Talk:4 (Beyoncé album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:4 (Beyoncé Knowles album))
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 4 (Beyoncé album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Albums (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Beyoncé (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beyoncé, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beyoncé 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pop music (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject R&B and Soul Music (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Confusion over Singles[edit]

Why is "I Care" not listed as a single even though it was released in Italy, and similarly "Party" was released in the United States yet its not a single? Lots of singles in the US particularly R&B ones are sent to radio-only. They're still singles. Equally "End of Time" shouldn't be classified as a single because there's no such thing as sending a song to radio in the UK, labels can make songs available but its upto UK stations to playlist them. That's a huge difference to the US. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 01:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. I tried so many times making "Party" a single because obviously it is, it received a digital download service. But Jivesh reverted me... the fact is though it is a single. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Then how does "I Care" become a single? I don't remember it being sent to US radios? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
[1] Google translates as ""I Care", the new single by Beyoncé from the album "4" will be on the radio from 23 March in Italy!". Seems to be an Italy-only single. Adabow (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Since when Italy started counting airplay while compiling its singles chart? And there is no evidence of "Party" being sent to radio as far as I know. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Beyonce's official website states that it is a single in Italy. In my opinion that is concrete. Adabow (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Jivesh, you know there's evidence of "Party" being sent to US radio. And I am not getting into that again.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
At Party (song) it states "The album version of "Party" was lined up for adds on United States Urban contemporary radio on August 30, 2011.[10] However, its release was scrapped, with several websites reporting that "Countdown" would be released as the album's US third mainstream single". I don't see how the urban release of "Party" and the mainstream release of "Countdown" are mutually exclusive. Is there a source for the scrapping of "Party"'s release? It did very well on the US urban charts... Adabow (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
No, there's no source stating that the release was cancelled. That stuff right there is WP:OR.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Even "Dance for You" did very well. Does that mean it was release? What kind of logic? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's not the logic... the logic is that there's a source that says it was sent to radio. I don't believe there is one for "Dance for You".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry for the confusion, Jivesh. What I mean is there seems to be no evidence that the urban release was scrapped, especially considering it did well on the urban charts. You're right, the performance alone does nothing to indicate a release or not, but it doesn't inspire confidence in me that it was indeed dropped. Adabow (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Jivesh, I have discussed this with you over 1000 times. A promo single by definition is an audio or video recording distributed for free. That's not what "Party (Remix)" is. A song does not need to be both sent to radio and made for digital download for to be a single, being allowed to buy the song digitally it makes it a single already. If the song have a poor commercial performance, that does not allow you to remove it and make it a promo single. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Promo singles don't have to be free, see "The Silence (song)". Alexandra herself stated that it was a promotional single for the re-release of her album and for Christmas, so it is listed as such. It's also possible that "End of Time" got given Impact day release in the UK, like Rihanna's "Stay" and Leona's "Lovebird".  — AARONTALK 10:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"Stay" was later released digitally, meaning it was obviously a single. What I am talking about, Beyonce never stated that "Party" is a promotional single. Her label added it to the radio and later made it available for digital download, making it an obvious single. The thing it was not successful, does not make the song a promo single. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No one has yet answered my question: "Since when Italy started counting airplay while compiling its singles chart?" And Tom, please don't tell me promo singles have to be free. We are no longer in the 1980s.
  • And Beyonce confirmed "Countdown" as the third single by the end of September. As far as i know "Run the World (Girls)" was the first single and "Best Thing I Never Had" was the second one. So where is "Party"? Is it the 2.5th? Lol. Two more, [2] [3] Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Then puke on Wiki's definition for promo single. (which I believe it's true) Beyonce doesn't need to confirm the single, it's obvious. Lol, the song is a single, you want or not. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I neither know nor care whether the Italian Singles Chart includes airplay; Beyonce's website states the Italy single release. "Party" only got an urban release, so it doesn't surprise me that mainstream media are reporting "Countdown" as the third single. It's irrelevant; they are both singles. Adabow (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
IMO "Party" and "I Care" are both singles. Both were serviced to radio. Any kinda service to radio (unless explicitly stated to be promotional) counts as a song being released as a single if coverage clarifies it as such. "End of Time" can't have been sent to radio cause that just doesn't happen in the UK, labels promote songs and then radio stations choose to pick them up. Sometimes instead of a digital download release, they're given an impact date such as Lovebird by Leona Lewis was and Wet by Nicole Scherzinger. Songs such as "New Day" by Alicia Keys was released to radio in France, that's a single from her album. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 21:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
So how can "Countdown" and "Party" be third singles at the same time? 4 was not promoted in the same wayI Am... Sasha Fierce was as far as I know? And does all this mean that "End of Time" was not a single? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
"Party" is the third single. "Countdown" is the fourth single, and the third mainstream one. Adabow (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
But don't the sources say "third single"? They all quote "third official single". Calling it the third mainstream single is WP:OR. None of them say "mainstream single". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Jivesh, how many times should we explain to you that for a song to be a single, we don't need a source saying "it is the fourth urban single" or "is is the fourth official single". The prove is: 1) the song [Party] (original) was sent to radio; 2) the remix was digitally released making it the song a single. Better than that, here it's a source saying that "1+1" is a single!, according to our policy, is it? — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"1+1" is not a "single" but a promotional single. Do you have a source calling "Party" the third single? I have at least 10 reliable sources calling "Countdown" the third official single. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

