Talk:Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams

Orphaned references in Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "aut": From 30 Seconds to Mars discography:  From This Is War (song):  From Kings and Queens (30 Seconds to Mars song):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

30 Seconds or Thirty Seconds?
If you are looking for the debate over the Thirty Seconds to Mars name, go to the City of Angels Talk page to discuss. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception
The reception section is clearly biased towards positive reviews, many from less notable publications (hello, Alternative Addiction and Rock Sound, when Uncut and Q reviews are available). The average score of the reviews in the template that keep getting inserted back into the article is 7.4/10, which clearly does not reflect reality; Metacritic has a weighted mean of 62/100, consisting of 4 positive reviews and 7 mixed, while AnyDecentMusic? gives an average rating of 5.1/10.

Here are some additional reviews that haven't yet been accounted for in the article or Metacritic that support the fact that reception was much more lukewarm than Earthh claims:


 * Drowned in Sound gave it a 4/10
 * Montreal Gazette gave it a 1.5 out of 4 or 5
 * AltSounds gave it a 66%
 * CraveOnline gave it a 1.0/10
 * HitFix gave it a C

Clearly, the album was not THAT favorably received. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical response
Earthh and Y2kcrazyjoker4, what exactly are you arguing about? From your reverts back and forth, I assume it is about some controversial review, but can't figure out which is it.--Retrohead (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See the previous section? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen it and the reviews listed in the article. In the current state, I struggle to find any inappropriate score.--Retrohead (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When I average all of the reviews in the review score template, I would expect to arrive at a score similar if not the same as the Metacritic score so an album's critical reception is accurately represented. Metacritic gives a weighted mean of 62/100 for this album - AnyDecentMusic pegs it even lower, at 5.1/10. However, Earthh's selection of reviews has an average score of 7.3/10, curiously high, and it disregards negative reviews from more prominent sources (Uncut, Q) for positive reviews from more obscure ones (Alternative Addiction, Melodic). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The critical consensus of Metacritic is 'generally favorable reviews' which means that the album received mostly positive reviews. Despite this, Y2Kcrazyjoker4 is adding negative and mixed reviews, claiming the overall critical reception is not positive. Metacritic score is based on just 11 reviews and many notable publications, such as Rock Sound, are not included. So I look for other sources claiming the album was critically appreciated, but Y2Kcrazyjoker4 removed them multiple times. The problem here is that Y2Kcrazyjoker4 is doing edit warring because his or her point of view about everything this band does is clearly negative. In the previous section, he listed only negative reviews. In the FAC of City of Angels, instead of leaving comments and waiting for improvements, he opposed. He's removing sourced genres claiming the sources are not sufficient and he's doing personal attacks claiming that my point of view is biased. I'm not at home currently, I'm editing from my mobile - I will be able to resolve these issues in three days.--Earthh (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's get something straight: I have no opinion one way or the other about the band (actually, I like several of their songs, but I haven't heard this album). What I do have an opinion about, though, is when fans of artists edit articles and let their fandom cloud their judgment. Simply stating this fact to you is not a personal attack, so no need to overreact. Anyways... Metacritic shows the album received 4 positive reviews out of the 11 on the website - the "generally favorable reviews" range spans 61-100, and if the album's score of 62 was 2 pts lower, it would be "mixed reviews". So let's not overemphasize the significance of the "negative/mixed/favorable