Talk:Good Kid, M.A.A.D City

C&P comment

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Good Kid, M.A.A.D City a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Good kid, m.A.A.d city. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. SrGangsta (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Revisions

Why are people removing revisions on this page for no apparent reason? I believe it's PR people going rampant. All information is true. I will continue to revert revisions that these people are doing incessantly if edits that are factual are removed. 22:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Name

Should the article title not be "good kid, m.A.A.d city" as that is the official title? KANE 14:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

you can't just call the page whatever you want, the album is called "good kid, m.A.A.d. city" its not a stylization its the title of the album Wrestlings Savior (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I wish we could edit it. edited by Thomas Arnold (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Title stylization

I've tried editing the formatting of the album title in the article body so that it matches the formatting in the article title, but it's been summarily reverted each time by IP-editors, who are insisting on good kid, m.A.A.d city, citing the artist's Twitter account of all things. I would suggest editing be restricted, as I don't see an end to this. (As usual, as per MOS:ALLCAPS, MOS:TM, Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Capitalization, etc.) Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

2nd album

this is 2nd studio album not his first. but on the list of his albums on the bottom of his page his first album is not noted. does it matter whether it was realsed on an independent or major label?Wayn12 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter. This is his second album. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall, it is his second, but it is his first major album. ???^{uest (talk • contribs)} 12:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well he has stated in several interviews that this is his official debut studio album. He often goes out his way to say that when they refer to Section.80 as his first album. User:1Sire (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Label designations have no bearing on an artist's chronology. Per the WP:ALBUMS style guide, the lead section of WP:ALBUMS articles should mention the chronology and album type in the lead, and "major label" or "independent" are not album types (Template:Infobox_album#Type). Even if we were to disregard the guidelines, it would stand to reason that the (record) label offers no distinction, whereas "live album" or "studio album" would. If the artist's signing to a major label is notable, then it's appropriate to mention that in the background section of the article, or in the lead with a statement, something along the lines of "After releasing his 2010 debut album Section.80, Lamar signed to the major label [name] and recorded Good Kid, M.A.A.D. City." But not in the first statement. Dan56 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

both albums woyld be considered to be debuts. Section .80 his independent debut and good kid, m.A.A.d. city is his major label debut. his website [[1]] describes Section.80 as an independent album. It also says that Overly Dedicated is an independent album but that must be a typo because we all know it is a mixtape. good kid, m.A.A.d city would be considered his major-label debut because unlike Section.80 released on the independent label (TDE) is not only released on TDE but also majorly distributed through Aftermath-Interscope Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.80.178 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring the guidelines; "independent" and "major label" are not types (Template:Infobox album#Type). Dont reintroduce your changes without addressing enyclopedic guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Forget the website... Most, if not all, the reviews even call this his "major label debut", but that shouldnt be noted in the first statement. How about comprimising on what I introduced before? Dan56 (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The style guide (Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Lead) supports a chronological phrase with one of the album types from these. The point is that the chronological chain that links this article from Section.80 in the infobox corresponds with the lead statement; Section.80 was the first studio album, this is the second studio album. Understand? Dan56 (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiz Khalifa's Rolling Papers is considered his debut, and he released two independent albums before that. Not saying GKMC should be fixed, just saying maybe Rolling Papers and a couple other albums need to be fixed Dan56. User:1Sire (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, but if you see a case like that, feel free to correct it. Didnt realize, as those two that preceded Rolling Papers were not linked in the infobox chronology. Dan56 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

