Talk:Kodak Black

Stub status

@Magnolia677: Your edits here and here appear inappropriate.

WP:STUB says: An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub by adding a stub template from the list here to the end of the article.

It then goes on to say: A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion.

The Kodak Black article as it stands today certainly only contains rudimentary information, some (but not all) of which is useful. It is clearly too short to be encyclopedic and there is absolutely room for expansion. There also is room for improvement since some of the sources are highly questionable for a BLP article.

Unless a good reason exists the {{stub}} tag should be included. Please explain why you believe this article does not meet the definition of a stub? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This article provides encyclopedic coverage. It is no longer a stub. Please get input from other editors before adding the stub status. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully @Magnolia677:, I am not sure why you are so intense about removing the stub tag, there is NO downside in flagging an article as a stub until it is matured. A stub just says "Please be patient, I know this article can be better and we're working on it." The fact is that this article is still a stub. Now I won't add the stub tag back until after we have talked here but unless the article makes some dramatic improvements the tag will eventually be re-added ... if not by me then by someone else I'm sure.

The problem with this article is that both the quantity of information and the level of writing style are so thin this cannot possibly be considered as encyclopedic quality yet. To clarify what I mean by "thin" notice that the sentences are almost like bullet points, with no full paragraphs at all. It looks a lot more like a PowerPoint outline than an article at this point. Yet I know it can be better. Your research is good and I think its great you and others keep finding more sources for this artist and his work but in my opinion this article just hasn't reached the level where the stub tag should be removed yet.

KB obviously has real talent and his article should be so much more than this. By removing the stub tag you are effectively saying "this article is good enough as-is." People coming to read the article without the stub tag are going to say to themselves "Is that all there is? Is this everything that Wikipedia is going to say about the guy?" ... but ... with the tag they will see the stub notice and say to themselves "This is a work in progress. It needs more but I see they are at least working on it." Who knows, they might even try to help.

Take a look at the articles on Aaliyah and The Notorious B.I.G.. These are "Featured Articles" and they represent the best examples of what an article should look like. Now compare those articles against this one. Of course KB has barely started his career so there will not be nearly as much information, but beyond the amount of content look at the way the article is written. Full sentences, good prose, organized and logical. Shouldn't this article at least look a little like those articles before you say "good enough"? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 11:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

XXL Freshman Award Issue

@Magnolia677: There are NUMEROUS articles that have the XXL Freshman Award in the articles, why would you leave this one out, just because its "not notable", well you might as well remove it on every single page that has it (ridiculous if you actually do it), plus it doesn't hurt the page, so just leave it in there. P.S.: It's annoying that @Koala Tea Of Mercy: wrote a whole explanation about the issue on this article about being a stub and you ignored it. Disrespectful. Xboxmanwar (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xboxmanwar: I assume you are talking about the edit here where the summary says: "XXL's "Freshman Class" is not a notable award". I would start by asking Magnolia677 if the word "notable" in that summary is being used per the very specialized definition of WP:notable or is it being used per the common English dictionary definition of the word. If the latter (common English) then this is just a personal opinion issue about the value/appropriateness of a source, which will probably require input from other editors. If it's the former (WP:N) usage then this is a clear and dead wrong interpretation of the term as used here at Wikipedia because WP's "notability" only applies to determining if a topic is worthy of having its own article, it never applies to determining if the content within an existing article is appropriate. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Koala Tea Of Mercy Instead of looking at the edit history of the article and seeing that I have been trying to head off an edit war, you take issue with the word "notability". You told me earlier it was all about improving the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677: You are right, I did say that and it is all about improving the article ... within and per the rules, policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia. Working outside the rules hurts the encyclopedia in the long run.

