Talk:A*Pop

Montreux Jazz Festival image in "Release and promotion"

Taking the initiative and starting a discussion for this on the talk page to prevent an edit war. Livelikemusic wants to have the image of Tyla performing at the Montreux Jazz Festival under the "Release and promotion" section at the top of the section as in this edit, where as it was previously displayed alongside the "Live performances" paragraph as in this edit. The mentioned user argued that putting the image directly next to the live performances paragraph causes "section bleeding" without referencing a specific guideline as to why the image can't be there. Following this, I added additional body to the paragraph by including more performances to better encompass the image. Looking for opinions as to which one is better, personally I believe that it should be displayed directly next to the live performances paragraph as it clearly relates to that paragraph and is currently in a generic position under the section. Zirthes (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Putting the image in question (File:Tyla at 2026 Montreux Jazz Festival 2.jpg) in the Release and promotion section once File:Tyla - A*Pop (Japanese CD Edition) album artwork.jpeg is removed and {{Extra album cover}} places it in both the previously-linked section and Live performances section. Whereas, putting it in the former section places it there and then goes into the Singles and videos section, where it does not belong (and would also invoke MOS:SECTIONLOC, which suggests not to do, to avoid puzzling the reader. And per the how-to guide, information that drifts into wrong areas creates poor article flow and violates structural standards, hence why we should not be producing section-bleeding (which is also why {{Clear}} does exist to prevent such happenings). livelikemusic (TALK!) 23:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Whether the additional album cover is there or not makes no difference to the Release and promotion section or how the images are positioned. I'm not sure what you are getting at to be honest. There is no issue with the image being displayed under Live performances. The initial version of the page you removed the image from did have the it bleeding into Singles and videos, but like I said I added mention of additional performances to give more body to the section and the issue was resolved. Yet, you still removed the image and subsequently placed it into a generic position at the top of Release and promotion, which is violating "structural standards" and creating poor flow. It's just nit-picking at this point. Zirthes (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: Declining for now. A requirement for listing a dispute at 3O is that there must have been thorough discussion. An exchange that involves a single message from one of the involved parties can hardly be considered thorough. You are welcome to re-file if, after further conversation, you are unable to reach a consensus. Alternately, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Critical reception

Per WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITEVARYES, to edit against an established citation style (including MOS:DATEFORMAT) is disruptive. This edit restores the citation formatting that was established, especially within this section. As such, {{Music ratings}} has |ADM= auto-embedded within its template, so use of | is unnecessary, especially when the template itself states: "[f]or review aggregators AnyDecentMusic? and Metacritic it is convenient to use the fields ADM and MC in the template, respectively. Additionally, with AllMusic, we should be implementing {{AllMusic}}, as well. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Supposed breaking of template:Music ratings

Livelikemusic is claiming that my edit broke the music ratings template but hasn't explained how. It looks like it was fine to me. He is [edit: They are] demanding that I ask him [edit: them] to explain his [edit: their] vague edit summary:

• not on his [edit: their] talk page...
• but here on the article talk page...
• without tagging him [edit: them] directly

I don't consider this question relevant to the article specifically, but that's just my opinion. So, I'll ask again, how was "table breakage" happening? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

First, please do not misgender me. I do not go by he/him pronouns; I go by gender neutral pronouns.

Second, the edit (performed here) was done via Visual Editor, which auto-removes spacing in tables (e.g., {{Infobox album}}, {{Music ratings}}, et al). That is the "breaking" I make reference to.

Third, I made zero demands to be asked anything. I merely pointed out that per WP:BRD that discussion on article talk page should take place. "Please keep all correspondence (without tagging) to article talk pages" is not a demand; it is a request. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Second, the edit (performed here) was done via Visual Editor, which auto-removes spacing in tables (e.g., , , et al). That is the "breaking" I make reference to.

Please explain succinctly how this causes the table to not function properly for Wikipedia readers ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Never did I say it did not function properly for the readers of Wikipedia; I explained in the second point what I was referred to. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Never did I say it did not function properly for the readers of Wikipedia

Well, I'm really curious how you define the word "break" then. So a person has to edit templates in source editor for you to not revert them? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

If I'm correct this is to do with using the ADM template instead of adding the aggregate score manually. Based on this comment you left on my talk page previously, the reason you manually add the AnyDecentMusic? aggregate is because you don't think it should have the "?" on the end as generated by the template. So it seems that the only reason you have for not using the template is because of your own personal belief on how AnyDecentMusic? should be worded. The template for ADM exists and there is no apparent reason why it shouldn't be used? I don't really see what the point is to debating about whether you broke something or more specifically how that is relevant to or will improve the article. Zirthes (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

If I'm correct this is to do with using the ADM template instead of adding the aggregate score manually.

You're not. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but still what does this discussion have to do with the article and how will this improve it in any way? Zirthes (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you could add the new reviews for the album? Just a thought. Zirthes (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but still what does this discussion have to do with the article and how will this improve it in any way?

I couldn't agree more, hence why I didn't want to have this discussion on this talk page. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Why not just have it on Livelikemusic's talk page then? Zirthes (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Due to past interactions via my own talk page, I requested it be done on the article's talk page; additionally, it also allows other editors to chime in and provide their viewpoints, which creates a fluid dialogue, as noted here. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of Hits sales figure

I have chosen to include the sales figure for A*Pop as reported by Hits magazine to the section A*Pop#Commercial performance, as I'm unsure whether or not Billboard/Luminate will report a sales figure for the album as it is predicted to chart in the low top 50 (based on sales & HDD Top 50 chart). I am intending to include the Billboard 200 chart position separately (once it is announced) and distinguish between the two in the section, however I am open to removing the Hits sales figure mention if other editors think it isn't necessary or shouldn't be included. Zirthes (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)