Talk:Wildfire (Rachel Platten album)

Edits
Hello again. :) Thank you for pointing me in direction of Template:Flatlist the other day on the 25 album page. I appreciate being able to look over the guidelines. The Template:Flatlist article shows that   is proper, and not  . I admit to being wrong in the case of , where it shows   is correct. So how am I in any violation whatsoever in flatlist templates?  ilovechristianmusic  (Tell Me Something!)  13:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Infobox album and Track listing both call for the spacing that is in the current edit. Changing to anything other is in violation of said-template.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 23:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing me those articles. I don't like to beat-around-the-bush, so may I confront you with something? Although I doubt you intend for it to, the "Stop edit-warring this issue on multiple pages." and previous things you have said to me before seem quite rude. I believe that we may be from different countries, so it may be the difference in our cultures, as exampled in number three. Again, I doubt you meant it to come off as rude, but as a fore-thought on future conflicts, if you show me references like you did above, that would save any future mis-interruptions between us. Just some food-for-thought. ilovechristianmusic  (Tell Me Something!)  20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you felt my being rude to you; I'm simply a bluntly bold editor sometimes. It's just how I can come off.  And no, we do not come from different countries; we are both residents of the United States, but regardless, that shouldn't be a factor.  By my saying "other templates", I am making an assumption that you're aware of the templates listed above; maybe not the best tactic, but again, bluntly bold.  Again, sorry if you felt I was being rude or in any way targeting you.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 04:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's ok. I'm also glad to know that you have a "bluntly bold" editing personality, so that helps me understand in the future your tone. No, I'm not too aware of the other templates, or many others, despite using Wikipedia for a while. It's something I've been wanting to touch up on for a while, and will work on reading MOS and template articles so I'll be caught up, and we won't deal with these mis-understandings as often. I also would like to apologize for my mis-understandings and "edit-warrings", although they aren't intended, and our getting off on the wrong foot when I started out editing regularly earlier this year. It's fine now that this is all sorted out. ilovechristianmusic  (Tell Me Something!)  18:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"The songs "Lone Ranger", "Beating Me Up", and "Congratulations" were available as pre-order singles (previously released as part of the Fight Song EP), as well as "Better Place"." - Considering those songs were not released as actual singles, only promotional singles to help promote the album, shouldn't they be under a new sub-header titled Promotional singles? Isn't the section for singles intended for songs that were released to airplay? ilovechristianmusic (Tell Me Something!)  17:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Singles" section isn't exclusively for AirPlay since some singles are first released for digital download before radio release, but a "promotional singles" subsection is fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The style guide does not favor one over the other. I've seen articles with reference to promotional singles in the "singles" section and I'd say they're fine there as long as the promotional songs are not put in the Infobox.
 * Yeah, I wouldn't put them in the infobox. I'd refer to them as "promotional" or "pre-order" singles within the body text.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)