Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title

Not sure if you guys realize this, but [Untitled] is not the title of the album. --Bathes (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be like Upcoming Slayer studio album. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

The real tracklist was removed, and replaced with very inannapropriate titles. I reccomend you fully lock this page. 74.96.178.38 (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Already done It's already semi-protected. Cannolis (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Kendrick Lamar new album To Pimp A Butterfly

Talk about what you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent1683 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Leak or release??

The Top Dawg CEO tweeted this: I WOULD LIKE 2 PERSONALLY THANK @Interscope FOR FUCKING UP OUR RELEASE... SOMEBODY GOTS 2 PAY 4 THIS MISTAKE !!!! #TOP. Implying that it was not supposed to be released today but was because of Interscope. How should this be worded on the page.

Wesley's Theory Writers

Please change George Clinton to George Clinton (musician)|George Clinton so there's no disambiguation. Under performers it is correctly. 88.115.201.50 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Bathes (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Fela Kuti

The sample credits mention "I No Get Eye for Back" as being written by Fela Anikulapo, however, he is usually known as Fela Kuti, or alternatively as Fela Anikulapo Kuti. I suggest changing this to just 'Fela Kuti'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.20.142 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Extended "i"

Article reads that the version of "i" is pulled from SNL, but they are not the same versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aninda Antar (talk • contribs) 03:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Institutionalized"

Some one removed Tommy Black and Rahki from the Producer(s) credits of Institutionalized and replaced it with Itzik Bensoli. There is no Itzik Bensoli involved in the track. JAHBULON (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2015/03/16/kendrick-lamar-to-pimp-a-butterfly/24847853/ 4/4 review from professional source MichaelAmbrosi (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

Please add the reviews given by USA Today and Billboard Magazine. USA today gave "To Pimp a Butterfly" 4 stars out of 4, while Billboard gave the album 4 and a half stars out of 5.

Sources:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2015/03/16/kendrick-lamar-to-pimp-a-butterfly/24847853/ http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/6502318/kendrick-lamar-to-pimp-a-butterfly-album-review

Maxp1997 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You're free to do so ... if not, thanks for the links they might be helpful to others Kap 7 (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

Please add 5 out of 5 star review from Kickrocs.com. It is one of the most extensively eloquently written reviews available on the internet right now.

URL: http://kickrocs.com/review-to-pimp-a-butterfly-by-kendricklamar-kr-album-appraisal/

Eyesofhazel (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

More reviews that have not been included in the professional reviews section http://www.metacritic.com/music/to-pimp-a-butterfly/kendrick-lamar/critic-reviews

MichaelAmbrosi (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes Review

I recommend you add the Tiny Mix Tapes review of the album to the critical reception section as well as the "Review Scores" chart. http://www.tinymixtapes.com/music-review/kendrick-lamar-to-pimp-a-butterfly Blueberryc (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Billlboard 200 US rank

This album has not charted on the Billboard 200, it's ranking of "1" should be removed, the source is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.72.120 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is updated link. http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6509621/kendrick-lamar-earns-first-no-1-album-billboard-200 Sold 324,000 albums and 363,000 equivalent album units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.99.39 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

Album's score on Metacritic is now 97/100 rather than the listed 95/100. This should be updated. Eóin Lyness (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Kap 7 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015

The "Recording" section needs serious re-writing. Sentence structure, word choice, and punctuation are frequently incorrect or awkward. 66.213.85.3 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Kap 7 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

King Kunta

The song now has a Wikipedia article King Kunta The name on the track order needs to be modified to link through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtlemammoth (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

more 5 stars rating

give here more of fourteens 5 stars reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.70.116 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015

"King Kunta" is also produced by David Blake AKA DJ Quik as he is credited as an official composer in the iTunes version of the song

Bhrandon (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in To Pimp a Butterfly

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of To Pimp a Butterfly's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Metacritic":

  • From Beyoncé (album): "Critic Reviews for Beyoncé". Metacritic. December 13, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2013.
  • From Habits & Contradictions: "Critic Reviews for Habits & Contradictions at Metacritic". Metacritic. Retrieved 11 February 2012.
  • From Outkast: Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty (2010): Reviews. Metacritic. Retrieved on 2010-07-05.
  • From Good Kid, M.A.A.D City: "Good Kid, M.A.A.D City Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved October 29, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Including The Needle Drop review.

