# Talk:Lotus (Christina Aguilera album)

Jamie Hartman(the confirmed producer) and Phil Bentley wrote this song together. 
Jamie Harman confirmed this information on his officially verified Twitter account.
"Ok so now I can tell everyone..!!! My song Army Of Me written with @phil_bentley is on the new @TheRealXtina album Lotus :) so proud :)"
Source: https://twitter.com/jamiehartman/status/261220229043073025

Lotus is the fourth studio album by American pop singer Christina Aguilera, who is scheduled for release on 13 November 2012 by RCA. Regarding gender album Christina mentioned that the album does not respond to any influence of a specific musical genre, only those who make you feel good.
The first single is titled confirmed Your Body. Christina held a question and answer session on Twitter where he mentioned that the song would go to radio on September 14 and there would be a small cut of the video on 17 of the same month in the talent search program The Voice, also confirming that same day would be available on iTunes.
During the second season of The Voice will confirm the song Make The World Move with Cee Lo Green. Christina Aguilera mention for Rolling Stone that The Voice program became a great inspiration for this album, in an interview with an American radio during the premiere of 'Your Body' mention some more songs for the album which will be Blank page and Sing for me, the latter as a dedication to their fans. This album marks Aguilera's return to the music industry after two years of absence from her latest album Bionic.
http://www.rcarecords.com/news/global-superstar-christina-aguilera-release-new-album-lotus-november-13th
http://www.mstarz.com/articles/4039/20120815/christina-aguilera-new-album-2012-single-your-body-purple-hair-photo.htm
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1682966/cee-lo-green-christina-aguilera-duet.jhtml
Q&A:

Aguilera did a Q&A via Twitter on 12 September 2012, giving the following information:

The title of the new album is "Lotus", a flower that survives under the most adverse conditions and continues to thrive.
The album comes out in November, to which Sony Music confirmed that after the 13th of the same month.
There will be an intro called "Lotus" before the theme "Your Body".
"Your Body" will be officially released on Friday September 14.
We can see a preview of the video for "Your Body" next Monday 17 in 'The Voice', the video was directed by Melina Matsoukas.
The inspiration for the album is freedom and individuality, the album represents a rebirth.
The album does not respond to any influence of a specific musical genre, only those who make you feel good.
There will be powerful ballads, could not make an album without them.
His favorite artists of the moment are M83 and Frank Ocean.
His personal inspiration is women who take charge of their lives, workers who do not need anyone and remain true to what we are.
https://twitter.com/TheRealXtina/status/244929516269604865
Sorry for my english..
--Memarna (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The producers on the song "Army of Me" should be listed as: Produced by Tracklacers for New Track City / Track Co. and co-produced by Jamie Hartman
Jkedits (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Provide a reliable source. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi i would like to request an extension to the Christina aguilera Lotus album page. professional ratings: thatGrapeJuice.net 4/5 stars
Jim e reilly333 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 Not done: Sorry, but thatGrapeJuice.net is not regarded as a reliable source for wikipedia content of this kind, as it is basically a blog site - see this discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for more details. Thanks. Begoon talk 11:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan Edition - Your Body bonus remixes CD

1.  Your Body (Audien Remix - Final Main) 
2.  Your Body (Audien Remix - Dub)   
3.  Your Body (It`s The DJ Kue Remix)   
4.  Your Body (Oxford Hustlers Remix - Club)   
5.  Your Body (Ken Loi Remix)   
6.  Your Body (Ken Loi Remix - Dub)   
7.  Your Body (Paperchaser Remix - Main)   
8.  Your Body (Paperchaser Remix - Dub) 

[1]
Glamjunkie (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please add "Thatgrapejuice gave the album review 4/5 stars"
http://thatgrapejuice.net/2012/11/album-review-christina-aguilera-lotus/
217.20.18.101 (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Please add "Thatgrapejuice gave the album review 4/5 stars"
http://thatgrapejuice.net/2012/11/album-review-christina-aguilera-lotus
Jim e reilly333 (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 Not done: Already answered in the section 2 above: not a reliable source. Begoon talk 11:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lotus has been realeased in Germany and Switzerland at the same time, on 9th November  
Algodemi (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to be done here. Statυs (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The introduction of the article says the album charted/peaked at #34 on the Billboard Hot 100, but it hasn't even been released in America yet. This needs to be removed.

