Talk:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Kendrick Lamar and Drake

• ... that the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud dates back to the 2013 song "Control"?

• Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2013/08/21/214145432/the-blast-radius-of-kendrick-lamars-control-verse

https://www.gq.com/story/the-kendrick-lamar-drake-beef-explained

• • ALT1: ... that the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud dates back to 2013? Source: same sources as alt0
  • ALT2a: ... that the "beef" between Kendrick Lamar and Drake dates back to 2013? Source: same sources as alt0
  • ALT2b: ... that the "beef" between Kendrick Lamar and Drake dates back to the 2013 song "Control"? Source: same sources as alt0
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Robyn Gigl
  • Comment:

Moved to mainspace by Cadenrock1 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC).

• Of those, I prefer ALT2b. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• I too prefer ALT2b; it connects their current beef to a specific song from 2013 - nearly a decade ago. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I've been monitoring this article for a few days now. It is actively being edited. The photos were used at the time of nomination, but have been swapped. Right now, at this moment, the nomination is good to go. --evrik ^(talk) 16:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Cadenrock1 and Evrik: I hate to be a fuzzy-duddy about this (despite being younger than both feud participants) but is there really a need for WP:FANCRUFT-adjacent stuff like the "Full song chronology" section? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. The songs track the feud. --evrik ^(talk) 02:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you for leading with inquiry. I haven't been a huge fan of the section since its inception, but I admit it has dramatically improved from its uncited and originally researched genesis. A brief summary of song contents is necessary for a longwinded feud like this spanning many years and tracks. Cadenrock1 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• --evrik ^(talk) 02:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Of those, I prefer ALT2b. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking for a primary source of VIBE Magazine's 2014 winter cover story

Hello,

Following the trail of links to VIBE Magazine's original winter 2014 cover story with Drake leads to this article. The article cuts itself off early and the needed quotation seems inaccessible. Site says 'click on the arrows above to read Drake's Q&A'-- there are no such things. Perhaps an old feature of the site that became nonfunctional after a website overhaul?

I used VIBE Magazine's recap of the feud this year as a secondary source, but the primary source would be preferred, if anyone could get it or an archive of it. Cheers.

Cadenrock1 (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cadenrock1, is this what you were looking for? Arrows are on the cover image, and I think it's on slide 4. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! Thank you so much. I'll add it now. Cadenrock1 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Who made "meet the grahams" redirect to this article?

Who made "meet the grahams" redirect to this article? Please delete this redirect admins. "meet the grahams" is notable enough to have its own article if "Taylor Made" is notable enough to get its own article. Thanks. Or delete the "Taylor Made" article.

Alexysun (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

​"Meet the Grahams" is now a standalone article. Any editor can expand a redirect into an article by following the directions at Wikipedia:Redirect § How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article (WP:RTOA). — Newslinger talk 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Champagne Problems

Should Champagne Problems be listed? I, personally, think so but I might be wrong. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)]

I'd say so. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you please add it? I only know how to use the talk page and don't wanna screw anything up. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

'Civil conflict' infobox discussion

Concerning Zvig47 and GLORIOUSEXISTENCE's point of contention over using the 'civil conflict' infobox for the article.

GLORIOUSEXISTENCE's original edit with the civil conflict

Version without the infobox Cadenrock1 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zvig47:

Seems like the person who wanted to bring it to the talk page so bad doesn't have anything to add to the talk page. This is ridiculous. Obviously the infobox was a WIP and not completed (I clearly expressed this in my edit descriptions) but that does not mean that the infobox should be removed. I have yet to see a genuine reason not to have an infobox. The conflict is not a protest or a riot (the main usage of this infobox), but the ability to show parties and background objectively helps the article. The only argument I have seen against it is an appeal to tradition ("it's just rap beef, it doesn't need an infobox!") does nothing but hurt Wikipedia, when it should be moving forward. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Brother I don’t live on Wikipedia. I’m not waiting minute by minute for you to take this to the take page. There really is nothing more to say other than adding that infobox is very overdramatic. It should be reserved for actual conflicts, not a fued between rappers, and you may find that repetitive but it’s the only thing that needs to be said. It’s a major moment in rap history but you’re turning it into something it’s not. It adds nothing to the article and everything that it is trying to say is already said in a much more formal fashion in the article. Zvig47 (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I stated this before, but perhaps I did not explain my point enough. The infobox (like any other infobox) helps the article because it clearly shows a basic recap of the conflict (once it is fully filled out, I only really put a skeleton there) for someone that wants to know what is going on, but does not want to read a very long article about two grown men having a rap battle.

Could you answer why the infobox should be reserved for "actual conflicts"?

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be useful and Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation. Although they're not binding, they have some good arguments criticizing anti-infoboxism. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think info boxes aren’t useful. I think they are incredibly useful when used for a person's biography or an event. I do however feel it is not needed in this case. This is a verbal exchange between two people, the infobox presents this article as if this is an actual civil war between rap artists, when in reality it is a fued. I appreciate how you want to make this article more accessible for people and help them understand the page better, but I truly think it adds nothing and makes the conflict look bigger than it is. Zvig47 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)