Talk:Liberation (Christina Aguilera album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberation (Christina Aguilera album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Christina Aguilera High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christina Aguilera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christina Aguilera 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.Christina AguileraWikipedia:WikiProject Christina AguileraTemplate:WikiProject Christina AguileraChristina Aguilera articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chart Performance

It has not been noted that the album slid down to #98 in it's second week and then in the third week it slid off the Billboard 200 in the US entirely;

https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/2018-07-07

--MusicAndArtFan (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover (accusations)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was that the second version, which is used literally everywhere except the artist's website, is probably the official one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Official cover from Aguilera & RCA Records website. 2 - manipulated and edited.

The accusation the File:Christina Aguilera - Liberation (Official Album Cover).png is edited is false; if you check the source file, it comes directly from the iTunes Store, which is a valid and reliable source. It's the artwork taken directly from iTunes, not to mention, PNG file format is preferred for lossless image quality. livelikemusic talk! 03:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic: The image that you insist to add to the article has been manipulated. The official version is already on the article so stop with the WP:VD and WP:EW. It does not matter if it comes 'directly' from iTunes since iTunes is not a website for releasing official album cover. A simple comparison between the two images shows that your image was underexposed by at least a stop. CerberaOdollam (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CerberaOdollam: Again, it is not manipulated; it came directly from iTunes itself. And per WP:BRD, the page cannot be changed until consensus is found, or else it seems that you are trying to persuade the discussion and look to your own preferred preference, which is in violation of WP:OWN, which you exhibit quite a lot in your editing, tbqh. iTunes is the source for the image, which is verified in the image's sourced content in the fair-use parameters. Nothing was "manipulated" or "changed," and the accusation is unfounded. Who's to say the other image isn't manipulated itself? livelikemusic talk! 03:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you change the page before consensus?? CerberaOdollam (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because, when I began the process of the discussion, it was at that current edit. livelikemusic talk! 03:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging additional editors who've edited at the main article, and also have extensive history at editing album music articles and/or images. @Anonpediann, FanofPopMusic, Ss112, Tomica, Raritydash, Cornerstonepicker, Hayman30, and Diannaa:. livelikemusic talk! 03:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your attempts to continually upload the same file, under different names, shows strong signs of WP:OWN on your point to strictly own the image's uploader. You've uploaded the file three times at this point. Once is more than enough. livelikemusic talk! 03:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the PNG version from Aguilera's official website. What you are trying to do is WP:AOBF. Do not label a user you know nothing about. CerberaOdollam (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That file shows up as the same in full-size view as the one from iTunes — however — the one claimed from her website seems to be manipulated to be "sharper," which is not how it's released on music retailers, however, in previews, shows up highly exposed. It's a corrupt file. See here. livelikemusic talk! 03:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image 1 is released by RCA Records and image 2 is from iTunes. Undoubtedly the official version is the one released by the record label & the singer herself. CerberaOdollam (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And iTunes receives the artwork from the label itself; again, you're ignoring that the upload claims to be "original" and "untouched" looks heavily touched, both in exposure and its sharpening. livelikemusic talk! 03:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, in finding a link to the pre-order (which is blocked by Wikipedia) — found here — the image matches file #2 (taken from iTunes and claimed to be edited), and does not match file #1 (claimed to be untouched). livelikemusic talk! 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't 'claim' it's from the singer's official album. You're ignoring the singer & record label and stick to a media player instead? No It has not been sharpening the image you upload has been blurred. CerberaOdollam (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have not edited the image (file #2), and if that's the case, then all files from "media players," a.k.a. Spotify, etc. should be deleted, because they weren't sent from the labels and/or artists themselves. I will be refraining from editing further; it is past midnight here, and am not interesting in a baiting battle with one member, only. Will be waiting for additional comments and discussion, because this is clearly not going anywhere. livelikemusic talk! 04:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One vs. Two: It's plain as day that the second image has been edited. CerberaOdollam (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment before I leave, refer to this edit, where I point out there is obvious signs of corruption in the claimed "untouched" image. And, I repeat, I did not edit the image at all, and claims that iTunes edited the image is off-putting, as it means all streaming media services edit their artworks from the intended files sent from record labels and/or artists, which would disprove their validity within music articles altogether. I am hoping that by morning other editors will have commented, and provided great depth to a very one-lined discussion. livelikemusic talk! 04:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'corruption'?! Do you know the definition of this word? This is the official cover released by the record label & the artist so it's absolutely evident which source we should rely on. It is such a trifling matter to argue about. CerberaOdollam (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How was the second picture edited if Christina herself posted the exact same cover on social media? I think that the second picture is the official cover, the first one looks faded and badly executed as well. — Tom^(T2ME) 08:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica: Did you click on the images?? The 2nd image is faded not 1st. CerberaOdollam (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the comparison up top, I should point out that the version hosted on the artist or label's website is not necessarily the "official" version. Quite frankly, they are often altered and edited to better suit the website's content. The version available on digital retailers, however, is always the actual artwork. Hayman30 (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: Are you saying that the cover released by the album's artist and record company is less reliable than a streaming media?! Ha. Nonsense & absurd. CerberaOdollam (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call it whatever you like. Tell me when you're ready to engage in constructive discussion. Hayman30 (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All we need to do is "end" this pointless discussion. Ain't got time to waste. CerberaOdollam (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image has been faded and blurred. All we need here is two eyes with visual perception. One eye is probably sufficient too... CerberaOdollam (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CerberaOdollam, learn when to WP:DROPIT can you? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously some WP:OWN issues here. CerberaOdollam, your "I am right and everybody else is wrong so there's no need to discuss" attitude isn't going to do you much favor. The article is not yours, if your changes have been reverted, you have to discuss and establish consensus, no matter how "time-wasting" and "pointless" the process could be Hayman30 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayman30, What you're doing is WP:AOBF. CerberaOdollam (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There are apparent evidences in this thread. Don't try to put me in bad light. Hayman30 (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'apparent evidences'???? Oh now I see... So you think here's a court, you're a detective and I'm an accused... CerberaOdollam (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of assuming bad faith, and I proved that I'm not. Stop with these childish comments. Hayman30 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30, IndianBio, and Tomica: It now appears as if they're attempting to WP:OWN again by replacing my image with their "original" image, which is again corrupt. This is ridiculous. livelikemusic talk! 12:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, but from what I can tell from the comments above is that what the others are saying are right. The image that I looked at recently is that the image #2 seems to be fine just the way it was. Raritydash (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left a warning at the user's talk page. Consensus is clearly against the user's stance, lets all move on. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fall In Line is the first single