• First, it is never an "edit war" to discuss desired or contested edits. You have been asked a number of questions recently but you have not replied to them or engaged in discussion at all. That is not the Wikipedia way.
• Second, one of those questions is how are you using the term "notability"? It is a legitimate question and deserves an answer. If you are misusing it (and I say "if" because you have not answered the question yet so I don't know) just to win an argument then that is called expediency and many great men have commented on the destructive power of expediency:

Do not let arguments of expediency persuade you. That is the slow road to oblivion. That is the tortured path to undoing step by step, bit by bit, as the river creates a canyon, the way of life that we love. — Chuck Schumer

When virtue is lost, benevolence appears, when benevolence is lost right conduct appears, when right conduct is lost, expedience appears. Expediency is the mere shadow of right and truth; it is the beginning of disorder. — Lao Tzu

Expediency often silences justice. — Seneca the Younger

Using expediency will only hurt the encyclopedia in the long run. Wikipedia is a community effort built on the foundation of establishing consensus, and that is never quick and seldom easy. It takes time and effort and most of all it takes communication. That is the Wikipedia way.

• Third, you talk about "trying to head off an edit war" but where have you tried communication to head off the war? Where have you actually sat down and discussed your differences with the other editors? Where have you even tried to consider their viewpoints or ask their opinions? You started this article six months ago and this talkpage was empty until I posted an explanation of why I restored the stub tag. Throwing out declarations that "This article provides encyclopedic coverage. It is no longer a stub." is not communication. That is not the Wikipedia way.
• Fourth, and finally, I know I have been on a soapbox for the last few paragraphs and I want to be sure it is not just my opinion that is presented here. You said above "Please get input from other editors before adding the stub status." I'll go you one better and try and get input from many editors on both (A) the stub status of this article and (B) whether or not my position on Wikipedia policies and guidelines is correct. I am going to tag this talk page with {{rfc}} and ask for input on what I just wrote so that it is not just one editor's opinion. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Yes, we can improve the article and add more content to the article, since there isn't a lot of info in this artcle, by adding the award to the page, no other article has had this problem with the award except this one, which shouldn't even be a problem. @Koala Tea Of Mercy: Thanks for the help. Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't keep up with you. You've filled a page with text and now you're insisting I tell you my definition of "notability"? I'll let the edit go. Take a moment to look through the edit history though. Perhaps you can help improve the article in some way. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677, I don't want your personal definition, I want to know if you used "notability" in the (A) WP:notable sense or the (B) English dictionary sense when you said the XXL Freshman Award was "not notable"? You can answer the question with a single letter, "A" or "B" ? Part of effective communication (both on Wikipedia and everywhere else in life) is making sure everyone is using the same understanding of the terminology involved. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've come here because of the {{rfc}} above which has listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Presumably the question being asked is "is this article a stub or not", it's not entirely clear. I would say that it's not a stub. One comment above suggested that this article should be compared against some Featured Articles (FAs). That's not really a fair comparison, since it implies that anything that is not a FA must be a stub - but there is a whole spectrum in between - at the top of this talk page there are some WikiProject banners, one of them says "This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale." Articles rarely (if ever) go straight from stub to FA. Most FAs go through the Good Article (GA) stage prior to being nominated for FA; offhand, I don't know of any that didn't, but I do know of one which went from stub to GA in just two days (it became a FA six weeks later). At the quality scale table, look at the rows for Start and Stub, expand the collapsed portions for "More detailed criteria", and see which fits Kodak Black best. Going by those, I think that Start-class is fair; every paragraph is referenced, even though some paragraphs are just one sentence. Since it's (to me at least) Start-class, that means that it's not a stub - although it is a long way from FA yet. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the input Redrose64. After seeing the "assessment" guideline I have to agree that this article is not a stub any longer and I am okay with Start-Class (albeit barely). I'm always willing to admit error when I learn something that expands my understanding. As for the policies part of the RFC tag it was more aimed at the issue of the use, misuse, and abuse of WP:notability. Of course the community's opinions about editors engaging (or refusing to engage) on the talk page is also a policy topic that might benefit from some appropriate comments here. :) Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also here because of the RfC, which is asking me two things: (1) do I think this article is a stub, and (2) do I think that @Koala Tea Of Mercy: has correct opinions in an argument with another editor. My answer to (1) is no, the article seems to have a decent and proportional-to-notability amount of information, even if the lede could be a little longer to better summarize the article. Seems that's the consensus now anyway. My answer to (2) is that RfCs are to get community feedback on issues pertaining to the encyclopedia - usually content, and sometimes deciding new or clarified policy. The purpose of an RfC is not to crown a winner of a personal argument, no matter what that argument is about. If this RfC was new I would probably politely ask you, Koala, to withdraw it, or at least your phrasing of part B; but since it expires in 2 days anyway I'm just commenting to say that I don't think this is an appropriate use of the RfC format, no disrespect intended. Jhugh95 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is an RFC discussion, not an AfD proceeding. If you want to !vote for deleting this article go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodak Black.