TND is a well established review site maintained by Anthony Fantano. Removing his review is honestly absurd. His review is 22 minutes long and lengthier and has more depth than any other.Broosh breesh (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please give here more 5 starts reviews. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.100.52 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for using incorrect formatting. I cosign what Broosh breesh said. Anthony Fantano is the number one music critic on YouTube, with nearly 430,000 subscribers and 76 million views. His 10/10 for "To Pimp a Butterfly" is only the 3rd review to receive a perfect score since he began his channel. Furthermore, his review of Kendrick Lamar's album has over 375,000 views. It seems to me that removing his score from Wikipedia is a more indicative of a personal disdain for Fantano than a question of his legitimacy as a music critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.120.249 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There are much more professional sites. That's like saying I could trust anyone with high notability, The Needle Drop is a blog/vlog, as said in it's article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Claiming The Needle Drop isn't professional because it uses an unconventional format gives undue bias towards more traditional forms of music journalism. What exactly is the criteria for including or excluding a music critic's review on a Wikipedia page, and who determines said criteria?:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.120.249 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, let's say we were to remove it, what would you replace it for? And, it even says in TND's article that it is a blog/vlog, which cannot be used. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Many of the reviews permitted are from articles written by a single author. What difference does it make if it's Anthony Fantano or Craig Jenkins from Pitchfork? The reason The Needle Drop's review is noteworthy for inclusion is because of the fact that it is the third perfect score given to an album since the inception of the channel (which has reviewed hundreds if not thousands of albums). It provides more novel information to the reader. Side note, did you report me for vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.120.249 (talk)
I didn't report you for vandalism, don't know why you got that idea, but what other article have I seen it included in? Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake, Ariana Grande? No. Again, a blog is not reliable and it is a primary source, a secondary source is better. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, the Needle Drop may be used in some circumstances per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (see also this discussion). And while the reviews listed are the work of a single author, we include them because they work or volunteer for professional organizations and are not self-published. -- Calidum 04:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
In regards to being self published, how is TND different in regards to Christgau and Scaruffi who are mentioned on many articles on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.253.5 (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have never actually seen those used, but pay attention the Wikiproject Calidum posted. Must be published by a third-party. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Welp yeah, I should have read that before posting and I see that Scaruffi is also listed as unreliable. I do now know why they aren't used but I do agree that it is quite strange to allow a reviewer if they are third party published but not self published. Also note this line "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources (apologies I am unfamiliar with Wiki formatting)130.195.253.5 (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
My mistake then, I had misinterpreted your removal of vandalism as being directed towards my edits. Again, I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia formatting. In any case, I'm not sure I follow what your saying. Why are you mentioning Justin Timberlake, etc.? And I don't think I agree with your distinction between a primary source and a secondary source in the context of music journalism. How can the opinion of a music critic, whether it be through a magazine such as Rolling Stone or a YouTube channel such as the TheNeedleDrop, be considered a secondary source? Isn't it fundamentally an author expressing his/her personal experience listening to an album? The difference in value between a professional "vlog/blog" and a periodical is null if both publications are equally popular; this isn't a part of academia but a piece of popular culture. I would argue that Fantano's review of the album has received more traffic than some of the other publications listed, and I will provide evidence to verify that claim if you request. — Preceding unsigned comment
added by 130.195.253.5 (talk)

THE NEEDLE DROP is a great reviewer who gives in depth reviews about albums. I think his reveiw should be included

I give your comment a strong 1 to a decent 2. Ellomate (questions? talk/consult my lawyer) 18:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Down Beat review

