Template talk:Avril Lavigne

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pop music This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Canada: Music This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles This template is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

First, kudos to User:Andyroost for the collapsible template layout. My motivation for this edit was to improve readability. Short, wide templates are easier to read than tall, narrow ones. Feel free to continue the cleanup and any feedback is welcome. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why does someone collapse the singles part to singles and other singles? it makes no sense since they are all "singles" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.236.86 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There is a discussion on the Avril Lavigne article regarding the replacement of this template and the Avril Lavigne singles template to form one condensed template included above (click [show] to view the template). If there are any objections to this change, please refer to the discussion previously linked and state your reasons for objection. If there are no reasonable objections to this change, the template will be replaced on 27 March 2010. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This new album being added to the template appears to be an unofficial remix album released by Sony in the UK (it rather reminds me of Evanescence's "Not For Your Ears" bootleg album--notable in its own right, but not as an officially released album). I don't think it's notable enough to be included here as there are likely dozens of other albums that fit the same criteria that aren't included here. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Tron template had done something interesting, and I thought it'd be fun to maybe do a similar thing with this template, only less involved. Avril's known for her black/hot pink colors (though apparently "lime green" is the new thing), so I did a quick mock-up at my sandbox. Although the spirit of WP:BOLD is to try stuff like this, I wasn't about to risk it without getting some feedback! Let me know what you think; would it be fun to try it out temporarily? My other thought was maybe do something like this for her next release in several years. We could've done a green theme for the latest album. Just a thought to keep things a little lively, show the world that the AL team is more fun than the rest of the community :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind trying it out for a while, but I'm leaning toward keeping it the way it is. I think the place for full customizing of colors and styles is the Portal, but not a template that appears on multiple pages. With that said, I like how you kept it simple. At first glance of the Tron template, it was a bit overwhelming. My only suggestion would be to flip the colors so it's less neon and flows with the standard contrast theme of Wikipedia. Making the background color pink (maybe a touch more pale) and the text black. Those are my all my thoughts on this idea. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay how about now? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely like the pink as a main color vs. black. I took your design and built up on it a little bit, adding some contrast and including the inner subgroup. I'm kinda liking this idea now lol ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, and I think it matches the portal as well. You were right, the black was too much (I was gleaning a little too much from the Tron thing). Avril Lavigne isn't a lightsaber, she deserves a more feminine approach. I like it! Should we implement? See if there are any adverse reactions? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Pink'd! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I played around a little more in your sandbox to add borders throughout the template, but that just looked ugly... So this looks very good the way it is. =D I did have to undo your "test" though... that first liststyle parameter is needed, otherwise the "light rows" go grey instead of very-light-pink. ;) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way on earth would I have ever noticed that, thanks for catching that! I was flipping back and forth at the sandbox and didn't see a damn thing change... but now I do. Thanks for your help with all this. I guess no one else has this page on their watchlist, so we'll see what happens. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please change it back to neutral. Avril's colors are not all hot pink anymore. The profile picture and the hot pink is very outdated. If ANY color, go with green to represent her latest album cover. The hot pink looks terrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.232.237 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, thanks for your suggestion! What do you think of a green version? Feel free to tweak it if you'd like. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little experimental, but the template is now pink for all articles and green for Goodbye Lullaby, "What the Hell", and "Smile". Seeing as how Avril's "Forbidden Rose" perfume still uses the black/pink/purple color motif, I don't see her as having left these themes behind. I added documentation explaining the color change, and there is now a sandbox which contains (at the moment) the green code. I will add the pink code as well and anyone can go into the history and retrieve either. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Rose was released before the album and is a minor part in her image. Green looks very professional while pink looks childish, and I think a more professional template would look wonderful. I think the green could go a bit darker if we are gonna use green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.232.237 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True on all accounts, I suppose, though just for the record, "Forbidden Rose" was released in August 2010 and the cover photography for Goodbye Lullaby was completed in January of that year. We don't really know when she decided to actually incorporate "green" into her personal image (obviously recently), but my point is that pinks and purples have been a trademark of hers—mentioned in interviews as well—for years, even after production on her album began in 2008/2009. I agree the green should be darker, possibly grayer; I kept messing with it and eventually moved on to other things. If we get more participation here regarding colors, we can always end up doing a more neutral black/gray scheme or something. Anything is better than the yellow/paste original (a scheme for "solo singers", I believe). I'll work on this some more in a little while. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind her color for her Black Star Tour is green. Her poster is green, her boots are green, and her hair is green :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.232.237 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a much simpler way of coding this template for multiple color usage. In a way, I like the idea of the automatic determination of whether to display green or pink, but that would require modifying this template's inner codings each time a new article is to use the new color (or if the article is moved to a new name). I think the easiest way to change the color would be to call the template with {{Avril Lavigne}}, {{Avril Lavigne|pink}} or {{Avril Lavigne|green}}, depending on how it's coded as default, etc. This will make it MUCH easier for future articles to implement the color preference without having to hard-code it into the template itself. Speaking of hard-coding, we'll have to determine a default color to use first (probably pink) so that {{Avril Lavigne}} will display pink, {{Avril Lavigne|green}} will display green, {{Avril Lavigne|pink}} will display pink, and {{Avril Lavigne|gobbledegook}} will display pink. To do this, the parameters would be coded as:

