Talk:Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hans van Lindenberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

So is "ALBUM" really the title? or is it just a name for itunes preorder 32zel (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@32zel: I have to suspect it's a placeholder. TPAB had the same thing. --Jennica✿ / talk 04:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No music publication believes it is its real name example Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bono[edit]

birthname or stage name for composer credit? 32zel (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@32zel: looks like To_Pimp_a_Butterfly#Track_listing does birthname? a lot more stage names on this one though.--Jennica✿ / talk 04:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jennica: In U2's album No Line on the Horizon Bono's writing credits are done with his stage name so i guess its okay to use his stage name 32zel (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I didn't see the Bono header. I almost linked a U2 album but figured it was irrelevant hah. --Jennica✿ / talk 05:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be titled "Damn."[edit]

The title is clearly "Damn." with the dot at the end. I understand we may not title it "DAMN." because it's just a stylization but why do we omit the dot sign in this case? The same thing I could say about the titles which are spelled with capital letters and dot at the end Tashi Talk to me 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tashi: Per MOS:TM. There is a strong precedent on Wikipedia to avoid including full stops. Please see the discussion at Talk:Mad Love (JoJo album) for further arguments. TheKaphox T 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheKaphox: thank you for your response. I still do not agree with all arguments but at least you have a point that it has not been a new problem. Tashi Talk to me 21:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seanmurpha: - this discussion. --Jennica✿ / talk 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Yes the title should be "Damn." Stylized as "DAMN ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.21.37.141 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Damn." is the title not "Damn". One dot makes a huge difference. Just because it seems like a minor issue doesn't mean it should follow the convenience of readers/editors. "Damn" is not a recognized Kendrick Lamar album title. — TheMagnificentist 06:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear policy based consensus against moving the article as proposed. !votes supporting moving do not address the stylization points raised by those opposing, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are relatively weak.(non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damn (album) → Damn. (album) – MOS:TM (guideline) does not trump WP:COMMONNAME (policy). The album title is represented in the majority of reliable third-party sources with a full stop at the end of the title. We do not change the titles of albums/works that end in exclamation points or question marks; periods should not be treated any differently. See: Daily Beast, Billboard, NME, Rolling Stone, USA Today, NPR, and BET among others. MOS:TM is frequently misinterpreted and is not meant as a way for Wikipedia editors to change the name of works; it's meant to differentiate between official titles and unprintworthy trademark stylizations that are not the official name of a brand/product (i.e. "Macy*s" is not the name of "Macy's"). Chase (talk | contributions) 17:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many people likely do not remember the fullstop as part of the name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This isn't a rehash of "Gangsta." vs. "Gangsta (manga)", is it? ...To be fair, I proposed using "Gangsta. (manga)" after the first attempt on changing to "Gangsta (manga)" failed. But that's a couple years ago. Still, adding a full stop to please trademark enthusiasts would not benefit most readers. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per above. TheKaphox T 13:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per reasons in move request.—16← (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per user George Ho's argument. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per user George Ho's argument. Jamiehino (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose — It's just stylization, isn't it? Like the tracks? I'm not entirely sure what to think of the whole thing, so my oppose is a weak one for now. Aria1561 (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual title of the album and songs on the album all end with a period. Refer to iTunes or Spotify listings. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untitled Unmastered is also listed with a period on both, but we've gone this far having the title just "Untitled Unmastered", so I imagine it's just stylization that shouldn't affect the article title. Aria1561 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate case. I'd need to see the sources and which ones use the full stop for that album and which ones don't. Considering how often Wikipedia changes the title of albums and other works where it isn't warranted that might need a separate RM. In this case, it's been established that the majority of sources are representing Damn. with a full stop. Per COMMONNAME we should follow suit. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reasons given. —WLM / ? 14:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Damn! (album) exists. Is it the full stop that is frowned upon on here? I will admit, it would make the article look a little wonky with the full stop intact. --Jennica✿ / talk 05:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these are just some albums that end in periods.
And also Love. Angel. Music. Baby. --Jennica✿ / talk 11:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the album itself it actually titled DAMN. While it's established we don't do capitals, the album itself is titled Damn. so it should be titled the way it's intended to be. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the reasons listed by BeatlesLedTV. --Jennica✿ / talk 22:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on the 7 sources provided by Chase that use "DAMN." or "Damn.", and the lack of counterexamples. As far as possible, we should stay consistent with how the album is named in the reliable sources covering it.  -- Lear's Fool 03:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "DAMN." or "DAMN. (album)" If a user types Damn in the search box, they'll get redirected to Damnation, where they'll have to go to the Damn disambiguation page, and then find the article - if they've even bothered to go that far. On the other hand, if it's moved to the name that it's been referred to in the media and the actual stylized name, they could see it appear in the search prediction pop-up and reach their destination much easier than the current name. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per user George Ho's argument. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:E5DD:B544:F84D:A6D6 (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The title is listed as "Damn." on Kendrick's official website, it's not just a stylization for the cover. Red Alien 12:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as per the requestor's rationales, and even though it's an WP:OSE argument, consistency is a nice thing. Onel5969 TT me 18:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – seems damn obvious. Uncle Alf (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Damn." – a full stop in an article's title is not stylization―it is part of the title. You might as well move Airplane! to Airplane (film) or D.R.A.M. to DRAM, both of which make no sense. The same rationale applies to Thomas Pynchon's novel V. Malayy (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Just like untitled unmastered. the casing and punctuation is relevant to the title i.e. Airplane!. Callan992 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment Although, there seems to be a clear consensus for support, there is a possibility of mild canvassing going on. Reposting to get more viewpoints and if any other editor spots a case of canvassing. