
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 4 Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you READ discussions at all, Tbhotch? It's CLEAR the problem with physical release vs. radio release has already been solved. Even when people AGREE with you, you still leave responses and make edits that give no indication of civility.  Leaving nasty edit summaries and HTML comments obviously didn't help any, so proper communication was used and the issue is SOLVED.  The question you are apparently attempting to answer is asking if radio release should be listed at all IN THE ARTICLE, not the infobox. Do you have an answer or opinion on that subject or are you going to leave another comment about why radio releases are wrong? WTF, dude.  Grow up and participate in conversation.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Release History
Can someone add the release dates for U.S. Top 40 mainstream/Radio? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.118.175 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Archives
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that ever source should be archived in the article. My love is love (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, all sources in every article should be archived. In the age of the internet, everything can change.  Things deleted, never able to be recovered.  Archiving saves a copy of a reference so it will forever be accessible to be able to verify information in the future. Whether that's actually feasible to archive every reference is a different question entirely. =D  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  16:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Epic Records
If there has been official confirmation of her moving to Epic, then source it b/c there has not been any official statement or report of her moving to another label from what I have seen. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Until it can be properly sourced through some kind of official statement, I think it should be left off the articles.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  04:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the source that people use to claim she has moved to Epic and that this single is released under Epic:

http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=16691

This kind of source is not always accurate and very often contains misprints. An official statement would be best. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

B class
This article I think is extremely close to B-class. The few things I noticed with it: Otherwise, it looks to me like someone took good care filling out most of the citations properly, but there are still some that need more information (access dates, etc.). My only other suggestion, which would be more related to GA status than B-class, is the music video section could be tightened up, less description of the video (in which nothing really happens). The music video reception section is larger than the song's reception section! – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 01:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In the lead, first paragraph, "Critical reception towards the song was positive, with critics praising it as a highlight on the album." In the lead, second paragraph, "Upon its release on the Internet, it received positive to mixed reviews from music critics who praised Lavigne's portrayal of emotions...". This needs clarification. The album came out months before this did as an Internet single.
 * 2) In the "Background and synopsis" section, the very first sentence, "On August 9, on her official website, Lavigne posted pictures from the shooting of the music video for "Wish You Were Here", one of a red flower, and another of her lying on a wooden floor. Lavigne said that the video will be very raw and exposed, unlike her previous videos "What the Hell" and "Smile"." uses a citation that references AvrilLavigne.com—not acceptable; this needs to be a reliable, third-party source. Shouldn't be difficult to locate.
 * 3) Leah Collins's article is listed in the references three different times. There should be one reference, and the multiple citations in the article removed.
 * 4) In the "Live performances" section, an abcnews.go.com video source doesn't go to where it's supposed to; and the reference itself says "null", which isn't a good sign. Also, the sentence "She also performed it on November 24, 2011 at Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, November 28, 2011 on Regis and Kelly and December 7, 2011 on The Rachael Ray Show." is unsourced.
 * 5) The one sentence in "Uses in other media" section is unsourced. One sentence for a section should probably be consolidated into the article.
 * 6) In the Charts section, "Tophitru" should probably read Tophit.ru and the reference needs to warn that the language is in Russian (despite it being obvious).
 * 7) Awards section needs citations.