|titlestyle = {{#switch: {{{1|pink}}}|green=background:#41DA00;color:#009900;|background:#FF88FF;color:#FF3366;}}

Translation: if the template is not sent an additional parameter, make it pink. If there is an additional parameter, and it is "green", make it green; if it is not "green", make it pink.

This also opens the door in case she decides to go blue in the future, or any other color. Simply adding a |blue= parameter to each of the color switches will make the new option available by calling {{Avril Lavigne|blue}}. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 05:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it! I'll start adding the switch function to the sandbox. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I also darkened the green in the titlestyle as requested by IP above. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coding looks amazing now! I was going to go ahead and do it last night, but it was approaching 1:30 in the morning and I work at 9... though I've spent many a night in the past coding away until the birds start chirping, I wasn't quite in the mood last night. =D Thanks a lot for implementing it so well so quickly! Just that change chopped 1,351 bytes off the total file size so it helps in that respect, too! (I'm such a technical dork lol) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was no trouble at all, just two browser windows open and copy/pasting—it was an excellent idea, and I agree, this will save server kitties! I want her to release a blue album now hahaha. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new parameter to the template which allows someone to add collapse=on or collapse=off to the template call to make the template collapsed or not (it will default to autocollapse otherwise). The template had already defaulted to autocollapse before this implementation, but I've noticed that just about every single Avril Lavigne-related article shows the template as collapsed. Is this good or bad? Should the default be uncollapsed? Or should each of the most-important articles be called using {{Avril Lavigne|collapse=off}}? I'm not sure the best way to go about editing this, if the issue even needs to be addressed. Who knows, maybe a collapsed-by-default is a good thing?

P.S. - Apparently the order in which the parameters is called doesn't matter ({{Avril Lavigne|collapse=on|green}} is the same as calling {{Avril Lavigne|green|collapse=on}}). I assumed green should have to be called first given the {{{1}}} usage, but I guess the 1 just means the first parameter without an = sign being used. Who knows--Wikipedia can be weird sometimes. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this as well, and I really can't figure it out. I thought maybe categories or hidden categories were affecting it; I have no idea, though. Auto-collapsed is supposed to be uncollapsed all the time, unless there is a second (or more) template, right? I haven't checked, so I could be wrong. Why the template remains uncollapsed on, say, the DVD articles, but not the song articles, is beyond me. (In other words, I haven't compared all these pages to each other.) Should the template just be uncollapsed permanently? Or is there a way to make it uncollapsed, unless there is another template—without being "auto-collapsed"? Finally, maybe this is a problem discussed at the actual template:navbox source. I won't have time to swing by tonight, though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some experimenting on the Goodbye Lullaby article and found that the template becomes uncollapsed when the track listings and professional reviews are removed from the article. Since both of these templates include a collapse feature, that must be what this navbox is looking for to determine whether it should collapse or not--other collapsible templates, not just other navboxes (though I won't be surprised to find out that these other templates use a navbox in order to make their collapse function work--but I'm too lazy to go digging around that far).