I've added a review from Down Beat, probably the best-known jazz magazine in the world, and Koala15 has twice removed it. The second time, the edit summary was that Down Beat is "Not more notable than the other publications and you know that", even though the Down Beat one was an addition to the reviews, not a replacement. Any thoughts on whether or not to include this review? EddieHugh (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We are only supposed to put 10 reviews in the album ratings template. And i would say the publications in the template right now are are more notable than "Down Beat". Koala15 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I assume you're referring to the "recommendations" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. There are already 11 sources in the table... The Guardian and The Observer are pretty much the same thing... anyway, here's the source if anyone wants to add something from it: Rosenberg, Tal (July 2015) "Paying Dues". Down Beat. p. 58. EddieHugh (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

General editing

Some of the article seems to be written in very clumsy English (specifically, the 'Recording' section). e.g.: 1. During the album's development, *he had to traveled* to St. Louis and began working in the studio with Isley. Isley also performed on the song "How Much a Dollar Cost?" *alongside with an singer-songwriter* James Fauntleroy. 2. *Bilal stated about him who was* initially unsure of how many songs he would be featured on.

I'm not even sure what the editor was trying to say in that second example. Somebody please fix these. I don't want to change anything, since I know very little about the album and have only come here to find something out, not drop knowledge myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.89.176 (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have resolved this issue, and I'm surprised no one ever noticed this besides you. Good job to you anyway, and apologies if you come back to this and it was late received. The best, Coderenius (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

commercial performance

Why was this removed? Every album on wiki has a commercial performance section, but not this one. Dan56 do some explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.99.41 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass song article delete

Whether they charted or not these songs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hood_Politics_(Kendrick_Lamar_song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalized_(Kendrick_Lamar_song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momma_(Kendrick_Lamar_song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_(Kendrick_Lamar_song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Sale%3F_(Interlude)

All don't meet the notability criteria and are all 1-3 sentences each. Sure they charted, but their content doesn't say anything that the main page and discography page don't already. Should I nominate them for a mass deletion or? Some consensus would be nice. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I nominated Hood Politics and some other songs on this album for deletion here, so you guys should join the discussion... y'know unless you don't care about Kendrick. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

year-end lists

not sure about these ones. each by one single author and some of them not exactly music-related brands

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Genre

Why is this album only labeled "hip-hop", thats like naming every Ray Charles work as either "Gospel" or "Blues", there is much more detail than that. This album incorporates ton of Jazz Fusion, Jazz-hop, R&B, and isn't even traditional hip-hop, its more like west-coast hip-hop or west-coast rap.

My person recommendation would just to have it under West coast hip-hop or Hip-hop and Jazz rap due to its jazz and R&B influence. Like seriously, listen to "If These Walls" and tell me thats a rap song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.126.78 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

They just music influences; TPAB is a hip hop record according to cited sources. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think jazz rap, west coast hip hop and alternative hip hop should be added because of all the different genres and jazz influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PugsNotDrugsHD333 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

While virtually every source makes a point of mentioning the pervasive jazz influence/elements on the album, not many have given it a related label. That said, Stereogum describes the record as an "avant-jazz-rap statement" here and Complex refers to it as Lamar's "free jazz rap album" here. A more marginal Florida newspaper describes the record as containing a "grooving, jazz-rap sound" here. I think jazz-rap works as a general and acceptable summary of these sources, which all contain the phrase as such. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It should be added to the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Keep "conscious hip hop"?

There is consensus to keep conscious rap/conscious hip hop in the infobox, preferably with the Gigwise article being added as an additional citation. The only opposer didn't address the Gigwise article, which is unambiguous in its application of the genre to To Pimp a Butterfly. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

