Talk:The Life of Pablo

Draft / history merge

Resolved

May be worth merging Draft:Swish (album). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"All Day"

Unresolved

This article contains details about the song "All Day", which does not appear on the album. Should all content about this song be removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It was released in promotion for the album, so I vote no.1Sire (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016

Add label info Good Music, Roc-A-Fella, & Def Jam Those are the releasing labels. Roc-A-Fella is added to keep the branding alive so copyright office doesn't revoke the license to use the name. Example, JAY Z's MCHG had a Roc-A-Fella Logo but it was released by Roc Nation and Universal. You can research on the Def Jam Website, hit releases and then hit Roc-A-Fella. Most of Kanye's Releases are there currently. Thank You. Defjamad661 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDED: SOURCE(DefJam.com/Releases) then hit Roc-A-Fella, then you would see kanyes latest releases released under that label

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016

Resolved

Kanye changed the first track on WAVES from "Nina Chop" to "Famous" NicGastellu (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has been updated accordingly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

References

WAVES tracklist was released in 2016, not 2015

Just needs a date correction. 2601:85:4501:B2C8:5455:2077:3EF0:B184 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)2/10/2016, JU

Producer on Fade

Resolved

Ryan Vojtesak (aka Charlie Handsome) produced on Fade...his name should be added in the credits section for that record

 Done This appears to be resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

DJ Dodger Stadium (Jerome Potter) should be credited for production too, as well as production on Feedback 4, Low Lights, Ultralight Beam and Father Stretch My Hands Pt 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.74.53 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Martin Shrekli

I don't know where to put this so sorry, but the album is dropping today https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/698175350854021120 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.51.121.111 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The only source for Shrkeli being able to hold up production is Shkreli himself. As a legal matter, Shkreli's argument is absurd. Even if Kanye were himself a corporation, corporations are not under any obligation to hold a board vote over any yahoo's offer to purchase an asset they own. That portion in the intro really should be either removed or at least edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.22.127 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove that martin skhreli bs

"The Life of Pablo is the seventh studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It will be released by GOOD Music, Roc-A-Fella Records and Def Jam Recordings on February 12, 2016, however this the release is subject to change to Martin Shkreli applied for acquisition of the album and publishing rights for the price of $10 million which will result in him having sole copy of the album and in the application Martin Shkreli has stated not to release the album commercially"

Ugh.... not only is the Martin Skhreli proposal extremely likely to be rejected (you really think Kanye would do that? Since the proposal was created he's said he's still releasing the album), but this is a terribly written sentence. I can't edit this but someone ought to fix this.

The proposal not only isn't likely to be accepted, it doesn't even need to be considered. Shkreli's legal argument is outright absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.22.127 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ultra Light Beams

Earl Sweatshirt co-produced "Ultra Light Beams" as randomblackdude. Rtjfan (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Source? I can see it, the drums are very Earl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.66.4 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a possible source for whoever suggested this: http://goodmusicallday.com/2016/02/kanye-west-life-of-pablo-album-tracklist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.206.188 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Track 3 is called Pt 2

Resolved

Not Father Stretch My Hands Pt 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by :206.174.179.44 (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done This appears to be resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016

Resolved

169.231.28.100 (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC) This album's genre should also be considered a gospel album. Throughout the album there are many bible references and choir singing and it meets the genre criteria.

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Genres are quite contentious, and what editors think the genres are, is just their PoV, and not sufficient for inclusion - Arjayay (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed to confirm genres. Marking this section as resolved since the request has been addressed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Last sentence "Release and Promotion"

Unresolved

Would help to clarify that it was released exclusively to stream through Tidal and exclusively to purchase through Kanye's website (www.kanyewest.com). Also may want to consider inputting notes on the rocky rollout and Tidal's intially incorrect track listing re: Fade and Facts. Initially the streaming and downloadable versions of the album had the same file for Facts (Charlie Heat Version) and Fade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltease (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wolves Sampling Nightcall

The howl before the Frank O. section comes from Nightcall by Kavinsky featuring Lovefoxxx from the Drive soundtrack. 64.147.210.162 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Appears so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV_3Dpw-BRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.206.188 (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Uncredited samples

According to this review - http://music.theaureview.com/reviews/kanye-west-the-life-of-pablo-2016-lp/ - the intro for "Ultralight Beam" featured an uncredited sample from a vine. Linked to in the review.