Suggest delete Called by the bot. The article is not even a stub, it is about someone who is not notable and should be deleted. Damotclese (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Damotclese: This is an RFC discussion to improve the article and the editorial communication related to it, not an AfD. The article's subject clearly meets the WP:notability threshold unless you are suggesting that the award winning The New Yorker and XXL magazines are not reliable sources. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Delete Looking at the complaints by one of the editors on Damotclese's talk page, and looking at the page here in question, I have to agree that it should be deleted. Basically we have a guy who gave himself a fake name, created a Wikipedia page for himself, then tried to pretend he's some how famous. That is not what Wikipedia is intended for, otherwise we may as well add everyone on the planet to Wikipedia. Summary deletion should be invoked until the guy actually becomes known outside of his High School. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC) @BiologistBabe: This is not the place for "delete" !votes - that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodak Black. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Kodak Black -- notability sources

Just to put the Kodak Black is "someone who is not notable" issue to rest once-and-for-all please note the following:

• Feature article on Kodak Black by The New Yorker magazine. (already cited in the article)
• Feature article on Kodak Black by XXL magazine. (already cited in the article)
• Feature article on Kodak Black by SPIN magazine.
• Feature article on Kodak Black by The New York Times.
• Feature article on Kodak Black by MTV.
• Feature article on Kodak Black by Hey Reverb (an edition of The Denver Post).
• Identified by Forbes magazine as one of the "5 Hip-Hop Artists To Watch In 2016".
• Identified by XXL magazine as a member of the Freshman Class of 2016. (already cited in the article)

I did this research in about 5 minutes and I know nothing about rap music (I don't even like it). But he is definitely notable. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say that WP:GNG is met. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD -- 28 June 2016

SHEESH! Somebody decided to start an AfD here even after I posted this. I have responded with Speedy Keep referencing this section. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try writing less, but saying more. That may be more effective in keeping readers' attention. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• The AfD has been closed as Keep. Now let's get back to improving this article. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition, User:Xboxmanwar has been blocked from editing. So how do you intend to improve this article, except for adding a stub tag to it? Perhaps you could do some research about this person's biography and add some new content? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Alias in infobox

An editor has four times added the aliases "Lil' Black" and "Black" to the infobox at the parameter "associated_acts". The editor does not always leave an edit summary, and I have deleted these edits with the edit summary "according to the source cited, this does not meet the criteria of an alias, per Template:Infobox musical artist. Template:Infobox musical artist states "for listing official stage names for the act or solo artist other than the name in the |name= parameter. Also for the solo artist's legal name(s), or other officially authorized names that differ from their birth name. This field is not for nicknames such as "The Godfather of Soul" (James Brown) or "Nippy" (Whitney Houston), which are not the artists' official names". The source cited to support this addition is an interview with Kodak Black, where he states:

"Oh yeah, when I first signed up I signed up as Kodak Black, ‘cause you know Kodak, that’s pictures and all that. Before Instagram and before Facebook and all that other shit I was just Black, or Lil’ Black, and shit like that, all that other shit. But yeah Instagram came out and I was like man, I’m gonna be Kodak Black. And after that people just started saying, “Man, I like Kodak Black better.” And a lot of people, like when I started walking around, bitches would call me by my Instagram name. “Kodak Black! Kodak Black!” So when I started rapping and all that I just said fuck it, I’m gonna be Kodak Black. Everything turned out the right way."