It's talking about "Your Body", not the album. Statυs (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lotus is expected to launch in NZ 16 November 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.108.94 (talk • contribs) 
Thanks. This date has now been incorporated by another editor. I removed the link you added, by the way, per WP:ELNO, as it was a link to a commercial sales site. Begoon talk 21:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Does this really need to be in the article? Reading through it, it doesn't seem to add any encyclopedic value to the article, and it it remains, it needs to be rewritten. 68DANNY2 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. An unencyclopedic mish-mash of various opinions and close rephrasing of other reviews. There's already a track listing. If nobody objects to the removal in a day or two, I'll just go ahead and remove the section, or you can. Thanks. Begoon talk 00:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit: actually - looking at it again. I took it out. Whatever it is, it was out of place there. Begoon talk 00:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


### continued
And I removed it again after it was reinserted. I can see no encyclopedic value at all in this, sorry. Apologies to the user who says s(he) "worked so hard" to create it, maybe other editors will disagree with me and see some merit in it. I won't remove it again, that would be for others to decide - discussion should continue here if necessary.
Additionally, I think we need to remove all the heartfelt HTML comments that have been peppered throughout the source code. The unprofessional impression, and the confusion to the process of editing the content caused by all these hidden exhortations interspersed with real content is problematic, to say the least. Begoon talk 14:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
After a few minutes more looking at this, I'd propose to remove the whole series of edits by reverting to this version - [2], and then reinstating the adjustments to Single2 (that's all else there is at this point in time) - but I'd like some agreement here before doing that. There's a lot of other stuff that needs looking at, as the (removed) tagging indicated - but as a first step we should ensure it "gets no worse". Begoon talk 14:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The funny things is that, for example, in this GOOD ARTICLE "The Emancipation of Mimi", the section SONGS is there and it talks about every song on the album. I think you should reconsider my article, because I want to take credit when the article becomes a GOOD ARTICLE, so the SONGS sections is crucial for it. (FanofPopMusic (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC))
I don't think you understand. It's not the title of the section that's the problem. When I first saw the section I did a quick google search for the terms in it, and whilst I'm sure you haven't copy/pasted whole paragraphs there does seem to be a lot of close paraphrasing of other content from the web. But even that isn't the main problem.
The thing is, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a fan site, and the entire tone is wrong. We can't present a huge prosaic description of the album in a flowing collage of other people's opinions who we happen to agree with, synthesised into a sort of rolling commentary. It might be OK on an album sleeve, or in a coffee table book - but it's unencyclopedic. Really, this kind of content should be at Wikia, or on a blog somewhere, it's just not appropriate here.
If you can't see the difference between the section at The Emancipation of Mimi and the section you added here, then it's going to be very difficult for you to write appropriate encyclopedic content. They are as chalk and cheese. The section you have pointed to is, in fact, the kind of thing that would be fine here - factual, impartial, professional and pleasing to read. It doesn't try to take the reader on a frenzy of excitement about the subject, it offers facts for the reader to build his own opinion. It collects and presents all available information pleasingly, and attributes its sources factually. Your section reads as one long opinion with some references slotted in to show who the synthesised phrases were taken from. Utterly different style. Now that you've found it, though, The Emancipation of Mimi section could serve you as a good model for rewriting your section to something that would actually belong in a WP:GA.
As to leaving HTML comments throughout the code, asking people not to delete "your" bits - see WP:OWN, and the agreement you make every time you edit to release your text for others to alter. People don't own bits of articles.
Anyway, I've said more than enough here - I'm just one voice, and I only initially came here to look at an edit request - so I'll wait for others to comment. Begoon talk 15:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Disparate articles should not be compared to one another; each article has a different amount and kind of information available to it. In this case, unless a section on songs can be trimmed to a few short paragraphs, this shouldnt be included in the state that it's in. Phrases like "as Christina admits that she was born to sing." and "It's clear she's done wrong, but she's asking for forgiveness and wants to give things another go", seem like either copy/paste jobs or puffery. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

| title10         = Around the World
| writer10        = Aguilera, Dwayne Chin-Quee, Jason Gilbert, Ali Tamposi, Tasha Thorbourne, Nailah Thorbourne, Nyanda Thorbourne and Candace Thorbourne.
| extra10         = Supa Dups, Gilbert[A]
| length10        = 3:25
Dudus99 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did the critical reception section change? It seems like before it included everything that everyone was saying about the album but now it's been edited down to make most reviews seem negative, when those were just parts of their overall positive reviews. Before, it showed all the different sides of what critics had to say. Why did it need to get changed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikaidou (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC) 