In response to recent edit warring over the addition of conscious hip hop to the infobox, I am opening this RfC to determine a consensus. Can "conscious hip hop" be included/kept in the infobox as it is right now? Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Votes
  • Yes I believe I met the burden of providing a reliable source (Billboard) to clearly verify conscious hip hop as a genre of this album. Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, if more sources are used; the source does not explicitly state the genre. As such, we are being overly cautious, as opposed to the great majority of musical infoboxes out there. But that's a good thing. If another source were provided this should be added. As it is now, I'd be hesitant to do so. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Amending my last comment, this source appears to corroborate the description of conscious hip hop much more clearly. If used in conjunction (there are other sources that more subtly indicate this "conscious" characteristic in one way or another), these two sources [or more] should be enough to substantiate such musical characterisation. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@FoCuSandLeArN:, You're insistence that Billboard doesn't is irritating, but I'm glad you at least accept what Gigwise says, which is included in the last section of the body. Dan56 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You need to improve your reading comprehension: I said "the source does not explicitly state the genre" - which it doesn't. You can either accept my uninvolved recommendations or not, but you'll fare badly by requesting comments while not appreciating outside opinions in the same process you ironically initiated yourself. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Umm, I did read carefully, and Billboard does indeed say "conscious rap", so perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension; that last remark by you was uncivil btw, not what I said about feeling irritated. Me feeling irritated is not an attack on your character and wasn't meant as anything like that, so don't be so sensitive. Dan56 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No, not only is the source in question not directly calling this "conscious"—you might argue that it's implied, but nowhere is it explicitly using that term to describe the album, and it could be argued just as fervently that the sentence is distinguishing TPAB from that "conscious rap record" in the comparison rather than joining them together; that is, there's simply no phrase initially likening the record to that hypothetical conscious record, but there is one later differentiating them, and no interpretation can be substantiated more than the other—the larger fact is, it's literally the only valid source even potentially categorizing the album that way. There is absolutely no consensus on the term in the literature, and in fact, the overwhelming majority of reviews simply describe this as a hip hop record—not sure how one mention of the word "conscious" overrides the hundred other descriptions of this as a hip hop record plain and simple. So in addition to being inherently contentious in its ambiguity—you can try to simplify this in favor of your preference all you want, but there is no language that clearly categorizes the record that way, it's useless— it doesn't even represent that vast body of sources in any accurate way. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