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose, per MOS:TM: a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name, as shown by the nominator. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, as Cornerstonepicker lists below, a significant number of sources do not use the full stop. I don't see a significant majority here, But I do see a very popular artist, to have gotten this much coverage! wbm1058 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:TM and oppose the all CAPS option as well. An out-of-place full stop/period is more disconcerting than an exclamation point in running text. I looked through sources that use the period/full stop and it takes artful editing to avoid potentially confusing syntax. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fansite or a promotional tool and should not be required to use to superfluous stylistic elements that could impede reader accessibility. —  AjaxSmack  19:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. Presumably italicizing the title Damn. will avoid confusion in running text, but it may be harder to distinguish a . in italics than it is to distinguish an italicized ? or ! – I am also opposed to all-caps as we have at least one mainstream source using lower case. I think the the capitalized proper name Damn. in italics is (barely) sufficient to signal that this is not a "normal" full stop. wbm1058 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the italics help but I still see no compelling affirmative reason for the move when sources are all over the place on their usage. —  AjaxSmack  19:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a few sources that do not include the full stop and I could change my !vote. wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: TelegraphGuardian WSJ The Atlantic Complex Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. I'm gonna have to change my vote. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: why does this impact your vote? It was released to iTunes and other music services as Damn. [with full stop intact]. Those sources listed just chose to write it without it. Billboard is the publication for music. I would trust its judgement over The Atlantic or the Telegraph. --Jennica✿ / talk 23:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the artist is just using the stop for stylization purposes. We indicate that in the lead of the article: "(stylized as DAMN.)" MOS:TM clearly indicates our bias is to avoid stylization that is not adopted by the majority of independent sources. I do not view iTunes, which is selling the song, as independent as mainstream sources such as Rolling Stone, USA Today, NPR, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic, none of which are focused entirely on covering popular music. Since these sources are mixed, it seems clear to me that we should default to our house bias not to use this stylization. I give Billboard more weight than iTunes, but not as much as the more general-interest publications. It's perhaps ironic to consider, that if this were a less popular artist who only had coverage in music-industry publications, they might have a better chance of getting their stylization to stick on Wikipedia. wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument hinges upon the assumption that the full stop is decorative a la the Skate video game (which only appears with a full stop on the game's cover art), when iTunes, and the artist's official website end the title with a full stop, as do the majority of third party sources that have reported on the album. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We try to look primarily to independent reliable sources. The artist's official website and iTunes (and probably any other site that is promoting the album for sale) are not independent. We also do not try to follow the "majority". If the usage in independent reliable sources is mixed, we follow our own house style. Many similar examples have been listed for which we have had formal RM discussions and omit the full stop for similar titles. Please see also the comments by Cornerstonepicker and wbm1058. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. It's an entertainment product which isn't consistently written with the period in third party sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The title is supported by reliable sources I believe the title should be as Damn., but not as DAMN. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The title of this album is clearly DAMN., and the fact that the rest of the songs have the period at the end of the title further proves that Kendrick intended his album to be capitalized and have a period at the end. Many people go to wikipedia for information, and it is the editors duties to make sure that the information is correct, even if it is as mundane as simple stylization of a title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.130.245 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers will know the stylization of the album title in the first sentence of the intro. 2012MarcoMDNA (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was "just a stylization and nothing more," it would just be album art decoration. It's actually being sold with the title and reported on in sources with the title. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sample credit writers in track listing[edit]

Is this necessary? I just noticed but at quick glance, can't find who added all the songwriters of the songs that were sampled. They're already credited below in 'Sample credits'. --Jennica✿ / talk 01:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica: Who added all these songwriters of the songs that were sampled is by this IP, these songwriters are not supported by the booklet. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be removed because they aren't credited in the Damn booklet. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube[edit]

is generally not considered a wp:reliable source. Please discuss here before attempting to add content sourced therefrom. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Damn"[edit]

Meaning of the word "damn" most used by teens or the age of 7-60 85.187.115.227 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second track listing[edit]

Per a recent edit to the new It's Almost Dry article, a similar question was brought to my attention regarding this article: the editor there mentioned this page having a second track listing for the Collector's Edition version of the album which, as we can all see, is merely the same as the original album but in reverse order. My thinking is that that's the sort of thing which can be easily explained in a sentence or two rather than needing a whole second template to get it across. These things take up a lot of space on a page and can be inconvenient to readers trying to scroll past them, and if they aren't supplying any new information in a way that can only be properly explained in that way then what's the use? QuietHere (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: I think you should have this discussion at WP:ALBUMS instead of here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've done just that. Please take all further discussion here instead. QuietHere (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Damn_(Kendrick_Lamar_album)&oldid=1206870957"