reviews" descriptor. You say that the "Metacritic score is based on just 11 reviews and many notable publications... are not included". That is indeed correct, but curiously, all of the reviews you have added to the review template are positive - most are from less prominent sources and are replacing much more notable publications that Metacritic is using to calculate its score. So I can't see how you can justify adding Rock Sound and Alternative Addiction in favor of Uncut or Q. The negative reviews in the previous sections aren't all meant to be added to the article but rather to show you that there are just as many, if not more, negative reviews out there that you are not recognizing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is, if you want to reflect the Metacritic score into the article, why not list ten of the eleven reviews they took into account? I've also found it peculiar how reviews by other notable publications weren't included in the average score, but that is another topic.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's funny you mention that, because that's pretty much exactly what I have done (9 of the 10 reviews in the template in my version are from Metacritic), but it is Earthh who objects to that. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm finally able to discuss aptly about this. When I first edited that section, there were eight positive reviews and two mixed ones. I then removed Big Cheese (which gave the album a 5/5) and Daily Star (8/10), adding more prominent sources, namely The Observer (2/5) and Rock Sound (8/10). With a negative review, two mixed, and seven positive ones, I actually found that version appropriate to depict the critical reception the album received. However, Y2kcrazyjoker4 then removed two positive reviews adding two negative ones. That version, which is current, shows five negative/mixed reviews and five positive ones. For an album that received a positive critical reception, this selection turns out to be inappropriate. The user used as his only source Metacritic, which gave the album an average score of 62 based on 11 reviews. Normally, Metacritic score is based on more than thirty reviews, so it's difficult to think that its score about this album could reflect the overall critical reception (why it didn't aggregate thirty reviews for this release? Why Rock Sound rating is not there when usually it does? And why we should include only its aggregated reviews (read WP:INDISCRIMINATE)?). We can't rely unconditionally on Metacritic and there's no policy which imposes us to use it. Although its score indicates generally favorable reviews (and what is important to claim here is that Metacritic has its own rating system ), Y2kcrazyjoker4 posted on this talk page some additional reviews (exclusively negative ones), claiming the critical reception was not so positive. I added three sources to the article which states the album was critically appreciated (and you can find many others ), but the user just ignored and removed them. After a not so difficult research, it's more that clear that most of the reviews were positive I found several positive reviews while some were mixed, and just one was negative It's hilarious how negative reviews label this - an album by an "actor's band" - some critics really can't stand the actor-slash-musician thing (goodbye professionalism), I guess they had a crush on Jordan Catalano. Joking aside, as the articles states (and as ALL the sources states), the album received generally positive reviews, which means that it got some negative reviews but for the most part they were positive. The critical reception section of this article, in the current state, does not reflect that.--Earthh (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternative Addiction: 4.5/5
 * AltSounds: 66%
 * Big Cheese: 5/5
 * Daily Star: 8/10
 * Rock Sound: 8/10
 * Sound & Vision: 4/5
 * Digital Spy: 3/5
 * Evening Standard: 2/4
 * MusicOMH: 2/5
 * I have a bone to pick: "After a not so difficult research, it's more that clear that most of the reviews were positive"... that is very deceptive. Most of what reviews, ones that you just posted to this talk page, or all available reviews taken together? Here's everything we've been talking about to make it abundantly clear to you.