The "view history" tab above the article will lead you to this and consequently the answer to your question. BTW, what "negative"? It received mostly mixed reviews. Dan56 (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This section could do with a huge trim! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I did, and then one of the article's main contributors reverted it; username: "FanOfPopMusic". Dubious (but positive) reviews from: 4music and Virgin Media, among others. Dan56 (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
According to Fanofpopmusic (diff), 4music, Virgin Media, Digital Spy, and HitFix are reputed review source (though they're not used by either Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic? aggregates, and their profiles hardly have anything to do with professional music journalism/criticism (WP:ALBUMS/CRITICAL) He also argues that the positive reviews should be presented ahead of the mixed reviews' prose because "basically" (as he stated in his edit summary), even though Metacritic and any other sources out there (perhaps Idolator too?) verify "generally mixed". This would be an open-and-shut deal, but high-profile female singers usually have this following of fans that gets frustratingly in the way of reflecting reliably published articles with a neutral point of view, pretty much the encyclopedic aim of Wikipedia (WP:STICKTOSOURCES, WP:FANCRUFT, etc.) The point is not to "balance" the section with the "positive" and give equal weight to minority views; no weight should be given to the aforementioned sources to begin with. I'm pretty annoyed at this point. Would any neutral parties care to comment? Dan56 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Having the fact that the album received 60 average score on Metacritic I have to agree with Dan that that is mostly mixed to positive reviews or "generally positive reviews". It's good having some favorable and mixed reviews. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can anybody really see the need for the Artwork section. Maybe a sentence or two comment somewhere, but do we need this list of quotes from different reviewers, presumably self selected by whoever added the content? Begoon talk 01:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with reception of the album artwork? Would you support removing reviews of the album as well, as they were also "self selected by whoever added the content"? Statυs (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it's probably worth a mention, but that is a huge amount of quoted comment concerning album artwork, in my opinion. There's practically no prose, just a load of selected quotes. If it had won some kind of award for it, or was a notable cover for some reason, then maybe the length could be justified.
In answer to the second part of your question, no - that seems to be a well balanced, well written section, to me, and I can't imagine an article on an album without an album review section. I can certainly imagine one without this artwork section as it stands now, though. So I don't really understand how you relate the 2 things in your question, sorry.
But it's all just my opinion - if that's what people feel should be there, then it should be there. Begoon talk 03:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok - so I looked at it a while, and I'm probably being too strong.
Why not keep the first 2 sentences, then say something like: Critics gave positive reviews; and then pick the most notable 2 or 3, leaving the others as references to support that reviews were positive. At least that way it doesn't look like a list of praise only, and leaves room to comment on any other reviews, positive or otherwise. Begoon talk 04:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In the intro, where it says the other genres she explored (dance-pop, rock-tinged empowerment anthems, etc.) should someone add that Just a Fool is a country-inspired track as well?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikaidou (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 

The writers listed for AROUND THE WORLD is incomplete. Missing names are Tasha Thorbourne, Nailah Thorbourne, Nyanda Thorbourne and Candace Thorbourne.
This song has been registered with BMI and ASCAP.
Dudus99 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vacation9 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The SECTION Below is Incomplete:
| title10         = Around the World
| writer10        = Aguilera, Dwayne Chin-Quee, Jason Gilbert, Ali Tamposi
| extra10         = Supa Dups, Gilbert*
| length10        = 3:25
It Should READ:
| title10         = Around the World
| writer10        = Aguilera, Dwayne Chin-Quee, Jason Gilbert, Ali Tamposi, Nyanda Thorbourne, Nailah Thorbourne, Tasha Thorbourne and Candace Thorbourne
| extra10         = Supa Dups, Gilbert*
| length10        = 3:25