so to say we are both correct. second studio album. but major-label debut both should be included. they both important enough to be mentioned off the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.80.178 (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it "important enough"? It's jarring to the reader to hear "major label" out of context when they have yet to read anything about the artist's signing from an independent record label to a major label, which hardly seems important enough. And you still havent addressed the guidelines, which say to note the album type and chronology; is "major label" an album type according to the guideline? No. Dan56 (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I havent disregarded the fact that it is a 'studio' album. Because it is, that is a known fact. Really it doesn't matter if the text is jarring. The text isn't written to make people 100% comfortable while they read it. It's written to state the facts based off the common knowledge. so it should be considered in the 1st sentence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.80.178 (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, reader accessibility is stressed at any encyclopedia (WP:AUDIENCE) But what does you feeling that it should be considered in the 1st sentence have to do with what the guideline says? Dan56 (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've seen lots of examples like this before. The problem is that there's just no generally accepted standard among editors, even with the guideline that a studio album is one that has been recorded, er, in a studio. For example, Bastard is listed throughout Wikipedia as being Tyler, The Creator's debut studio album, even though Odd Future were not distributed through a label at the time and promoted it "independently". What confuses me is that this problem only appears to be confined to hip-hop albums - for instance, Lana Del Ray a.k.a. Lizzy Grant was released by the independent label 5 Points, yet it is still listed uncomplainingly as Lana Del Ray's debut studio album. Some sort of guideline needs to be put into place before we can resolve these sorts of disputes for good. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Lead of Template:Infobox album#Type suggests that categorizing albums by the type of label they're released by is appropriate, so perhaps this is just a point of emphasis among people interested in hip hop, and consequently people who edit hip hop articles? Dan56 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly. They certainly seem to be more finicky when it comes to defining exactly what type of album a set of recordings is. (Actually, in regards to a studio album having been recorded in a studio, large parts of Cruel Summer were allegedly recorded in hotel rooms, not a studio as such (although it is technically a compilation album, but that's beside a point. So some discretion is necessary, but common sense is too). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And as usual, fancruft is an issue; two IPs just removed content again, anything remotely negative about the album. Requested semi-protection. Dan56 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Tracklist Information

I have the physical copy of this album, and it appears that in this page, it lists the bonus tracks from the deluxe edition as an entire single disc. In fact, the deluxe edition comes in two discs, with the bonus tracks on a separate, bonus disc entirely. Shouldn't we update the tracklist information to reflect this? dattandai (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Source 4: ^ a b "Kendrick Lamar makes splash with album, ‘good kid, m.A.A.d city,’ debuting No. 2 on charts". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-11-01. The link is not working anymore 84.24.140.235 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Good Kid, M.A.A.D City/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WikiRedactor (talk · contribs) 19:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please correct these troublesome external links.

 Done STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Album artwork" is a relatively small section, and would fit nicely into the "Background" section.

 Done STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Promotion" is also a small section, and doesn't need individual subheads for "Tour" and "Short film".

 Fixed STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• The citations use many different formats when listing the date (MM-DD-YYYY; DD-MM-YYYY; Day Month Year; Month Day, Year). Please pick one style (my personal preference is Month Day, Year) to use throughout the article.

 Done STATic message me! 01:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't a big deal, but could we replace the existing covers with versions without the Parental Advisory logo? My understanding is that Wikipedia prefers unmarked covers if available.

I found a version of the standard edition without the PA sticker, but after a while of searching I could not find one without it for the deluxe edition. The deluxe is not even available on iTunes in a clean version, so I hope this wont be an issue. STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, not a big issue at all. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• I like the information you have in the introduction, although it feels a little oddly ordered. I'd recommend a three-paragraph version, the first with the background and producers, the second with critical and commercial performance, and the third with singles and promotional efforts.

 Fixed STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Background" looks good.
• In "Recording and production", can you change the wording of 'outro' to something like 'closing/final track'? I'm just not sure if outro is as familiar of a term as 'intro', but otherwise the section looks good.

 Fixed STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Music and lyrics" looks good, although the LA Times link needs to be fixed.

 Fixed STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Album artwork" content looks good.
• "Promotion" content looks good, although the GQ link needs to be fixed.

I think I fixed it, not really sure what you were referring to. STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the reference that links to the GQ website, but anyways you took care of it so we're all set. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• In "Singles", the original chart position for "Poetic Justice" isn't sourced by the given citation, and there's a Billboard reference that needs to be fixed.

 Fixed STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• In "Commercial performance", there's a Washington Post reference that needs to be fixed. Also, it's not necessary to list the second through seventh-week sales in those choppy sentences; a quick summary of the total sales by the seventh week will suffice. (Also, please clarify that you are referring to U.S. sales.) There is also a bit of overlinking to the RIAA page in this section. I'd also like to see some of the international chart positions converted into prose for this section.

