Talk:Kids See Ghosts (album)

This page should be moved to Kids See Ghosts (album)
As reported by several people involved, including Kid Cudi, the article name is wrong:
 * Dennis Cummings
 * Dezeen
 * Billboard
 * Vulture
 * Kid Cudi — Preceding unsigned comment added by AM Woody (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey AM Woody, the page has been moved to correct the album title. Vistadan 23:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Track list
Please do not add fan/unconfirmed track titles to the track listing. Do not change the order until the official track list is out. Do not add guest vocalists as their spot as a featured artist has not been confirmed yet. Do not add samples until reliable sources have confirmed them (this album has only been out for an hour). IP (talk) especially needs to stop make reverts that add false information to the page. Nice4What (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

ANTHONY FANTANO (THENEEDLEDROP) GAVE THIS ALBUM A PERFECT SCORE
Popular YouTube music critic Anthony Fantano gave this album a "10", which is only the 4th time this has occurred in the history of the channel. '''THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE PAGE. ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.65.165 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This can't be added as a review, see WP:ALBUMAVOID. If you can find a third party source (ie not The Needle Drop) to prove notability then I'm sure it can be added to critical reception though. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Anthony Fantano does seem to have established notability on Wikipedia. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Anthony Fantano is notable, yes, but he isn't considered a trusted reviewer. We can't add his review/opinions unless they are published by a third party source, as I said see WP:ALBUMAVOID; there is a section on him. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe adding a line about it to the Critical reception section is allowed, not adding him to the official reviews. The review definitely made a pretty big impact and it should be at least noted in there.--Spaciepoo (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If a reliable third-party source has written about it then it can. Alduin2000 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Consensus was that Fantano/Needle Drop don't meet the standards for being a usable source on Wikipedia, but if his review is published by, or receives coverage by, a separate reliable source, then it would be fair game for inclusion. (Like if a source like Billboard or Rolling Stone alluded to this "big impact" of the review, then sure, add that website in. Sergecross73   msg me  17:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Multiple outlets have reported on him giving this a 10. Should we compile sources and build consensus? Tyrone (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source (WP:SYNTH). Just because multiple publications mentioned this album doesn't mean it's a actual review of the album itself. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Verbatim from the WP:ALBUMAVOID 2021 consensus on the Needle Drop: “Editors have achieved a consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. Strong consensus was reached that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop constitute self-published sources. Rough consensus among editors was reached that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people. Furthermore, there is a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if content from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article.“ Tyrone (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

From: https://www.recordroundtable.com/featured-articles/the-significance-of-an-anthony-fantano-10/10-review -and- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/arts/music/anthony-fantano-the-needle-drop.html Tyrone (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

NYT: ‘ The only five albums to earn a perfect 10 from him are by Kendrick Lamar, the noise-rap trio Death Grips, the Kids See Ghosts duo of Kanye West and Kid Cudi, the aggressive rock band Swans, and Daughters, which he praised for its “nuclear bomb of cathartic hideousness” and “vile displays of auditory abuse.”’

And as consensus says, along with your prescription of usage, this would constitute as a rare case where a small quote on the matter may be appropriate.

It seems like you are blurring the lines of violating NPOV and distorting the consensus that was reached, as in most cases it is inappropriate to add his commentary within the reception nor the actual scoring metric box. However, this is a case that fits the last part of rough consensus.

I do not see why you are so adamant on removing relevant content to an article. Tyrone (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging in this discussion. If you continue acting like a fanboy over Fantano, I gonna have other editors in this discussion to voice their opinions about this issue since they work on getting articles to featured article status. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources that you show me, Record Roundtable is a blog (not reliable) and New York Times only mentioned Kanye West and Kid Cudi as Kid See Ghosts, not the album itself. These sources does not count. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish there were better sources for Melon's strong 9 to a 10. I looked in ProQuest also but couldn't find any. 😞 웃 O O  11:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's my main problem, I don't mind adding Anthony Fantano's reviews but the sources have to be reliable and focus entirely on the album, not just only briefly. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not “fanboying.”. I just find it awfully silly that the opinions of old heads supersede the most visible opinions in the contemporary.