The key message is "and shit like that", which clearly demonstrates the ephemeral and fluid nature of these nicknames. I would expect a better source, or thorough edit summary, if this edit gets reverted again. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Your vision of the key message "and shit like that" isn't clear, he mentioned that those are his former stage names, there is no problem to remove it, you are too restrictive on this article, I never seen anybody kiss this article's ass as much as you, plus you removed the chart that @JustDoItFettyg: added, and you removed it because the source "isn't reliable", are you lazy? The source that Fetty provides is from Billboard itself, how can you call that not reliable, thats straight from the source of Billboard. You need to let loose. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Birth place/origin in infobox

I'm trying to avoid an edit war with an editor who continues to change both the birthplace and origin in the infobox. An example of the correct format is at Template:Infobox musical artist. See the example provided for Mariah Carey. Yet this editor persists in changing or deleting the following: birth_place = Pompano Beach, Florida, U.S. origin = Pompano Beach, Florida

I will correct this again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: No you are wrong about the example on Mariah Carey, because she was born in Huntington, but she is from New York City, two different places, you separate the locations from the birthplace from the origin/residence, but since Kodak Black was born and raised in Pompano Beach, its not necessary to put where's he's from because its the same place, an example of this is Kid Ink, I am going to change it to how its supposed to be. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: In this case I agree with Xboxmanwar. The Template:Infobox musical artist page covers this (see the highlighted text):

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 12:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

birth_place

This field is only relevant for individuals. The artist's place of birth. Do not add a flag icon. (see field "origin" below).

[[City]], State/Province, Country

origin

The town, city etc., from which the group or musician originated (that is, the place where the group was founded, or where individual performer started their career, should it not match the location of their birth). If the place is not known, specify at least the country. Do not add a flag icon. Omit the country if it does not differ from that specified at the field "birth_place".

[[City]], State/Province, Country

STYLE section proposal

After reading the article on KB by Spin magazine and noticing the various other feature stories all seem to describe his distinct style it occurs to me we need a section that focuses on how these magazines and others are describing him. The Spin article and also the Macadams interview where KB talked about how Chief Keef is "like me" place him firmly in the trap music genre. Other sources also seem to be interested in talking about how he rejects a lot of rappers and hiphop traditions. At Wikipedia we can only write about what others' have written but it seems there is some real meat available from high quality sources for a section describing his style both in his music and in his life (he definitely likes to display his success). Thoughts? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

How does he "display his success"? He's in jail? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Gold teeth, gold bling, white Jag. Before he got arrested there is an article where he talks about wanting to ride in to his high-school prom on a HORSE! He just like to flaunt what he's got even if he isn't really rich (yet?). There is also the style aspect related to the tattoos he has chosen. Plus in the Macadams interview he talks about how his family (except his mom) has treated him poorly and he wants to show them up by having "more swag, more everything, all the respect, all that.". Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 04:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep the discussion above this line please.

---

References

DISCOGRAPHY section

I am using this talk section to sandbox a discography section. Feel free to improve the accuracy of the table content and possibly link to better sources to establish a complete timeline of his releases. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT ROW #2 as this is the blank format to be copied into later rows while we work on this. Any comments/talk on a specific item should be indented UNDER the table please. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 03:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Mixtapes

• Project Baby -- http://www.datpiff.com/Kodak-Black-Project-Baby-mixtape.564923.html -- released 12/27/2013

TRACKS:
Project Baby 4th Quarter (featuring The Koylons) Catch Flight Get It Up Dead Time Ain't No Fakin' It Str8 Bars Freestyle Switchin Gears Skit Signs Mystery Luv 2 Flex Hatin On Me Molly Project Baby 2 Shoulda Woulda Won't Go Back (featuring Dirty 1000) Never Imagine (featuring The Koylons)