 Done, hope it looks good now, looks much more concise to me. STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Critical reception" looks good.
• "Controversy" looks good.
• There's a bare URL in "Charts", but it otherwise looks good.

 Fixed STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Certifications" looks good.
• In "Release history", please find a source for this vinyl release.

Unsourced, so removed. STATic message me! 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall, a solid article. Just a few minor areas that I'd like to see corrected, and I'll have no issue passing the article when they are completed. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I hope to get this done today, if not it will be definitely done by the end of tomorrow. STATic message me! 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No rush, take your time. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: I believe I have made the necessary changes you detailed. I also made a few comments above, if there is anything else that needs to be done, please let me know. STATic message me! 01:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes you have made. I went ahead and made a few additional adjustments, which may look like a huge edit by the number, although much of it was simply removing unused fields/extra spaces in templates. Anyways, I'm happy to pass the article! Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grammy Snub

Can anyone talk about the controversy over Kendrick not winning any Grammy's ? particularly Best Rap Album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.55.45 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2014

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.27763/title.hip-hop-album-sales-week-ending-3-2-2014 change the album sales As March 02 of 2014 it sold 1,200,000 copies . SlimJimmyBRabbit (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.27864/title.hip-hop-album-sales-week-ending-3-9-2014 change the sales they're up to 1,207,000 SlimJimmyBRabbit (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Done I am going to request that you make 5 more edits to Wikipedia, as the restrictions for editing semi-protected pages is merely having an account that is 4 days old and has 10 edits to it's name. You will then be able to make these edits yourself without having to go through this system. Cannolis (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.27864/title.hip-hop-album-sales-week-ending-3-9-2014 make it as of 09 March not 02 it's as of 09 march it sold ... SlimJimmyBRabbit (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical Mistake in the Good Kid Maad City Page

"rave reviews" is not correct grammar; "rave" is not an adjective. A rave is an extremely enthusiastic recommendation or approval of someone or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.42.182.4 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, "rave" is an adjective: "8. extravagantly flattering or enthusiastic: rave reviews of a new play." Macmillan dictionary and Collins dictionary identify "rave review" as its own phrase, meaning "a report in a newspaper or magazine that praises something such as a movie or show in a very enthusiastic way". Dan56 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Genre tags?

Should gangsta rap be removed and/or conscious hip hop be added? This album, despite talking about street life as a prominent theme, rarely exerts the aggression and boastful themes that gangsta rap is known for. Additionally, this albums seems to fit the description of conscious hip hop perfectly, in that it "challenges the dominant cultural, political, philosophical, and economic consensus, and/or comments on social issues and conflicts", when Kendrick challenges the notion of hood violence over the whole album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.212.240 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The album is referred to conscious hip hip in places such as rateyourmusic.com where here it has "conscious hip hop" as a primary genre. The album has ~13,000 ratings on rateyourmusic at the time of writing, compared to only about ~1,800 on allmusic, which is used as a source for gangsta rap on this page. Additionally, over 200 users have voted for conscious hip hop as a genre on RYM. Does this constitute adding it to genres? 92.21.194.2 (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Rate Your Music is not an reliable source (WP:ALBUMAVOID). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ths album is not what could be considered Gangsta Rap, it really shouldn't be tagged as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiko (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Cornerstonepicker: in to this discussion, should gangsta rap be removed? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the album is gangsta rap. However, the sources I've found are a bit mixed on whether it's gangsta rap. Pitchfork said that the "ghosts of West Coast gangsta-rap haunt this album's edges". In this Guardian write up after GKMC: [2] he is described as "far from a gangsta rapper. He celebrates his neighbourhood but does not glamourise criminality, deconstructing the gangster mentality rather than glorifying it." The album was called "the ultimate gangsta rap album in Junkee: [3] Cjhard (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cjhard: I have removed gangsta rap off the infobox, there are no mentioning it's a gangsta rap album in the source, only in the sidebar. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Craiko: Yes, I did agree with gangsta rap should be removed. But another editor, named Dan56, has point out that the source says, (Jeffires: "...some kind of elevated gangsta rap..."). Right here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)