P.S. If you take a look at my long history of editing, I rarely focus on music nor specific reviewers, as I have more knowledge of SM and Economics. Instead of acting like you are better than everyone else, please try to help us build consensus. Tyrone (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

And per your comment, you say we need a long form review of the album and not just something “brief.”. The original addition was a small quote about the album score which was separate from the others and not listed within the RS’d list. I am confused by your misconstruing of the NYT quote as well. Tyrone (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You downright admitted that you rarely focus on music, so why are you try to force Anthony Fantano in this article? If his reviews was supported by third-party sources then we wouldn't having this discussion at all.


 * In the NYT quote it says: That quote did not mentioned the album at all, just Kanye West and Kid Cudi as a duo. A source should at least have a strong paragraph that focus on the album, not some brief sentence of it. That is poorly sourced content. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

On your first question, I answer by saying that I can see an egregious ommission on Wikipedia when I see one. And per your standards of “poorly sourced content” how much of an article needs to be there to source it? I am simply asking for one single sentence in the depths of the reception subheading that states the score. Not a full review, just a mention of a singnificant, online, review with visibility, so much so, that NYT wrote a portrait about the reviewer. Again, I ask you, how much do I need to make something not poorly source when the addition is one sentence, buried below the subheading, when the 2021 consensus on the reviewer does not outright say “everything bad.” Tyrone (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A source need to focus on Fantano's review of the album in great detail, not a short sentence that barely mentioned it at all. As 100cellsman pointed out earlier, Fantano's reviews not supported by high quality sources, so there's no point adding them in Wikipedia. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018
I would like to add anthony fantano to the critical reception as he rarely gives 10s out and thus this has set history by receiving a 10. To leave it out seems foolish and wrong, as well as against Wikipedias "way". Bumknots (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - See discussion directly above. Sergecross73   msg me  17:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Co and add producers
Co and add producers don't need to be in the infobox, they already credited in the track listing. It's unnecessary to include every single producer in the infobox since they didn't entirely produce the songs. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Co-producers can be as significant as producers, it's just a designation formality. It's not like we're keeping executive producers or even vocal producers in the infobox. Take for example the track "On God" from West's Jesus Is King: Pi'erre Bourne's producer tag is used twice on the track, West had promoted his Bourne's contribtutions to the track, yet he's credited as a co-producer. We're ignoring the significance of certain producers by only listing the top-billed producers. Also, a consensus hasn't been reached at WikiProject Albums so please stop edit warring. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A consensus actually was reached on the WikiProject Albums page courtesy of an RfC back in January of this year, with the consensus to use the wording present on Template:Infobox album under the producer parameter:
 * "'Do not include those listed as executive, co-, additional, vocal, etc., producers, unless a reliable source identifies their contribution as substantially the same as the main producers. These should be included in the article body or track listings rather than be listed here.'"
 * Please ensure that you double-check for an existing consensus (which is being upheld by TheAmazingPeanuts) before accusing someone of edit warring, by either combing through archives as I did or checking the documentation of the template you're editing. Sock   ( tock talk)  23:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wicked Awesome Records
If you look at the album's back cover on the CD and vinyl versions, Kid Cudi's record label logo is there. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have edited in the record label now, care to leave any FAC comments? --K. Peake 08:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would leave a comment there. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Langdon Hickman article
, is this your only complaint about the source? Because according to WP:SELFPUB: Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hickman has numerous articles spanning the past several years credited to his name, including for Consequence of Sound, Treble, and Brooklyn Vegan. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the featured article criteria, the article should be well-researched: . "Self-published sources" being in the section of "Sources that are usually not reliable" would not make the reference "high-quality" from the outset. Vistadan 09:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , you need to be a little more flexible, situationally that is, with how you apply that guideline, as suggested by WP:FARS – this is not an article on a major historical event with an infinite amount of high-quality coverage but rather an article on a relatively recent rap album. Citing a one-line subjective interpretation of this kind of artwork from an experienced and published journalist (WP:SUBJECTIVE), regardless if he's self-published in this instance (WP:SELFPUB), still sounds fine to me. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've found somewhat of a replacement source that is not self-published, but this is still a good note to keep in mind for future reference. Thanks. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