References

I've added an "unreferenced section" tag to the Tracklisting section, which includes not only the tracklist but a long list of Notes and sample credits. Does the single Tidal inline citation really provide sufficient evidence for these many notes and credits? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Telegraph review is for the songs played at Yeezy season 3, not released album

Just wondering if it is correct to include the Telegraph review by Neil Cormick in the "Critical Reception" since that is not reviewing the released album, but instead the songs played at the Yeezy season 3 event. I know that event was supposed to be an album listening party, but in the end the released album has a lot of changes from the event, including 8 more songs.

The review is from the 12th of February. Seems weird to have that review for an album released the 14th of February. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorwikiroj (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Telegraph's review should not be here. The critic could not have even had the full quality files to listen to before writing the "review". It's obvious the review was driven by the 24hour news cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestIRL (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Reviews

The album did NOT receive "rave reviews". It clearly has gotten mixed reception. Just because you are a fan doesn't mean you have to be biased and overhype it when it hasn't been earned. Majority of reviews released thus far have been mixed. Even the star ratings in the article prove the same. It is such a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4601:84D1:2C40:B57D:F2CC:62B5 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Update Metacritic to be be 74/100 out of 6 reviews' Olapecko (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

According to Metacritic, The Life of Pablo received an 80/100 from The New York Times; include it in the critical reception of the album.

Source: http://www.metacritic.com/music/the-life-of-pablo/kanye-west Slimjosa (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: The score has been updated to 82 by someone else already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing the featurings

All the featurings should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.51.39.165 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a suggestion to move the featured vocalists in the Notes section to the Track listing section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

84/100

According to the Metacritic website, The Life of Pablo has an above average score of an 84/100, based on 12 reviews. http://www.metacritic.com/music/the-life-of-pablo/kanye-west — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2broke (talk • contribs)

Down to 82 now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Deans

To much Deans in tracklist. Need to clarify this point. --Mr Jefferson (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is 'Pablo'?

I think readers of this article will want to know something about what West has said, or not said, about the album's title. West explained to SNL staff backstage that he is "by 50 percent" more influential than many people name-dropped in the immediate aftermath of his album's release: "Stanley Kubrick, Picasso, Apostle Paul, fucking Picasso and Escobar ... By 50 percent more influential than any other human being." Not sure how relevant that is, but West clearly had these cultural inferiors in mind as he executed his project. Pablo indeed. Shouldn't this be noted? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The most important thing about this album is the answer to: "Who the [F-word] is Pablo?" The answer to this question is the *ONLY* reason that I'm looking up the "The Life of Pablo" on Wikipedia. This should be a section on the main page, preferably near the top. This question, with expletive included, is repeatedly asked of Khloe who asked Kanye about it. Kanye answered Khloe by giving three names: Pablo Picasso, Pablo Escobar, and Apostle Paul. "A saint, a sinner, and a nutjob walk into a bar, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.24.220 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

Please change the credit Nico Segal to Nico "Donnie Trumpet" Segal on Ultra Light Beam as that is the way he is credited when writing and performing. Macmediaent (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Bonus Tracks

I don't think the last 5 tracks are bonus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.102.122 (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the last 5 are bonus tracks either. -- (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)<

Wrong Name Linked as Writer

Under Track Listing for track number 5 under the writer(s) Marcus Byrd is linked to the wrong Marcus Byrd. He currently does not have a wiki page. Should be unlinked immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanikkap (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Frank's Track"

Resolved

Does the track listing need to be updated to include "Frank's Track"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Add featured vocalists to track listing?

Normally featured vocalists appear in the track listing itself, not a Notes section below. Is there a reason we display this information differently for this article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Cover art vs alternate cover art

I think the two covers are switched. The original cover is being portrayed as the alternate album art, and vice versa. Per the cited source, the cover with two photos is described as "Another Cover" whereas the cover that Wikipedia now lists as the alternate cover is described as "Cover by Peter de Potter"

http://hypetrak.com/2016/02/kanye-west-the-life-of-pablo-alternate-cover/

2605:E000:4DDB:FE00:8513:9AD0:6B93:5FA4 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Release date in infobox

Up until yesterday the date in the infobox listed two dates. One for the February tidal release and one for the April general release. Recently that was changed by an editor who believed that this was no longer necessary since we had info about it in the article itself. I, however reverted the info believing that it still deserved to be covered in the info box. It was reverted back by another user who agreed with the previous user.

My issue is that the infobox provides users with a quick glance at the most important info about an album. For instance if I wanted to know the release date for Sophie B Hawkins second album, Whaler, I could look it up and see it was released in October 1994, and then move on. In this hypothetical I am not interested in anything els so I would not check the rest of the artcle at all, which works because the album did become widely available in October of 1994. The problem is that if I used the same method for Life of Pablo I would get info that, if not wrong, would not be telling the whole story.