• Heart of the Projects -- http://www.datpiff.com/Kodak-Black-Heart-Of-The-Project-mixtape.677764.html -- released 12/31/2014

TRACKS:
Heart Of The Projects I'm That Nigga Benji's Destin Meant For Me 18 Manuvering I Remember Honey Bun Skrilla My Wrist (featuring Koly P) Kill The Beat Better Days (featuring Choo Choo) Yung Niggaz 10 Toes Down Take Me Away 1K Skrt M.O.H. Pelican Molly

• Institution -- http://www.datpiff.com/Kodak-Black-Institution-mixtape.755699.html -- released 12/25/2015

TRACKS:
From The Ugly Rock Bottom Hollyhood Boss My Life Up Shit On Me In Too Deep Heart If U Ain't Ridin' I.M.Y. (I Miss You) Institution Shake Back Gospel Get Up Fed Up Sticky 1 This Life Like Dat Real Nigga Files Wake N Bake Thankful Back On My Feet Me Myself and I Already

• Lil B.I.G. Pac -- http://www.datpiff.com/Kodak-Black-Lil-BIG-Pac-mixtape.787992.html -- released 06/10/2016

TRACKS:
Everything 1K Vibin In This Bih (featuring Gucci Mane) Can I Slayed (featuring Boosie Badazz) Big Bank Gave It All I Got Too Many Years (featuring PnB Rock) Today Purp Young Prodigy 30 Letter Blood Sweat Tears Revenge

Article editing issues

@Magnolia677: Please stop trying to restrict my editing, I cannot improve this article if you keep removing my edits, the chart template is correct, you didn't look at the sources I provided correctly, look at them again and if you see the ref on some of the empty columns where the chart ranking number usually goes on the singles, it will show you that piece of info you said that was not supported, but it is there on all for pages I cited in the edit summary of my edit, I'll provide them here for your convenience. Here they are, D.R.A.M., Lil Yachty, Dae Dae and Lil Uzi Vert, please recheck them. Also it is supported since the source is straight from Billboard, a valid and reliable source, you can't claim that as a "poor" source because that source has been used in a ton of other articles, plus Billboard manages the chart rankings. As for the issue with the associated acts, on the template page, it says:

"This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career."

That means that French Montana can be added in that section because first, he is the first major artist Kodak collaborated with, second, its his first single to hit the charts, since he never had a song on the charts before, and third, it's Kodak's first song to have significant sales, since only only released free mixtapes before, and even through he sold music on iTunes and other digital retailers, "Lockjaw" is his first charting song, as you can see on the charts, and you can check yourself. His "Lil B.I.G. Pac" commercial mixtape is starting to chart, as seen here. Maybe we could create a chart to record that on Wikipedia, if there is a section on Wikipedia that has a template for "Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums". I would like to bring in @Koala Tea Of Mercy: into this conversation, as well as @JustDoItFettyg: to discuss this issue, I would like to get this settled, thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Xboxmanwar: The Template:Infobox musical artist page does indeed start with the statement you said, but you have to apply the entire guideline, not just find what you want and stop reading. A few lines later that same guideline also states:

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with members' solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
• Groups that have played or toured together as separate acts
• Groups that are merely similar
  

Magnolia677 was correct in removing French Montana as an associated act in this case. It would be prudent to offer significant changes on the talk page to avoid having to undo edits on the main page, and then agreement could be reached on what content and formats work best. That is what the talk page is for: collaboration and consensus.

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This is correct, French Montana and Kodak Black have only collaborated on one song (according to the sources cited by the editor who added this). Regarding the chart that was added, only one of the parameters of the chart has any data, and this is "peak chart position on US R&B" (according to the source cited by the editor who added this fairly useless chart). Empty parameters should not be added in the hope that one day they will have a number, per WP:CRYSTAL. As well, stuff on other articles should not be the sole reason to add empty parameters to the chart on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Why do you condemn the Billboard chart, all songs that are on the chart should show their chart ranking on their appropriate article, it doesn't make sense not to add it (since you said it's a fairly useless chart), this is a fairly useless article without more info (and a song in the charts, but doesn't have a chart to show that).