I think the best option here is to set collapse=off on the album and song articles. I looked at the list of articles this template appears on (between 50 and 100) and feel that making the template uncollapsed by default could be detrimental to a lot of articles (obscure producer articles with multiple navboxes, etc). So the 17 or so main articles that should have it expanded could just be forced to do so without harming other articles. ッ ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect, I saw the uncollapsed templates on a few articles and I think it looks great. I'd rather not change the track list templates or anything else just to appease the collapsing gods, and since you added the option to uncollapse the template, everything works out! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the images link in the template takes you to Category:Images of Avril Lavigne, an unfree, no-gallery category on en.wikipedia.org that pretty much has album covers, maybe posters, screenshots, any other unfree images. How would the importance of this category rank against the free images category available at Commons? Should we update the link to go there instead? I'm not sure about having two image links... that might clutter the template up. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did this after cleaning up the gallery a little bit at the Commons. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? I Help, When I Can.^[12] 05:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks horrible. It surely doesn't need to be set up in this manner. I'll change it to look more standardized for now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDITWAR halt on editing: For months, this is the way the template has looked. There's extensive discussion above regarding how it came about. It was changed and that's the way it remained for months and thus this becomes consensus. Please have a VALUABLE discussion before editwarring against consensus. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...the correct template is not being used for this artist. The pink (and green) styling of this template also make a joke of the music project and prevents consistency in the project's style. I think that the proper template should be used. Please state your opinions below. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of the template call, a call to {{Navbox musical artist}} does nothing but link to {{Navbox}} with preset color combinations, nothing more (not even a category inclusion) so there is nothing to gain by using NavboxMA vs. Navbox other than the "What links here" page. Since colors cannot be changed in NavboxMA, Navbox is used. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase A Christmas Story, "This looks like a pink nightmare." This should use the standard {{Navbox musical artist}} just like every other musical artist navbox, not some frosting-colored mess that looks like it came from Claire's. ScottMHoward, part of the point of using {{Navbox musical artist}} is not to allow editors to change the colors at whim, but to use a consistent color scheme that matches up with {{Infobox musical artist}}, thus aiding in a consistent look between musician articles. For pete's sake, you're changing the template to match the artist's hair color?!?! This is an encylopedia, not Tiger Beat. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I appreciate a discussion being started on this. First of all, I haven't read anywhere that templates can't be customized. Customization of a template that appears at the bottom of pages doesn't make Wikipedia a gossip website (or whatever Tiger Beat is) nor does it make the articles look like they come from such a site. However, the customizing of this AL template was a small experiment that I thought would add a little "pop" and zing to the bottom of the articles. I don't like the 70s yellow and gray templates, which look vomitous to me. But the pink template (based not so much on her hair, but her marketing colors for fragrances and Abbey Dawn clothing, etc) has certainly attracted attention, and if the consensus is to remove the colors, that's fine. I'm pro-color, but I'm also pro-consensus, and I certainly do appreciate the fact that people allowed it to last this long in the first place! Thanks : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it just takes that long to notice something. I surely don't think a template should be individualized to the artist. My preference is obviously for standardization, even if it is a mellow 70s look. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been staying completely impartial on this conversation so far, only explaining the facts and reasonings behind the way things were done. As you can see from the earlier discussion above, I was at first against coloring the templates, but after some revision they sortof grew on me (mostly because it was a fun programming project). If I had to actually vote which way to do it, I'd say to keep the colors. It doesn't really harm the articles and there's no concrete rule for standardization. My two cents. =D

On a somewhat related note (probably best saved for the WikiProject, but oh well), I like the way the Portuguese wiki does their musical artists. It has the same bland color combinations, but they spice it up with a musical note. Think we'll ever get that style going over here on English? (Though, I understand that PT has some lax policies and stuff--have you SEEN some of their Featured Articles?) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates that use color should keep accessibility in mind for thoses that are are partially or fully color blind. We actually use this colours as an example Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Color --> WP:COLOUR.Moxy (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, there is a guideline against this (that wasn't an essay either, its MOS). I Help, When I Can.^[12] 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the note of accessibility, choosing the colors did account for that. Using the tool at snook.ca, all colors are actually AAA compliant in the template (with the exception of "v·d·e" and "[hide]"), which is above and beyond the requirement of AA compliance.