Nyanda, Nailah, Tasha and Candace Thorbourne are Sony ATV writers. Some of their credits include LOVE IS WICKED (By Brick & Lace), FOLLOW THE LEADER (by Wisin & Yandel and JLo) and SAY YES (by Nicole Scherzinger). The copyright for the song is registered with BMI and ASCAP listing them as writers. The misprint on the CDs will be corrected when the NEW batch are printed.
Dudus99 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 Not done They are not listed as writers in the iTunes digital booklet.  — AARON • TALK   16:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The SECTION Below is Incomplete:
| title10         = Around the World
| writer10        = Aguilera, Dwayne Chin-Quee, Jason Gilbert, Ali Tamposi
| extra10         = Supa Dups, Gilbert*
| length10        = 3:25
IT SHOULD READ:
| title10         = Around the World
| writer10        = Aguilera, Dwayne Chin-Quee, Jason Gilbert, Ali Tamposi, Nyanda Thorbourne, Nailah Thorbourne, Tasha Thorbourne, Candace Thorbourne
| extra10         = Supa Dups, Gilbert*
| length10        = 3:25

REFERENCE (BMI Copyright Database): http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=15200642&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID
I manage the writers. My name is Chez and I work with Chris Smith Management (www.chrissmithmanagement.com)
chez@chrissmithmanagement.com
Dudus99 (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did reply on my talk page. Have RCA issued a statement saying they misprinted? Are new editions of the booklet in circulation? If not, probably best to wait, as we currently have two reliable forms of information which contradict each other.  — AARON • TALK   16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I sent you an e-mail with 2 reliable sources (Harry Fox Agency and BMI registration). I can forward e-mail from RCA A&R as well when you respond to my e-mail and provide your address. Dudus99 (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Can some editors weigh in on the reliability of harryfox.com please? Is BMI enough for the correct writers or do we need an additional source explaining the claim?  — AARON • TALK   21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think BMI is enough for me, but it's your call. Vacation9 23:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. BMI is what shall be used for the write section of "Around the World" in the track listing section. But the URL must be referenced.  — AARON • TALK   23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Harry Fox is reliable too... it is much like BMI and ASCAP song search. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Some sections are missing, such as Singles.  — AARON • TALK   23:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have merged it into 'Promotion' section. – HĐ (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't encompass the info though of the singles though. That's why they should be in separate sections.  — AARON • TALK   09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
But Aguilera just performed on several shows, and the section 'Promotion' will be very short, that's why I merged. HĐ (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Performance of individual songs belong on their own pages. The promotion for the album should focus on around TV show appearances, tie-in sales, radio visits, tours etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
How about this layout? — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Works by me. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It's the same, just split into two sections. Also, this article looks a lot shorter than it used to.  — AARON • TALK   13:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Because the former 'Composition' section was such a mess, it only focus on two songs: Cease Fire and Best of Me. That's why I have to cleanup. HĐ (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Check the old version (before I cleanup) here: [3] — HĐ (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah because "Best of Me" and "Cease Fire" were merged into Lotus as a result of their AfD, and you have removed all of it. The whole point of the merge was to have more info about those two than the others.  — AARON • TALK   13:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
But if "Best of Me" and "Cease Fire" are merged doesn't mean the whole article of them should be in Lotus. HĐ (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Not the whole article, but there should be more info than the other songs because of the decision for the articles to be merged. They should ideally have a paragraph each.  — AARON • TALK   13:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
More info, I can do it. But I don't think they should have a paragraph each. — HĐ (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The decision was made that two entire articles be merged into Lotus, a 3/4 line paragraph for each song about their composition, genres, instrumentation, lyrics, critical reception and charting would be fine. Look at there couple of sections.  — AARON • TALK   13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
My (less than) two cents, as a passer-by, for what it's worth. The article looks a lot better, since the recent work. The previous "Music and Lyrics" section was, indeed, a "mess", and disproportionate, as others have said. If brief, sentence, descriptions of each song can be added, with maybe a couple of supporting review comments, that would be cool, even make the "special" songs a couple of sentences, but really it would be much better if the kind of stuff that was referred to in the "Songs" section above didn't overtake the article again. Just commenting since this was still on my watchlist - and just one "outside" editor's passing opinion - feel free to disregard it... Begoon talk 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.rcarecords.com/news/global-superstar-christina-aguilera-release-new-album-lotus-november-13th
Ã  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.233.75 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 