Your counter-claim of the Billboard chart's "empty parameters should not be added in the hope that one day they will have a number" is not under WP:CRYSTAL, because the chart extension that is added next to that parameter extends the charts beyond the Billboard Hot 100, showing you the ranking that is still there, but under "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles", plus, per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, it says that an extension can be added if the song didn't chart in the Billboard Hot 100, check it out for yourself.

Your other counter-claim about that chart that uses WP:CRYSTAL doesn't work, because the future isn't being predicted in any way, its not a scheduled event, it's not an opinion, and it is verifiable (also reliable), since the source is straight from Billboard.

As for your last counter-claim about that chart that uses WP:OSE, it is not the sole reason, as the other reason I already explained firstly in this counter-claim against your counter-claim about the Billboard chart parameters, this issue is just like the one with the XXL Freshman, there are hundreds on articles that say "X (person) was part of the XXL Freshman class Y (year)", yet before you failed to let it be added, other articles have the same parameters, but you can't let it be and make the same set of parameters be added, plus your last counter-claim of WP:OSE isn't even well thought out, and if you thinking to try to counter-claim my counter-claim, don't even think about using this statement from that article at the bottom the "Deletion of articles" section,

"The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common."

That statement applies to only other (crap) articles, I'm talking about other (good) articles that have the same templates (ex. charts and chart parameters), or a piece of info that applies to many articles (ex. XXL Freshman class). Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added a chart in which each parameter is souced. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Replaced tables with embedded lists

The information previously contained tables is better suited to embedded lists, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, which states: "If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read." The style of the list follows: Title, (year), notes - as outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Discographies. In addition, this list removes the unnecessary empty columns which had been added to the previous table. It is indeed hoped that more of this artist's work will make the charts, but to add empty chart lists in the hope they will one day be filled with number ones is WP:CRYSTAL. If more of the artist's music makes the charts, the lists can be expanded, until perhaps one day it will require a table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia677 (talk • contribs) 17:22, July 14, 2016

The format doesn't look good, I suggest going back to the old style, also your claim that the removed charts were violating WP:CRYSTAL, were not violating it, for example, if there is a single out, but doesn't chart, doesn't mean you need to remove the chart, because its still a single, and if it charts, it charts, if it doesn't, it doesn't, nobody is saying that they are hoping it will be filled, only you assumed it, don't do that. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I am still waiting for your response. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Lists are preferred to tables for ease of editing. Magnolia's analysis is spot on. John from Idegon (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This list format is really not standard on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is moving towards tabling even new artists' discographies, and while it may be simple and short at the moment, it better formats the information, instead of making it so readers have to look through prose for information instead of quickly scanning down a column. Personally I don't care about Kodak Black that much that I would fight this, and I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. That mostly concerns making future predictions. Tabling an artist's discography is standard and an mdash where a single may or may not chart doesn't constitute a prediction. Not intending this to be a debate, just a comment. I probably won't look back here. Ss112 10:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: Thank you for your comment, I support what you are saying, this is what I'm trying to imply to this editor on here, but they don't seem to ever understand. Xboxmanwar (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Large edits on July 22, 2016

A large edit was made whereby previously deleted information was reinserted. Specifically, adding "Lil' Black" as am alias using this source. This has been discussed previously on the talk page under "Alias in infobox", because the change is not supported by the source cited. No consensus was reached. Also, Octave assumed the stage name "Kodak Black" as a teenager. He didn't assume the stage name "Kodak" or "Black", he assumed "Kodak Black", much as Kristopher Campbell assumed the stage name K Camp. Not "K" or "Camp", but "K Camp". Magnolia677 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Whoa, okay, wait a second and take a look at this and think about it, because you got it all wrong.