Source: http://thatgrapejuice.net/2018/05/christina-aguilera-release-lead-single-fall-line-with-demi-lovato-tomorrow/

Accelerate didn't receive a radio release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:8C87:80E3:F8CC:C3E1:2B78:9C2D (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source, need something like Billboard or Rolling Stone reporting on the stance of "Accelerate". —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I Do

Someone please add Like I Do as the second promotional single of the album. It was already added on Aguilera’s discography page. SmxkeAndMirrors (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

71/100 is NOT mixed-to-postive - it's a positive response, pure and simple. Someone please edit this. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Maria" by Michael Jackson?

Have anyone noticed that "Maria" contains vocals and other elements from Michael Jackson's "Maria (You Were The Only One)" from "Got To Be There" album? And it's more like a virtual duet than just only samples that song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny Saxton (talk • contribs) 10:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can some please edit this?

1. "Like I Do" was released as a promotional single.

2. The New York Times is a major publication and should be added to the "Critical Response" section.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/arts/music/christina-aguilera-liberation-review.html

3. In the "Charts" section links for Czech and Slovakian charts should be archived.

https://web.archive.org/ (Save Page Now)

Unfortunately, I can't edit this myself. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

#1 in Russia; its first certification

The album debuted at #1 in Russia; it was certified gold as well.

https://www.docdroid.net/MOL6zWN/240618izvestiamusic.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelOfDestiny (talk • contribs) 12:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean International Chart

I see it being added in lots of articles about other international releases like Camila or Shawn Mendes, then why shouldn't it be included here as well? Afterall, it provides a better picture of how a international release fared in a market dominated by local acts. Bisbis (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes. Same goes with the Taiwanese Albums Chart - it's constantly being removed, yet you can find it in other chartboxes (e.g. Britney's Glory). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelOfDestiny (talk • contribs) 06:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberation (Intro)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Liberation (Intro) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Liberation (Intro) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]