See, that's the point. We have confronting sources: MTV News calls "1+1" a single, while according to Digital Spy it is a promotional single, which in this case is right because I couldn't find any digital download date or a radio add date. Jivesh, why for instance don't you try to listen to other people? Adabow said to you, that "Party" is an urban radio single (also a digital counting the remix); sometimes there isn't a need for confirmation by music websites that the song is a single, because simply it is! I will quote Adabow now, "Countdown" is a mainstream single, while "Party" is an urban single. That's my point and I have told that like 342423 times! — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
MTV News later corrected itself when it called "Best Thing I Never Had" the second single. So it contradicted itself. The difference here is that no one even called "Party" a single let alone the third single. Everyone wrote "third official single" with reference to "Countdown". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Stubbornness again! I will tell you ones more and bold it too: There is no need for music website to call the song a single! If there is a digital download date or a radio add date the song is a single. "Cockiness (Love It)" (Remix) flopped, so what? Nobody called it a single, but we have a digital download date, meaning it is a single, we can't just randomly make it a promo o.O. "Party" has both radio add date and a digital download date... result = an obvious single, wanted you or not. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not talking about "Cockiness" or whatever. I am talking about "Countdown" and "Party". They can't both be third singles. And who is Wikipedia to decide what is a single? Has it become a music label? It should go by what sources say and not only form its own views and opinion and publish it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
"Cockiness" was an example, stop with the stupid delusional behavior. If you don't respect Wikipedia's policies Ok than, go through thousands of songs which were not announced by music websites as singles (but were indeed released!) and change them. Bye from me here, the discussion is obviously pointless because you don't accept our opinions. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This is not about respecting a policy or not. Wikipedia policies are not always correct. A policy cannot be followed blindly. I am discussing the facts and I have sources that back them. If whatever you are saying "according to Wikipedia policies" is true, so I don't see why "Why Don't You Love Me" was changed from "promo single" to "single" yesterday? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the discussion except to say that editing must be based on consensus and that wikipedia policies are there for a reason. Talk pages not just another place to argue back and forth. If you don't have consensus for the edit, then don't make it. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. Do you mean we should vote? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No. Read consesus building. If you can't get others to see your point of view then just leave it and edit something else. There are plenty of pages to edit and improve, you don't need to win every time. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battlefield for me wanting to win something here. I just want to correct something which is wrong. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It isn't wrong, as stated here to you by four different people. Let me put things in perspective. Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) was cited as being her fourth album - despite the fact that it's her sixth - by both her label and media outlets. Her next album, Lotus (Christina Aguilera album), was cited as her fifth album - despite being her seventh. The same is said for her older albums, Stripped (Christina Aguilera album) and Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album) have been cited as her second and third albums, respectively. Does this mean, her actual second and third albums, Mi Reflejo and My Kind of Christmas are "promotional albums"? Of course not! Do you even have a citation calling "Party" or "I Care" promo singles? You can bring all the sources you want calling "Countdown" the third single, it has nothing to do with this discussion. We can do our own simple math here. Here, we have formed, through a lot of previous discussion what a single is.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly telling you, I don't see why Mi Reflejo and My Kind of Christmas are considered as her studio albums. Christiana Aguilera is not even Spanish. And the second one is obviously a Holiday album. And releasing two studio albums in three months interval? Even Rihanna is slower at that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Because there's no such thing as a "Spanish" or a "Holiday" type of album... We have several types of albums: studio, compilation, remix, etc. Now, I'm convinced you're just arguing to argue now because what does Christina being Spanish have to do with anything? (She is Latino...) And what's the purpose of that little dig on Rihanna there? What does that have to do with the singles from 4? You clearly don't want to discuss the facts and again, four people have tried to explain them to you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I really can't digest the fact that you are all ignoring so many websites calling "Countdown" the official third single. If this is being ignored, then we do we need to source the information we add around Wikipedia? We should all write whatever we want, shouldn't we? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And I can't digest that you're ignoring the fact that Beyonce's website called "I Care" a single and that "Party" was sent to urban radio (you deny this even happening). Numbering on the release of albums/singles =/= writing whatever you want on a project.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few sources calling "Party" the third single.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't get an archived link, but with a Google Search I found there was an article on BeyonceOnline talking about the premiere of the "Countdown" video saying: "King B will premiere the video for the fourth single off of her 4 album on MTV this Thursday." Yikes. Even Beyonce's site calls "Countdown" the fourth single.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
First of all you brought Christina Aguilera here and Tom brought Rihanna here. I didn't. I just replied to both of you. My question still remains, why do so many websites contradict you? Why isn't "Party" known as the third single if it really is? There is a big difference between "set to be" and "is" (with reference to this). Same with "scheduled" (with reference to this). Last but not the least, Idolator quotes, "'Party' has been tapped as Beyonce’s third single off of her latest album 4." And then, it later says "Many, many delightfully-dressed variations of Beyonce are featured in the singer’s colorfully cute new video for 'Countdown', the official third single from 4." And you can't find that link because it simply does not exist. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You weren't talking about Rihanna's single releases, you made a little dig about the speed in which she releases albums. You didn't respond to any of the comparisons made at all. You only just denied two of Christina's album's being studio albums (with no logical reason what-so-ever). Do you have any evidence that the "Party" single was cancelled? And I can't get an archive link because now redirects to and the archive website just redirects to the new one. But I just so happened to find a cached version of the article. Looking pretty non-existent to me. In the end, that doesn't matter, as, we all know, 1+1=2. We don't need a citation to do simple math for us. Besides the point, "Love on Top" came out before "Countdown", making "Love on Top" the fourth single.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
We didn't bring them up just for the sake of it, Rihanna and Xtina are both singers as Beyonce, aren't they? They also release singles and albums, but they do not need music websites to announce them so we can make them singles. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's not go off-topic again please. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
So now you are using Beyonce's website. I guess you will do the same to other artists as well as "[they] also release singles and albums, but they do not need music websites to announce them so we can make them singles" (as Tom wrote). So Jennifer Lopez will have only five albums and same for Christina Aguilera as their websites say so, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's not go off-topic again please, says the one who makes stupid and senseless digs. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Tom, mind your language. I have never used such unpleasant words towards you. And this is not the first time you are doing so on the same page. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's quite clear there's no having a conversation with you about this. "Party" and "I Care" are singles. Deal with it. That is all.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Fine. Do whatever you want. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't use them to you, you are using them on yourself, making such ironic comments, which are not funny indeed. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