As far as the guideline pointing against this, the only text I can find for that argument says "In the case that no properly identifying, accessible color exists; or the subject of the navbox should not be identified with a particular color (e.g., an average biography), the default navbox color should be used." All Avril Lavigne products, even beyond her music, have logos and color schemes which use these and thus can qualify as "properly identifying". Moreover, use of the word "should" is of course used because no guidelines are concrete (as they are, by definition, guidelines). As far as I can see, these colors satisfy both WP:COLOR (with flying colors--no pun intended), and WP:MOSTEXT#Color (properly identifying colors exist). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with what IllaZilla said. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. If you'd like to create your own colors of templates, then create your own LavignePedia. This isn't the place. Just because you two users don't like the normal colors means jack shit, to put it frankly. — Status {^talk_contribs  00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to reach a consensus, everyone's opinion matters. No single voice means "jack shit". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say opinions didn't matter? The "consensus" to change the colors in the first place was just you and Scott. And I read your reasoning above. — Status {^talk_contribs  03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, we got 4 votes to change this to the proper template and 2 votes to keep this as is. There we go! Changing now. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 06:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, consensus is not reached by voting, per se, but yes the apparent consensus was a reversion. Thanks for doing so! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The divisions made in the "Studio albums and singles" section of the template add unnecessary bulk to it. The information can be easily conveyed in the typical format. Avril Lavigne does not have enough articles to support such divisions. Chime in everyone. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 20:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I removed the color, I also removed this division. Here is the version I am proposing. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 20:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one minor detail, with this edit and summary ("No consensus for rearranging entire template"), it was more in reference to the fact that it was changed from its divisions and then changed again to a completely different version soon after (restoring divisions and swapping "DVDs" and "Other Songs") so it felt like a free-for-all. Just in the last discussion, I don't mind change--but I prefer it done professionally and orderly. In addition, the removed "collapse" parameter is actually a useful addition to the template as the "autocollapse" function wikipedia uses does not operate as it should when there are other "hide" boxes used in the article which have nothing to do with navboxes (tracklists, etc) and thus the template becomes collapsed on articles in which the full template should be displayed.

On the matter of which version of this template should be used now that color is removed (thank you to everyone, by the way, for the proper discussion before such bold removals), I'd vote toward keeping the divisions. With there being so many singles (15), there is at least one line break (two on smaller resolutions), causing there to be at least 3 (or 4) row of text to accomodate both albums and singles. The divisions only make the template a static 4 rows for albums and singles. So vs. the 3 (and sometimes 4) rows, there's not that much difference--so why not add a touch of organization to it. So that's the way I'd vote. But a strong vote toward keeping the collapse parameter at the very least. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that separating the singles and albums work just fine. One line break, big deal. Use that argument again when she has 30 singles. There's no need for it. Also, I believe the auto-collapse works just fine, so I say remove it. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 21:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When she has 30 singles, obviously things might be different. Right now she has 15 and divisions work fine. "One line break, big deal" is exactly what I'm saying (and it is two for people with still the standard 1024x768 fullscreen monitors). Having the line breaks makes the final size of the template nearly identical either way you look at it so this isn't a major issue. You've voiced your opinion. What happened to civil conversation? No need to turn EVERY statement into a competition of opinions. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm doing is telling you what I think of your reasoning. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 21:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Scott. I preferred it the way it was - it was more organised and easier to read. Zylo1994 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if there's enough singles now to warrant it's only template anyways. — Status {^talk_contribs  04:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the box is locked, I cannot add it to the list of her other songs. An administrator will have to do it instead.--67.84.73.254 (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The song only belongs in the discography, if anything. Unless it's released as a single or has other major impact, there's no reason to include a Nickelback song on the Avril Lavigne template. This template is a navigation box to better move around the Avril Lavigne-related articles only. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bad Reputation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.151.93 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The collapsible option explanatory template appears twice, because it's also being used in the documentation. The documentation also explains what the template explains (with a list of examples). I'm wondering if the documentation in its entirety is simply redundant and should be removed? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the 2nd, more recent template call to this. Somewhat recently, a user went through and mass-added the template to every template that had a "state" option that did not have {{collapsible option}} in the code. However, s/he did not look to see if the template was included on the documentation page (or even if there was a documentation page, apparently) as well as a check to see if this standardized use of state was correct at the time of the adding. I've seen a couple other templates break due to this user's addition/edit and have had to go back and tweak some things.

