Talk:Late Registration

Non-free content
Please see my comments here; the same issues apply. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

RIAJ certification
I replaced the certifications to the certification template, but could not find the Japan certification in both the previous revision and the templated certification. Anyone know about the original addition? Dan56 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mama (Kanye West song)
I will try to do the merge tomorrow or the next day. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Genres
why are you anti the source I added? Where would you put it in the article? Rodregiezs (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What part of WP:SYNTH do you not understand? "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." That is what you were doing. isento (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * cut the aggression and you didn’t fully answer my question, if you were to addy source where would you put it? Rodregiezs (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You cut the aggression. Your question doesn't need to be answered - Wikipedia is not obligated to host a source and its content simply because it exists or is reliable (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The information needs to be useful within the context of the article, and one author's opinion that the album draws on R&B à la quiet storm is not essential to a reader's understanding of this article's topic. isento (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Btw, your source – the Entertainment Weekly review by David Browne – is already included in the ratings section, in Late Registration. isento (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

UK and tour editons bonus tracks
, can you explain to me your understanding of WP:TRACKLISTING (the guideline on additional track listings) in connection with your removal of the extra listings for bonus tracks on UK and tour editions of this album? The guideline says they can be included if there is on the tracks in the other edition, which I've added, in this case commentaries on the tracks "Back to Basics" and "We Can Make It Better". As for whether the track listing is, the edition's entire track listing is not being listed, only the last few tracks that are different, in my mind different enough. isento (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edit. I reason why I remove those track listings because there's currently a discussion regarding the extra track listings in articles. I was just following what Popcornfud is doing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've posed a question along these lines at the thread you linked. I appreciate the spirit of what they're doing, but I don't entirely agree. So adjudging on a case-by-case basis is best. Perhaps tagging the track listings in question and opening it up for discussion at an article's talk page first. isento (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see where you coming from. I have reverted all the recent edits regarding the track listings, maybe we should start an RfC regarding the extra track listings and see where we go from there. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it would be even better if we researched the web for available commentary on the bonus material in the additional listings to justify their presence in the articles. Contrary to what claims about people adding things for the sake of it, the prominence of these listings throughout album articles speaks for itself as to just how valuable they are to readers, so it is reasonable to think there is some professional commentary on it out there. If there isn't, you got me. But we should work with that idea first, about readers being Wikipedia's purpose (WP:PURPOSE) isento (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know this album or the tracks involved so I can't make the most informed decision here, but it seems to me like those are handful of international/bonus tracks of the kind the consensus was to exclude from articles. But then I would say that, since I'm anti-expanded track list. I wouldn't say that the "expanded commentary" recently added to justify these is really that expansive at all, and the spirit of that "expanded wording" policy was really meant to mean cases where alternative tracklist were at least as notable as the "main" tracklist. Striking this - I misread the diff, and the prose does address the few bonus tracks in greater detail than I realised. As the bonus tracks are meaningfully discussed in the article body and there aren't that many of them, I don't think this is a disaster OTT tracklist situation of the kind the guideline was intended to address - though personally I'd probably trim them anyway just for neatness and simplicity, but that's just me.
 * I think this - the prominence of these listings throughout album articles speaks for itself as to just how valuable they are to readers - is something of a specious argument; it basically says "because these exist, they must be good". I could equally suggest that the prominence of these listings speaks to editors' urge to catalogue and document beyond necessity, an urge all us full-time Wikipedia nerds feel, me included, and hence necessitates a guideline against. There's all kinds of stuff we could put on Wikipedia that people would find valuable but wouldn't be encyclopaedic (see WP:NOT). Popcornfud (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this - the prominence of these listings throughout album articles speaks for itself as to just how valuable they are to readers - is something of a specious argument; it basically says "because these exist, they must be good". I could equally suggest that the prominence of these listings speaks to editors' urge to catalogue and document beyond necessity, an urge all us full-time Wikipedia nerds feel, me included, and hence necessitates a guideline against. There's all kinds of stuff we could put on Wikipedia that people would find valuable but wouldn't be encyclopaedic (see WP:NOT). Popcornfud (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest there is an inherent goodness or correctness in their existence, but that it suggests a demand for them. And being the populist that I am, I prefer to strike a balance between popular demand and encyclopedic sense, since Wikipedia is more of a popular encyclopedia. And of course, even I can wince at the numerous remixes of "Bitch Don't Kill My Vibe" listed at Good Kid, M.A.A.D City... isento (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Beaumont's God & Monster
Just bought this book online, gonna use it here soon as it comes ! Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)