I do not think it's excessive at all to have two release dates in the info box. One for the Tidal release and one for the general release. It's similar to how films are handled where if a film is released at a film festival before its general release it is listed under both release dates. (for a good example of this see Following (film))

I just wanted to bring this up for discussion so the majority could weigh in. --Deathawk (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Btw, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim made here that there will be a physical release in June. 80.219.20.147 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

GT in jeopardy

This looks good quality from a glance. Nobody has nominated the article yet, but would anyone like to assist me in GA nomination for this as a last-ditch attempt to keep this topic, considering I have no experience in hip-hop albums here? It's currently at WP:GTRC and it'd be a shame for it to fall so soon after it was promoted. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Ultralight Beam"

Page watchers are invited to assist with the expansion of the newly-created "Ultralight Beam" article. Thanks ! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

seventh solo album and eighth studio album

@Kellymoat:, you reverted this edit, stating that there had been a consensus that it should be "seventh solo album and eighth studio album" rather than simply "seventh studio album". [1]

I was curious as to where that discussion is, as it does not appear to be on the talk page for this article. Thank you. Cjhard (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that it has been archived. It is also possible that it happened on one of the other albums containing the wording. It is also possible that it is on one of the artist pages. It is also possible that it happened in a MOS discussion.

Watch the Throne is the culprit. It is a studio album, but not a solo album, but not a "group" album. So from WtT forward, for both artists, we state the count of both studio and solo. (example - 8th solo, 9th studio).Kellymoat (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please find the consensus? It seems inappropriate to use a consensus you can't find to revert good faith edits. Cjhard (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No. I won't do that. But if it is that much of an issue with you, feel free to review the history of the affected albums and artists. You'll see plenty of reverts and numerous edit summaries stating the same. Kellymoat (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this what you're referring to? [[2]] Otherwise it seems like you're referring to a history of edit warring as 'consensus'. However, in the discussion linked there is no consensus that Yeezus should be referred to as Kanye's "sixth solo album and seventh studio album", it was suggested by one person, to whom no one responded. Further, Yeezus and The Life of Pablo are the only albums with articles which describe them in this way. New Jack City II is described as Bow Wow's "sixth studio album", excluding the collaborative album he did with Omarion, Face Off, from the count; Joanne is described as Lady Gaga's "fifth studio album", excluding the collaborative album with Tony Bennett, Cheek to Cheek, from the count. Most tellingly, Jay-Z's post-WTT album, Magna Carta Holy Grail is described as his "twelfth studio album", excluding WTT from the count. None of these refer to solo albums when solo artists have a rare collaborative album. Collaborative albums aren't counted as 'studio albums' in their descriptions, so there's no need for convoluted introductions about "xth solo and yth studio album". Cjhard (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That conversation took place 4 years ago. I remember the end result (particularly since it has been edited and reverted numerous times) but I don't remember the specifics.

Also, I just edited Magna Carta to include the wording. Not sure how that one wasn't done. But it is now. Kellymoat (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, if you're going to use this consensus as the basis for your edits, you need to provide evidence that it exists. At this point it looks doubtful that it does exist, and it's not other editors' responsibility to find the evidence for your edits. Unless you can find this consensus (and I'm not sure how that determinative it would be if it does exist), then a discussion should be had about the wording choice, especially considering only the Kanye West album articles (and now the Magna Carta article) have this wording, and all other album articles with similar circumstances have the simpler, cleaner wording. Cjhard (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of WP rules that I couldn't find if I needed to. That doesn't mean that you get to break them. Kellymoat (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