 * Positive (11)
 * Alternative Addiction: 4.5/5 link
 * Big Cheese: 5/5
 * Daily Star: 8/10 link
 * Entertainment Weekly: A-
 * Billboard: 8.2/10 link
 * Kerrang!: 4/5
 * Rock Sound: 8/10
 * Melodic: 4/5 link (is this really even notable? the review is written in incomprehensible, non-native English)
 * AllMusic: 3.5/5 link
 * AltSounds: 66% link
 * Sound & Vision: 4/5


 * Mixed (10)
 * PopMatters: 6/10 link
 * Digital Spy: 3/5 link
 * Alternative Press: 3/5 link
 * Evening Standard: 2/4 link
 * HitFix: C link
 * Drowned in Sound: 4/10 link
 * The Observer: 2/5 link
 * Q: 2/5
 * Uncut: 2/5
 * musicOMH: 2/5 link


 * Negative (2)
 * Montreal Gazette: 1.5/5 link
 * CraveOnline: 1.0/10 link


 * If you still think that "most" reviews of the album were positive, we have differing definitions of "most". I'd also like to point out that all references you are using to support your view that the album was "critically acclaimed" or "generally well-received" 1.) are mostly all articles previewing upcoming concerts in the local region (meaning the authors have an interest in promoting the show with inflated language) 2.) make only passing references to the album's reception 3.) only comprise 2 reliable sources (Daily Trojan, OC Register). Furthermore, the OC Register says nothing about this album's reception, only that the band has achieved success and acclaim four albums in. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Earthh, summarizing the album's reviews on your own constitutes original research. If you are reluctant to use Metacritic, you should find another source which says the album received mainly positive reviews. For the record, I think the article should include the most reputed journals who reviewed the album. References such as CraveOnline (male lifestyle website) HitFix, Alternative Addiction, AltSounds and those similar shouldn't be given advantage over Uncut or Q, let's say.--Retrohead (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Y2Kcrazyjoker4, I was talking about the reviews which we posted on the talk page (I didn't notice you posted AltSounds). In this case, I'm reluctant to use Metacritic as a primary source because it aggregates just eleven reviews (and it still indicates a generally favorable reception). I'd like to pinpoint to Retrohead that I'm not summarizing the album's reviews on my own - I posted five sources in my previous comment which all claims the album received mainly positive reviews - so I'm not doing any original research (I'm writing what sources say). Considering the available reviews, I think we can remove Melodic and The Observer, adding Rock Sound and Sound & Vision (which I just posted above), so that the article features notable magazines all covering music and popular culture (look at my sandbox). It could reflect in a good way the "generally favorable reception" the album received, having six positive reviews and four mixed ones.--Earthh (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with such edit. The Observer is more reputable and established newspaper than both the sources you've mentioned. If removing Melodic (which I'm vying for), I'll go either with Montreal Gazette, musicOMH, or Drowned in Sound.--Retrohead (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I excluded The Observer and Montreal Gazette since are not publications focusing on music. Sound & Vision and Rock Sound are both no less reputable than musicOMH or Drowned in Sound. According to Metacritic and to other sources, the album received a 'generally positive reception', therefore reviews in the template should reflect that, having at least six positive reviews and four mixed ones.--Earthh (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And that arbitrary determination of 6 positive vs. 4 mixed reviews is based on... what? You keep linking to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE guideline like you're an expert on it, and then you just arbitrarily try to pick positive reviews to replace those from more notable sources. The summary of reviews I did above was meant to show that the album received an equal amount of criticism and praise, and yes, that was probably an indiscriminate collection. But you know how we resolve the issue of which reviews to select? We pick 10 of the 11 references provided by Metacritic, a reputable source, and we do it in a way that mirrors the average critic score from the site. Then we can end this dumb debate, and then be done with it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 16:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is based on sources, including Metacritic, which indicate the album received a generally positive response. An "arbitrary determination" is you insisting on adding mixed reviews. You keep focusing on Metacritic alone, but you should know that its list of publications includes Rock Sound, among others. Despite all opposition, Metacritic indicates generally positive reviews with an average score of 62, therefore having six positive reviews and four mixed ones turns out to be the best situation that could reflect that.--Earthh (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Says who? I think the best way to reflect the average score of 62 is to include 10 reviews that average to 62. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How can you do that when Metacritic has its own rating system based on several aspects of the considered publication : "When selecting our source publications, we noticed that some critics consistently write better (more detailed, more insightful, more articulate) reviews than others. In addition, some critics and/or publications typically have more prestige and respect in their industry than others. To reflect these factors, we have assigned weights to each publication (and, in the case of movies and television, to individual critics as well), thus making some publications count more in the METASCORE calculations than others."--Earthh (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What happened to this? Should I consider it silent consensus?--Earthh (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Metacritic is considered a reliable source for aggregating reviews, so whatever your objections are, they still are more qualified to summarize critical consensus about something than either you or I. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Metacritic indicates generally positive reviews with an average score of 62, so having six positive reviews and four mixed ones reflects that, whatever your objections are.--Earthh (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have arbitrarily decided what you think is the most proper way to represent the album. There are only 4 favourable reviews out of 11 that Metacritic cites, so if you intend to keep this template in the article, use the same ratio of positive/mixed/negative reviews or pick a mix of reviews that averages to a score of 62. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded the critical reception section, adding quotations from most of the reviews posted here on the talk page. The section features both positive reviews and mixed/negative ones, so that it can reflect in the most neutral point of view the critical reception the album received. I've added in the template a mix of reviews that could better represent the average score indicated by Metacritic.--Earthh (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426034720/http://emi.com.br/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=390:katy-perry-conquista-album-de-platina-no-brasil&catid=7:noticias&Itemid=8 to http://emi.com.br/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=390:katy-perry-conquista-album-de-platina-no-brasil&catid=7:noticias&Itemid=8