Firstly, in the interview, he says:

(Kodak Black): Before Instagram and before Facebook and all that other shit I was just Black, or Lil’ Black, and shit like that, all that other shit.

This obviously means that the stage names he used before were "Black" and "Lil' Black", but you have no explanation on why it isn't right other than "not supported by the source cited.", which makes no sense, and you show nothing to back up that claim, and one would know from that excerpt of the interview that it would be his former stage names, even a famous YouTuber noticed it as a former stage name (more preferably "Lil' Black").

Secondly, your claim on "K Camp" makes absolutely no sense at all, he only ever used the stage name "K Camp", whereas "Kodak Black" has used different stages names past, like mentioned before, such as "Black" and "Lil' Black", as stated in the interview, before he made his current and most popular stage name out of those three, "Kodak Black", I don't know how you mixed up the relation of me trying to point out the two former stage names Kodak ever used, with separating the stage names (Example [Copied from your K Camp claim]: "Kodak" or "Black" or "K" or "Camp").

All I'm saying is this, to put the the three stages Kodak ever used, Black, Lil' Black and Kodak Black, into the article, it's already been supported.

Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Lil' Black" and "Black" aliases in the infobox.

According to Template:Infobox_musical_artist#alias the purpose of the alias field is:

For listing official stage names for the act or solo artist other than the name in the |name= parameter. Also for the solo artist's legal name(s), or other officially authorized names that differ from their birth name. This field is not for nicknames such as "The Godfather of Soul" (James Brown) or "Nippy" (Whitney Houston), which are not the artists' official names.

The source provide in this edit makes it clear that these two names were not any kind of official names, and especially were not used as his stage name. Note where he says in the interview: "So when I started rapping and all that I just said fuck it, I’m gonna be Kodak Black."[emphasis added] This makes it clear that (A) he was being called "Kodak Black" before he started rapping, and (B) he made a conscious choice at the start of his music career to be known as Kodak Black and no other name. In short, these names were prior nicknames from before he began his music career and as such are not appropriate for this field per WP guidelines. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Kodak Black" versus just "Kodak"

I am about to due a sweeping change to the article replacing all stand-alone instances of the name "Kodak" with "Kodak Black" for several reasons:

1. WP:STAGENAME -- Kodak Black, used as a unitary moniker, is the official stage name of the artist and to-date no reliable source indicates that Octave is being called just "Kodak" in any official way.
2. WP:TRADEMARK -- Since the single word "Kodak" is trademarked by the Eastman Kodak Company it is extremely unlikely that Octave would be able to use it as an official mononym stage name. Calling him just Kodak might even represent a trademark-related legal issue for the encyclopedia unless strong sources can be used to validate the usage.
3. MOS:SURNAME -- In the event that sources are found to indicate that Octave has elected to use Kodak Black as a substitute first name & last name, the WP manual of style would require us to use just his last name throughout the article (after the initial sentence) rather than his first (i.e. "Black").

The final reason is just plain old common sense. Octave was once known as "Lil' Black" but you would not fill the article with a bunch of sentences like:

• "Lil' released his first mix tape on ..." and
• "Lil' was arrested ...".

The same logic applies to 50 Cent and Lady Gaga. You would not refer to them as just "50" or just "Lady" in an article.

Consistent use of the whole name "Kodak Black" just makes the most sense all around and is the most correct usage per our guidelines. -- Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 11:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

opps, I changed these before reading the talk page. I would use just his last name, but that's me and I don't really care, so feel free to revert me. --Malerooster (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Malerooster. The problem is that Black is not a "last name" here, it is part of a two-word unitary^(#1) stage name also sometimes called an "atomic^(#4) name" because the words cannot be split. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced content from "Singles", "As lead artist"

Kodak Black has released many singles, and it is important that as the names of these singles get added, a reliable source accompany the edit. On this edit, I have removed the titles of some singles that have been added without a source. An editor has also added a title regarding "peak position". In this regard, I have added a description of Kodak Black's single that did chart, along with a reliable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Stage name

Wikipedia:No original research is explicated about the use of primary sources, which this entire section is based upon. Specifically, "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation".