But you're not citing a rule, you're citing a discussion while providing no evidence that it exists. Do you think you don't need to provide evidence for a consensus you're using as a basis for your edits? I'm really confused at that. Cjhard (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You pointed to one discussion. What exactly do you think a consensus is? THAT's a consensus, even if not the main one. Kellymoat (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, in that discussion, it "was suggested by one person, to whom no one responded." Granted, the fact that the article proceeded on that basis does mean that it was technically a consensus, but certainly not a strong enough one to shut down the discussion here. May I request that you please try to exercise social competence and discuss this issue properly? Wikipedia requires the ability to collaborate civilly, otherwise we all end up banging our heads against walls. Cjhard (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been discussed. Sadly, a consensus doesn't require a 5,000 vote minimum. You were a member back then, you had your opportunity to speak. You chose not to. But now, because you don't like the result, you want a do-over? Kellymoat (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Until you're ready to have a civil, constructive discussion on this matter, please cease reverting on this issue. Your reversions coupled with your complete refusal to resolve this through discussion is textbook edit warring. Cjhard (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, it has already been discussed. Also, if you want to discuss it, than it goes back to the original until the issue is resolved.Kellymoat (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: I don't think the enumeration of Kanye albums needs to be in the lede sentence at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki Thank you for responding to the 3O request. However, the enumeration of the artist's studio albums is standard practice on all studio album articles. Do you have any further thoughts on the matter? Cjhard (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this mentioned as a rule anywhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide or elsewhere; I agree that it is common but don't feel it necessary, especially if it is controversial and/or long-winded. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat:, regarding your reversions of @Bchris26:'s edits, 3O responses aren't binding and do not become the new consensus, so this discussion isn't a citable reason to undo a third party's edits. Also, I believe that Power~enwiki's solution is the least good option. @Bchris26:, it appears you agree that the article should simply be described as Kanye's seventh studio album, could you provide Kellymoat with a short explanation?

Kellymoat, further reversions of this sentence on this article so soon after being banned for edit warring on this exact issue would likely be considered edit warring, are you now willing to discuss the issue or let it go? Cjhard (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to make up your mind. You disagreed with the way the previous discussion ended (to include both numbers). So you wanted a new discussion, you even sought out a third opinion.

However, that discussion ended with "there is no rule stating a number needs mentioned". The number was removed and no one cared. But now you are defending the person that re-added the very number that was removed?Kellymoat (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"The number was removed and no one cared." No, I thought it was the least good option, but saw no need to argue with the 3O provider, as their opinion is an unbinding suggestion, and I had assumed that you would agree that it was the least good option. It was inappropriate for the 3O provider to edit the article to match their opinion, but as a sign of good faith to you I refrained from changing it until you could participate in the discussion, should you choose to discuss it. Now a third person person with a large amount of experience editing music articles has edited it to match my suggestion of the shorter phrasing. That alone shows that someone -other than me- cares.

The 3O provider has now suggested that if we can't agree on a short phrasing "(i.e. 'seventh studio album')" we should take this to DRN.

I believe this is consensus in action, but if you're unhappy with that, let's hash it out. Do you think that any description should be omitted from the lede sentence? Why? Do you think it should be described as Kanye's "seventh solo album and eighth studio album"? Why? I've provided my reasons for the short phrasing "seventh studio album", what issues do you have with my reasoning? Cjhard (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

So, basically, you are saying that because someone changed it to state what you want - the answer has been agreed upon. Kellymoat (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into it. This article never used the phrasing "seventh solo album and eighth studio album" until you made [this edit] citing a consensus. [6 days later] it was changed back by IP:174.119.250.69 to the previous wording. [You reverted] it to your wording almost immediately. Later that day [it was reverted] by IP:2605:8d80:5e4:bcfe:d0be:a860:6e4:a500 and you [again.]

IP:174.119.250.69 and you went [back] [and] [forth] [and back again] a few days later.

[This happened again] in June, leading to this dispute in which [I], IP:66.87.121.137 [[3]], and Bchris26 [[4]] have changed it to its original wording.

Assuming IP:2605:8d80:5e4:bcfe:d0be:a860:6e4:a500 and IP:174.119.250.69 are the same person (their IP information is similar), you have that person, Bchris26, IP:66.87.121.137 and myself against the edit you made to this page. Since you made this edit it has been the ongoing basis of dispute. Other than Elmodivot, who mistakenly believed they were remedying ban evasion, no one other than you has edited in favour of your edit.

That is what I’m calling consensus. Cjhard (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that I may have been the one that added the previous consensus wording to this article. But, you failed to mention how many times the article was changed back and forth from 7th to 8th album. Hence, the need for the discussion that led to the consensus.

But if the previous consensus wasn't good enough for you, what makes you think that this one is? Unfortunately, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You didn't like the previous consensus, you even said it wasn't a consensus. You didn't like the third opinion that came here at your request. But now someone wrote it your way, and you praise him as "an experienced editor" and you consider the issue closed? Kellymoat (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's almost as bad as you opening up an SPI on some innocent bystander that picked up the slack while I was unavailable. Someone always picks up the slack when I am not around. Kellymoat (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is clearly already an edit war. If you can agree on a short phrasing (i.e. "seventh studio album"), use that. If you do not agree and insist on including this fact in the lede sentence, you should probably go for formal WP:DRN at this point. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to squabble, at least follow protocol - the original stays until a final decision is agreed upon. 185.122.57.61 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)