In the case of this edit, I feel it's best to just remove the duplicate template call and leave the documentation since it covers more information with examples, etc. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks much better. I'd done a quick scan for a bot, but couldn't find one, so just asked about this blindly (too lazy to hunt down who added the template(s)). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was TonyTheTiger. And if you look at his contributions, it seems to be a constant 'task' of tagging all the templates with {{state}} or {{collapsible option}}. The only reason I knew it was a single editor that added it was when it was added to other templates I follow (Evanescence and We Are the Fallen). When it was added to this template, I guess I just didn't notice the duplication. :) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally noticed the name of the template in the edit summary, but since all I did was scan for the word "bot", I never saw it, despite it being glaringly obvious now. I noticed this template popping up elsewhere as well a couple days ago. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me place my reasons for the change in format here. I changed this template from the compound-group format to a single-group format due to a conversation that was had many months ago about how the format looks "bulky". Although, at the time, my analysis concluded that it made no major difference in bulk to have 4 rows dedicated to albums and singles vs. having 3 (or in some cases 4) rows dedicated to albums and singles, the future of the template using that style was called into question. I felt that it was now time to revert back to the standardized formatting of a Musical Artist Template now that a 5th studio album is approaching, and one new single from that album already announced. Having 5 rows of albums with only 4 or 5 singles per row does now add unnecessary bulk to the navbox, in my eyes, and having one row for albums and one row for singles solves this issue. I also believe (though unverified) that having compounded groups may cause accessibility issues with users that use screen readers. Instead of reading simple lines of Albums and then Singles, they may get a confused bundle of both albums and singles and may not be able to differentiate without the aid of the strictly visual organization.

Another point of interest while reformatting the navbox is the singles. One edit made during a revert to my change modified the term "Album singles" to simply "singles". I believe that if a row is titled singles, all singles in the navbox must then be placed in this row. The "Other songs and singles" row includes singles released by Avril Lavigne, but were not released through studio albums, and labeling both rows as singles add confusion to the box. If the row becomes "Singles", all singles located in the "Other songs and singles" row should then be moved to the "Singles" row (chronologically, of course), and the lower row should be renamed "Other songs" to include songs that Avril has notability but are not singles, studio album singles or otherwise.

I am starting a discussion here because my attempts to contact the user who reverted my original change has unanswered my request for discussion on their talk page, and the user history shows no discussion on his talk page whatsoever (and only 2 article talk page discussion edits in total). I feel a more public discussion on this subject is in order since this may be considered a major change. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avril had already released over 15 singles, and there are a lot of songs related to avril so I propose Avril should have a separate template especially for her singles and songs, Avril Lavigne singles. Almost every artist had separate template for their singles like Rihanna, Britney, Kelly; and Avril should need to have also for easy navigation of her singles, and her template is a kinda crowded and unorganized.--Merida08 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. Unfortunately, I see no reason why one template should be broken into two, when one template does the job fine, and is, in my opinion organized well and is easy to read and understand. The Rihanna template has a ridiculous amount of songs and singles on it, so the separation seems somewhat more acceptable in that particular case. However, that doesn't mean there must be a Wikipedia-wide change in how templates are separated out. At Template talk:Kelly Clarkson singles, one person spoke out against the separation of the template with zero discussion following. The creation of that template appears to be a rogue decision on someone's part, unacceptable here (this goes beyond WP:BOLD). At the Britney Spears songs template, again someone said "this really should have been discussed. Just because it was done for Rihanna doesn't mean every artist needs to [have a separate songs template]". The Avril Lavigne template is fine the way it is. If you feel you have a way to improve it beyond this matter here, feel free to discuss that as well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I feel that the introduction of a second template does more harm than good in this case. All song articles which would display this new template would also display the Avril Lavigne template anyway, so why make a break when it doesn't take up a large percentage of the template. There is an entire article dedicated to all songs related to Avril Lavigne, there's no need to translate that into a template. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another viable option that I personally feel could be a good compromise would be a semi-separate singles template appended to the main template. A few other artists/music groups (Carly Rae Jepsen, Adele, Paramore) have taken this approach, and it would give the 'album: singles from that album' format some desire without adding bulk to the main template. The current layout of the template works perfectly fine, but it is something to consider, especially given how often a separate singles template is discussed. HERE is a draft of what the template would look like. Songsteel (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I just want to change the whole the thing, like putting each single from each album in one line. 197.205.19.246 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Such a change would need consensus, before it was implemented, and as you can see from the sections above, you are unlikely to get it- Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Avril Lavigne|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Avril Lavigne|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

Lavigne, Avril

197.205.19.246 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This seems to be a request to make a new template for singles (perhaps {{Avril Lavigne singles}}). That template was merged with this one according to this March 2011 discussion. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Since the change that you want is against the consensus of the merge discussion back in March 2011, you will need to acquire a new consensus saying it is a good idea to split them and recreate this template anew. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]