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC) –   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  09:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move April 7 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams → Love, Lust, Faith, and Dreams – Correct grammar with comma after "Faith". ❂ string    DTD  ❂ 04:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The title is the actual name of the album, so "correcting" the punctuation would be inappropriate. The album's name is Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams or Love Lust Faith + Dreams, according to sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The grammar presumed here is not universal, either. I believe the presence or absence of that comma is a British vs. American usage distinction.--Srleffler (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Like Srleffler stated, the punctuation is to do with the US / UK usage. Seeming this is a page about an album by an US band, I think the comma should be present. As for the sources that have been provided by the first person who opposed (didn't leave a signature), those could be just stylization, or the way the writer wrote it. As you can't really show the way how it's supposed to be said in writing. ❂ string    DTD  ❂ 23:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, what a topic is called by "independent, reliable English-language sources" is generally the preferred name. Which sources are using the proposed title (with a comma after "Faith")? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest move to Love Lust Faith + Dreams instead, as that would match what actually appears on the album cover. Judging by the reviews linked to in the article, it also appears to be the preferred format used by reliable sources. Jellyman (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. See Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, PopMatters, AllMusic, The Guardian, and Kerrang!. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think it's a bad idea to move the page to Love Lust Faith + Dreams, like how it's most commonly referred to. Like All of Ed Sheeran's stduio album pages, usage of symbols (such as "+") is suitable? ❂ string    DTD  ❂ 12:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TM, the page cannot be moved to "Love Lust Faith + Dreams". We avoid using special characters that substitute for English words, preferring to use the words themselves. The "+" is a graphic stylisation.--Earthh (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Well, I still think it's suitable to move the page to Love, Lust, Faith, and Dreams for the listed reasons/sources above ❂ string    DTD  ❂ 04:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:TM doesn't really apply in this context, and in any case says to use the naming format preferred by reliable sources, which in this case includes the plus sign (+), and definitely not the third comma. See also the page title Springer Science+Business Media, which is specifically mentioned in the guideline, as well as the titles using +, ×, and ÷ under . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as music and musicians are concerned, there is the main title header for the Wikipedia entry Mike + The Mechanics. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually MOS:TM is very clear on this: When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and then choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Considering that sources have been using both "Love Lust Faith + Dreams" and "Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams", I would use the latter, which is the current name of the page, since it is the one closer to standard English. Also, per MOS:TM, the title for the entry Mike + The Mechanics should be reconsidered, as well as the ones for Ed Sheeran's studio albums, since the guideline directly refers to symbols and graphic stylizations (I wonder why wiki is using the title "÷ (album)" if it is spelled out as "divide" on its cover art). That was the reason why the main title header for Florence and the Machine was not moved to Florence + the Machine.--Earthh (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://emi.com.br/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=390%3Akaty-perry-conquista-album-de-platina-no-brasil&catid=7%3Anoticias&Itemid=8
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130324011447/http://www.petrinearcher.com/view-now-damien-hirst%E2%80%99s-spot-paintings-and-%E2%80%9Cjoy-color%E2%80%9D to http://www.petrinearcher.com/view-now-damien-hirst%E2%80%99s-spot-paintings-and-%E2%80%9Cjoy-color%E2%80%9D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130321041147/http://thirtysecondstomars.thisisthehive.net.s164918.gridserver.com/2013/03/18/love-lust-faith-dreams/ to http://thirtysecondstomars.thisisthehive.net.s164918.gridserver.com/2013/03/18/love-lust-faith-dreams/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/alternative/future-releases
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604101927/http://r2.err.ee/myygitabel to http://r2.err.ee/myygitabel
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.gr/charts_en.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.artistas-espectaculos.com/noticias/pt/topafp.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006082017/http://www.alternativeaddiction.com/newmusic/exec/albumreviews.asp?id=1357 to http://www.alternativeaddiction.com/newmusic/exec/albumreviews.asp?id=1357
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.gr/charts_en.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.artistas-espectaculos.com/noticias/pt/topafp.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute about release information to list on album article and where.