help
i broke the page on accident wtf do i do Nickiandyeoutsold (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment: "psychedelic" genre in infobox
Should "psychedelic" be removed or kept in the infobox genre list? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is a dispute over the genre "psychedelic" in the infobox. Kkollaps argument is using the term "psychedelic" as an adjective (descriptive) rather than as a noun (genre). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Psychedelic music genre per sources, for instance The Music (magazine) from Australia which assessed the album as hip hop and psychedelia. This article was thoroughly vetted last year for Featured Article status, and "psychedelic" is shown as a music genre in the FA version as seen here. Let's keep it that way. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Psychedelic music, or psychedelia, is a legitimate genre and this album has been described by RS as fitting that genre. –– FormalDude  talk  23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is one of the traditions of listing genres to drop the word music in the description. For example, instead of Rock music, we list Rock. Same for pop, heavy metal, trap, etc.  While Psychedelic can be used as an adjective, in this case it is being used as a noun, using the same abridging method used for other music genres. Mburrell (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: there are plenty of sourced mentions of the genre throughout the article. I do think the mention in the lead ("Commentators noted the genre of Kids See Ghosts as a fusion of psychedelic and hip hop.") could be changed to "psychedelia" but that's a minor unrelated issue. QuietHere (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep not only did the genre make it through FAC with no questions, but it is also properly sourced for the album unlike the previously included rap rock that could really be sourced for just some tracks. --K. Peake 07:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per references in the article Piotr Jr. (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, but not as "psychedelic": "Psychedelic" is an adjective, so it ought to be written as "psychedelic hip hop", or, if only used on its own, then "psychedelia" or "psychedelic music", but never as simply "psychedelic".  Tkbrett  (✉) 13:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine changing it to "psychedelia" and it seems @QuietHere is as well. –– FormalDude  talk  01:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring just to that one instance. I don't see how "psychedelic" can't easily be understood as shorthand for "psychedelic music" in other instances, but I won't argue against a consensus regarding that (I'd recommend bringing it up in a second vote to be sure though). QuietHere (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Very against this OR-based interpretation editors try to do to avoid adding genre they personally don't agree with. Sergecross73   msg me  01:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The genre is properly sourced. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep backed by RS, idk why this even needed to come to an RFC. OgamD218 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in its current state. As it stands, it's massive deviation from WP:EXPLICITGENRE. The sources say that the tracks are "brooding, somber, [and] psychedelic", and they are "reminiscent of fuzzed-out psychedelic rock" and finally that they are traversing "scatted freakouts, bangers, space odysseys, psychedelic soul, and dream pop". So, nowhere does it state that they are actually psychedelic music. If you're planning on keeping psychedelic, the only explicit genre was psychedelic soul, but then scatted freakouts, bangers, space odysseys, and dream pop should also all be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , There is . How about rendering this as psychedelic hip hop then? Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I guess you could either leave the redirect (to alternative hip hop) or pipe it to the subsection on hip hop at psychedelic music. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that the genres listed are actually claimed by the sources. I did not see that specifically stated in any of the reviews, but I'm one voice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. But reviewers tend to write in journalese (as opposed to formal concrete encyclopedic tone and phrasing), that it makes it a rarity to find one who'll explicitly define or categorize an album as, for instance, "a psychedelic album." In a case like this, I'd say there's enough smoke to claim fire without controversy, and to give weight to "hip hop psychedelia", however which way we'd like to render it in the infobox. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the album name is KIDS SEE GHOSTS but not Kids See Ghosts
In Apple Music and genius.com, this album name is KIDS SEE GHOSTS (all caps) but not Kids See Ghosts, and same to artist name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEHOVEAN (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Mini-Album Format
The Wall Street Journal calls it a Mini-album, and the Mini-LP (aka Mini-album) article has cited it as an example of this unique format (which is a type of Album) for the past 6 years. Attempts to note this in the article have been met with edit-warring, so I'm bringing it here to discuss as needed. What am I missing? Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)