@Cornerstonepicker:, I don't understand what your problem or objection is to conscious hip hop, but Billboard is clearly cited in the article's Music and lyrics section as describing To Pimp a Butterfly as a "conscious rap record". Don't turn this into an edit war. It's clearly cited to a reliable source, there's no policy or guideline at WP:ALBUMS to "keep it general" as you said ([1]), and your reference to this Time article discusses Lamar, not the album explicitly, and it's editorializing, flattering language that doesn't invalidate Billboard's point of view; keep in mind the Time article says Lamar records "movement music" rather than conscious rap, so that's not very useful in this argument unless you'll be consistent and treat "movement music" as a genre, which is silly. Furthermore, this album being conscious hip hop is also echoed in the link cited in To Pimp a Butterfly's Further reading section at the bottom (Cuepoint's article). Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly it is sourced that the album is described as a conscious hip hop album. But I am not firmly convinced that they are classifying it into a genre with that name. "Conscious" could easily be just an adjective describing the album within the hip hop genre. There are some sources that discuss a genre with that name as well, but it approaches synth to say that billboard and them are necessarily talking about the same thing. On the other hand, its certainly not a clear no. reserving a !vote for now while discussion continues. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry Gaijin42, but that's a bit of a reach. WP:SYNTH involves combining elements from different sources or places within a source. There's no ambiguity in the Billboard article, which even calls it "politically charged". It calls it "a conscious rap record", which is different how from a hip hop album that's described as "conscious"? According to whom does such a distinction even exist? Syntax isn't even an issue in this case, and you'd effectively be disqualifying any source that could verify "conscious hip hop" in any case; what do you need a source to say to verify it? Dan56 (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not firmly sold either way. Are there any other sources you think back this genre application? Something that would instantly sway me to the "yes" side would be either a RS that in prose, or in a table or something explicitly said that that was its genre (in a way that couldn't also be interpreted as just describing the album). Put it this way if the sentence read "twenty years ago, a (enjoyable|thought-provoking|politically-charged|melancholy|any-adjective-you-want) rap record wouldn’t have penetrated the mainstream", would that be sufficient sourcing to say that the genre was "thought-provoking hip hop"? or "politically-charged hip hop" ?
On the other hand, this is not BLP or science, and it might be within editorial discretion to categorize it even without sourcing. But since someone apparently challenged it, to consensus via RFC it is. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Gaijin42, you're turning this into some kind of meta- argument regarding the adjective that is used in the genre "conscious hip hop". You're perverting syntax in a way that Billboard doesn't. Furthermore, considering the definition of the word "conscious", a style of music or an album can't be "conscious", i.e. awake and able to understand what is happening around it. A person can be "conscious". A rap album can be "conscious" in so far as it's in the style or subject matter of "conscious hip hop". The term will most likely be referring to the genre, which are phrases/neologisms requiring less correct grammar. And you're wrong about another thing: genres aren't within editorial discretion to be categorized without sourcing. The fact is a source exists, as do others such as this Cuepoint article, which explicitly discusses the dichotomy in hip hop between "conscious" and "careless". In the context of discussing hip hop, most sources using the word "conscious" will be referring to conscious hip hop. You're expectation for sources to verify the genre is not practical, and arguments such as these beg the question: what harm is there? would you object in and of itself to categorizing the album this way Dan56 (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
first off, I have not raised an objection. I made a comment to discuss the question at hand. Second, I don't believe I am obligated to explain my opinions to you. You are entitled to yours, I am entitled to mine. Thats the way consensus works. Thirdly, you need to back down off the soap box, I have made several comments indicating I might be persuaded to land on your side of the argument, and you are doing yourself no favors by taking this antagonistic attitude. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I think a discussion involves explaining each other's opinions. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56: the Cuepoint (?) article you just cited also discusses Kendrick. Just like you said, is "editorializing" and is not referring to the album explicitly, like the Billboard article. No source call it a CR album explicitly, or refers to it as "the Kendrick Lamar's CHH album." However, all the year-end lists call it a "hip-hop record". period. That's why is always better to keep it general. It is an album with a lot of musical influences to be labeled. Btw, it's been simple 'hip-hop' for a reason. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Billboard is referring to this album, while you're referring to a template that's completely unrelated to this article. Also, I'm questioning your understanding of other things, like the word "editorializing"; are you going to argue that "movement music" is an actual genre or just a writer's flowery description of Lamar's music? Your response and point of view is rather simplistic. Subgenres are acceptable if verified by reliable sources. Dan56 (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2016 (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.

Drive-by comment

Two quick comments:

  • The sample needs looking at. It's too big (per WP:SAMPLE) and the rationale is lacking.
  • There are a lot of links to songs, which are just redirects to this page. To editors like me who use a particular script, this is pretty striking (lots of green highlighting), but it doesn't offer any benefit to readers anyway.

Good luck with the nomination! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Massive addition of various accolades lists

I reverted this edit you made, @EditorE:. I appreciate the fact you must have put a lot of effort into constructing those tables, but this is complete overkill; no reader needs all this information; the essentials are summed up in the paragraph that had already been written concisely: "It appeared 101 times in the top ten of lists published by critics, magazines, websites, and music stores. The record topped 51 lists, including those by Rolling Stone, Billboard, Pitchfork Media, Slant Magazine, Spin, The Guardian, Complex, Consequence of Sound, The Irish Times, and Vice"... and so on. Dan56 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I see this often, the construction of these kind of tables, and it's not good/discipline/concise article writing. It offers the general reader nothing and renders the article body less readable; the tables you added may be of interest to a specialist or fan (WP:FANCRUFT). This seems like common sense to me, but there are guidelines that touch on this, to not overemphasize certain information, in criticism/reception sections (WP:CRIT#Neutrality and verifiability), or in general: WP:BECONCISE, WP:EXCESSDETAIL, and especially WP:INDISCRIMINATE --> "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dan56 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive listing of statistics: Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of the articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on To Pimp a Butterfly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:To_Pimp_a_Butterfly/Archive_1&oldid=1084897071"