From the first source cited here, we can summarize that Octave:

• used to be called "Lil’ Black".
• was called "Black" when he was six.
• (signed up for Instagram?) using the username "Kodak Black".
• used the stage name "Kodak Black" when he started rapping, and it was a stage name his fans preferred.

From the second source cited here, we can summarize that Octave:

• (signed up for Instagram?) using the name "Kodak Black". The reason for this is not clear, but Octave stated in the interview "'cause you know Kodak, that’s pictures and all that". This would require a secondary source for clarification.
• used the names "Black" and "Lil’ Black" before Instagram and Facebook.
• used the name "Kodak Black" when he started rapping.

What can we summarize--without interpretation--from these two primary sources?

• From the age of six, Octave used the nickname "Black". He also used the nickname "Lil' Black". When he signed up for Instagram he chose the username "Kodak Black". This was the stage name he chose when he began rapping, and a stage name favored by his fans. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677, I do not 100% agree but I am thinking hard about what you say above. One point to correct however: the 4th bullet above is not accurate where it says "and it was a stage name his fans preferred." (A) The sources say it was a nickname that "people" and "bitches" preferred (vs Black or Lil' Black) from before he started rapping, and (B) to say the fans preferred it as a stage name is to imply there were other stage names that were less popular and there is no support for that. I would change the bullet to read:

• chose to use his Instagram username as his stage name when he started rapping because it was popular among his friends and acquaintances.

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:No original research is explicit about not interpreting primary sources, as we are attempting, I'd suggest the point in dispute be deleted. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “explicated”; nothing in my dictionary makes sense in this context. Could you give an alternative word? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"Explicit". My error. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion here (permalink). In case anyone missed it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeking the input of other editors

A section entitled "controversy" was added, and a paragraph which had been in the "career" section was moved there. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and the term "controversy" is a loaded one. This section heading has unfortunately been added to other biographies as well (see Kanye West). Both WP:LABEL and WP:IMPARTIAL seem to discourage these sorts of contentious words, and I'm seeking consensus for the removal of the "controversy" section heading.

Also, an editor left this edit, where an Instagram photo was used as a reliable source. Because this is a biography of a living person, I seek the input of other editors regarding the removal of this unreliable source. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no position on the content disputes, as I am monitoring this article from an administrator standpoint. However, I appreciate that a discussion thread was opened rather than further edit warring. Since the Instagram account belongs to the subject of the article, WP:SELFSOURCE may be helpful in determining whether the source can be used for whatever it's attached to. --Laser brain (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Laser_brain, Magnolia677, you really need to take a look on who's Instagram photo it was, it came from Kodak himself, so I don't know why you think its "unreliable", I strongly suggest that you look at the source before making a comment, as you done this before. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRITS more specifically addresses the “Controversies” question, essentially saying don’t do what we did here. You had consensus before you asked. =) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Layout issues

The article currently has a number of one- or two-sentence sections, which MOS:PARAGRAPHS discourages. Can we do something about that? Also, I think the early-life section would be better presented in paragraphs rather than an unformatted list, as it is now. I swear I’ve seen a project-space page recommending against this style for histories, but I can’t find it now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I moved a paragraph about Octave's "nickname" out of a section entitled "stage name", and into a section entitled "early life and career".

The paragraph in question is four sentences long. The first two sentences regard events in his childhood, while the third sentence regards a point in his life before he achieved fame. For this reason, the paragraph seemed more relevant in the section about his early life.

Furthermore, it was place after a paragraph describing where he was born and grew up, and before a paragraph about an event which occurred when he was 12 years old.

My edit was reverted.

Coincidentally, an editor mentioned just yesterday on this article's talk page about the unsightliness of so many short paragraphs in this article.

The input of other editors would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)