  • The first section I read was the critical reception section. I find the sentences to be a bit repetitive and one-note: "X of Rolling Stone said abc." "Y of AllMusic wrote 123." "Z of New York Times stated wxy." However, I cannot fault the article on this, because I find that many articles here follow the same repetitive structure. If that section were really well written, it would probably group the reviews on similar themes, and provide a summary of the reactions to the album. As in, "Knowles' vocal performance was cited as a highlight of the album. Jody Rosen of Rolling Stone found her singing expressive and emotive, while Kitty Empire of The Guardian also complimented the singer's "nuanced delivery and her expansive range, stating..." Knowles' exploration of various genres was applauded by X of Entertainment Weekly, who wrote... Y also found her exploration of '70 soul a refreshing change from... etc." On the other hand, not all critics were impressed with the musical direction of the album. Adam Markovitz of Entertainment Weekly felt that its first-half is marred by boring ballads..."
    I don't know if I'm being clear. But I think, again, that the purpose of the article (i.e Knowles explores genres, stretches her vocals) should always be in the back of your mind when you write, and every section should, in some way, trace back to that. But it's up to you, since, as I've said, other articles never go this far.
  • Let me for the record state that I absolutely hate that table in the Accolade section. It's unnecessary and would sound better as prose.
  • Commercial performance:
  • "On its first day of sales"--did you mean on it's first day of release?

That's all that jumps out at me right now. And, as always, if you have questions, just drop me a note. Orane (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Using Discogs as a source[edit]

A problem that I brought up in 4's FAC: the article uses the Discogs page as a source for recording and song credits. Being a website that is largely based on user-generated content (including the 4 page), what makes it a high-quality RS? Let's not forget that this article is now an FA (which is a well-deserved recognition). prism 10:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced all the relevant Discogs citations with the CD liner. Adabow (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


There has been discussion here on whether or not pop should be included in the infobox. Entertainment Weekly has been used before in several articles for genres. Let's discuss it here to find what is most appropriate before we go into an editwar. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Entertainment Weekly is fine as a source, it's the aspect of the source you're using that is not. The source lists it as a genre in the same way as most media sites use tagging to sort their articles in order for users to click on them and explore other articles of a similar nature. I find listing an album genre in this way as rather crass: The Guardian tags it as "pop and rock"—should I be including rock as a genre here too? What is worse is that the EW source doesn't discuss 4 as a pop album in the actual review (the most important part!), so where is its basis as a pop album indicated? The genre field should reflect the genres that prevail the most in reliable sources. As can be found in the Composition section: The album consists mostly of mid-tempo R&B songs, with 1970s funk, 1980s pop and 1990s soul retro influences. The sources clearly present pop as an influence or element in some of the songs, along with funk and soul; the sources do not present pop as the album's genre nor does the article talk of 4 as a pop album. Pop should not be included in the infobox for this very reason: the infobox serves to present the article's most salient points and must not include claims that are unsubstantiated later in the text. Best, —JennKR | 02:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
fair enough, I'll look into it a bit more. Slightly unrelated, can we rephrase "1990s soul retro influences." I keep reading it and I don't even know what it's trying to say. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep—removed "retro" as it appears to the problematic word here. —JennKR | 22:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)