There appears to be a dispute between two editors about what information should be in the article, and where it should be placed. Currently two editors, myself (Mburrell), and Earthh. The dispute may be about what should be included in the lead paragraph, or it may be what information may be included in the article, I am not sure. We have gone back and forth for five days now, reverting each other's edits. I wanted to bring this to a dispute resolution, thinking that a Third opinion was needed, but the first thing that article says is to be sure the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. Therefore I am opening up this discussion on the talk page.
 * How and where to list album release history: It is common for album articles to list album release history. Many albums have a table at the bottom of the article that will list the album release history for various geographic countries and regions. Other album articles list the release history in the lead paragraph in sentence format. Other album articles list the release history in other sections, in sentence format. Still other album articles only list one release date.  To my knowledge, this particular album has two release dates, May 20 in the UK and May 21 in the US. I know this because one of the citations, PopMatters, lists these two dates. The user Earthh states that the earliest release date is May 17, 2013. No citation is provided for this, so I don't know if this is true or not, but I have not deleted it as speculative. Wikipedia has a rule on No original research which states facts with no reliable, published sources should not be included. In the interest of avoiding a dispute, I have not challenged the May 17 release date, but it is challengeable.  In the latest edit summary, Earthh mentioned that I was excluding other release dates. I am not excluding any release dates that I am aware of, it is just that I am not aware of the other release dates, nor do I care about the album enough to do the research.  Therefore, in the lead paragraph I am listing the two release dates that I have certain knowledge of, and the one release date that Earthh has provided.  This information does not have to be listed in the lead paragraph, it can be listed anywhere but the infobox, which only lists the first release date for the album. Per Template:Infobox album, Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section. The article 'Album article style advice' has a section on the lead paragraph that states that The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the album. It should explain why the album is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the album is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the album, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. As a general rule of thumb, the lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. Facts to consider including along with the album title are: the name of the artist(s), the music genre of the album if discussed in the article, the release date and record label—wikilink when possible. To summarize, at least my interpretation is that the release history of the album can be listed as basic fact in the lead paragraph, unless it is included elsewhere in article.
 * I do not care enough about the album to create a new section or table for the release history, but I do care enough about listing known release histories for albums to challenge improper removal. In my mind, my actions are defending 1) the use of a lead paragraph as a depository for release history unless a new section or table is created and 2) the listing of multiple release histories when known.
 * I invite additional discussion and other view points, and hope this can be resolved with or without inviting in a third party opinion. Thank you, Mburrell (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason behind this dispute is that your edits are based on your personal knowledge, as you openly explained above. All the sources published by Hung Medien (which are mentioned more than once in the article) list the album's release date for each regional market. If you look for more sources, you'll find out that this particular record was released on May 17 in Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Netherlands; May 20 in France, Italy, and the United Kingdom; May 21 in Canada, Mexico, Poland, and the United States; May 22 in Japan; May 24 in Taiwan. Since the lead paragraph should mention only the main informations about the subject of the article, I edited it by adding the earliest known release date of the album. Putting the dates for American and British markets would be discriminative because it would exclude all the other known release dates. In conclusion, the only possible option here is the creation of a release history section and the indication of the earliest release date only in the lead paragraph. Regards, Earthh (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason behind this dispute is that the article does not reflect the knowledge that you shared on the talk page. You have all the information you need to build a Release History table, but you chose not to. You state there are other release dates, but have not entered them into the article in any location. I have stated that I once the release dates are listed elsewhere in the article, I would not keep returning them to the lead paragraph. As long as the only dates with a citation are the US and UK dates, those are the only ones that are not original research. You say that Hung Media lists other dates, and I say please post them and link them to Hung Media citations, which will resolve all issues. Mburrell (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)