Christina has released 7 albums, 5 English language albums, 1 spanish language album and 1 christmas album. That is seven studio albums.
Christina Aguilera (1999)
Mi Reflejo (2000)
My Kind of Christmas (2000)
Stripped (2002)
Back to Basics (2006)
Bionic (2010)
Lotus (2012)
Rather simple really. Her label counts her five English albums as her studio albums but at the end of the day, the christmas album and spanish album are also studio albums.→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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 Lotus (Christina Aguilera album)'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 "MC":
From Alex da Kid: "Canadian    certifications – Imagine Dragons". Music Canada. Retrieved February 14, 2013.
From Burlesque: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack: "Gold and Platinum Search". Music Canada. Retrieved May 4, 2014.
From Christina Aguilera discography: "Gold and Platinum (Christina Aguilera)". Music Canada (MC). Retrieved June 11, 2012.
From CeeLo Green discography: "Canadian    certifications – Cee Lo Green". Music Canada. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
From Hurt (Christina Aguilera song): "Gold and Platinum Search: Christina Aguilera, Hurt". Music Canada. Retrieved August 25, 2008.
From Mi Reflejo: "Mi Reflejo Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More at Metacritic". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved April 28, 2011.

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⚡ 06:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Lotus (Christina Aguilera album). 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/20121109120630/http://www.4music.com/news/news/6712/Review-Christina-Aguilera-Lotus to http://www.4music.com/news/news/6712/Review-Christina-Aguilera-Lotus
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cyta.gr/el/IFPI
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/w/2012-12-03/more/4/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centrodedesarrollodigital.com/amprofon3/Top100.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/album/list.gaon
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CRqTHyjB?url=http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard2.aspx to http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard2.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160526024125/http://www.5music.com.tw/CDTop.asp?top=6 to http://www.5music.com.tw/CDTop.asp?top=6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Lotus (Christina Aguilera album). 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/20121007175632/http://www.theinsider.com/music/56123_Christina_Aguilera_Unveils_Lotus_Album_Cover/index.html to http://www.theinsider.com/music/56123_Christina_Aguilera_Unveils_Lotus_Album_Cover/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005155030/http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=Lotus&sa=Christina+Aguilera&smt=0 to http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=Lotus&sa=Christina+Aguilera&smt=0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615133242/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/christina%20aguilera/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/christina%20aguilera/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921141701/https://www.sonymusic.com.tw/main/album/%E7%B6%AD%E7%B4%8D%E6%96%AF%E4%B9%8B%E8%93%AE-%E8%B1%AA%E8%8F%AF%E7%89%B9%E5%85%B8-%E5%85%8B%E8%8E%89%E7%B5%B2%E6%B1%80-christina-aguilera-%E5%85%8B%E8%8E%89%E7%B5%B2%E6%B1%80-christina-aguilera-88765404232 to https://www.sonymusic.com.tw/main/album/%E7%B6%AD%E7%B4%8D%E6%96%AF%E4%B9%8B%E8%93%AE-%E8%B1%AA%E8%8F%AF%E7%89%B9%E5%85%B8-%E5%85%8B%E8%8E%89%E7%B5%B2%E6%B1%80-christina-aguilera-%E5%85%8B%E8%8E%89%E7%B5%B2%E6%B1%80-christina-aguilera-88765404232
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DF8D2weS?url=http://www.mixup.com.mx/mixup/Product.aspx?sku=887654042323 to http://www.mixup.com.mx/mixup/Product.aspx?sku=887654042323
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The review from AllMusic in the prose mentions that the album is a pop album. It doesn't mention soul or disco extensively. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, "she's sticking with the belting soul ballads, hard disco, and pop that made her a star" just means that there are these genres in the album, not that they are main genres.Blueberry72 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I've removed disco and soul because the user who added them was a sockpuppet. Blueberry72 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lil-unique1:, apparently every user who had added soul and disco in the infobox was a sockpuppet of MariaJaydHicky: it means that nobody wants those genres in the infobox except a single person who pretends to be a lot of people. Blueberry72 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I added a source that calls Lotus electro-R&B. Has any one got any objections to it? 62.252.205.73 (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Labeling the album as pure pop as its main genre is inaccurate, the first half specifically is filled with dance songs and their respective sub-genres, the album has been referred as dance-pop several times (one example: https://www.redonline.co.uk/reviews/music-reviews/a511210/christina-aguilera-lotus-review/). I think labeling it as pop is inaccurate given multiple songs aren't even pop (such as cease fire or make the world move).