Talk:Top Dawg Entertainment

Discography section
I wanted to change the format of this section to make it look like Shady's and Aftermath's. Now it looks too huge and has a lot of unnecessary information. L Trey (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see nothing unnecessary about it, plus the upcoming releases section looks much better in table format.  STATic  message me!  20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * K. And what if we will change it back but not touching Upcoming releases section? L Trey (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What is unnecessary about it?  STATic  message me!  20:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Singles and stuff. Bunch of dashes. I think everyone understands that underground releases are not sold somewhere outside the U.S. L Trey (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well Oxymoron is coming out in a month, pretty sure that is not going to only chart in the US. Also, for the record, the releases before GKMC were sold internationally, just failed to chart.  STATic  message me!  21:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Damn, are you serious? :) I know about their deal with Interscope. But, for international shit, we have artists' discographies articles. L Trey (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What? And what is "international shit", I did not know feces had passports. Also, there is no deal with Interscope, only Lamar and Q have solo deals with Interscope, everybody else and all releases before GKMC are and were independent. But does not madder, adjust the released albums table like Shady's. Just get the information correct. STATic  message me!  22:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming releases
With this edit, is again removing cite requests without addressing the issue. They state, "All three had references, but were vanished when user SummerPhD damaged this page. Jay Rock & Kendrick Lamar were scheduled for 2014 but pushed back. When ScHoolboy Q personally claimed 2014 but said TDE's schedule was full." There are several problems with this. First and foremost, it does not address the fact that the material is still not sourced. As for their claim that the material had reverences, two of them were completely unreferenced, the third had a reference that did not support the material. (For the fourth, the reference was good, I merely relocated it and filled out the cite.) With this edit -- my first to the article -- I requested cites for two unreferenced dates and removed the statement "The following are confirmed albums that currently have no official release date." Without sources, we have no indication that these are "confirmed albums". That Funkatastic is not aware of a release date for them is not an encyclopedic claim. My next edit requests a date for the SZA album, A. The source cited gives the album title says it will be released "in the near future". The source is dated September 11, 2014. "In the near future" is quite vague and does not confirm 2015. My next edit moved the source for ScHoolboy Q. The source was next to the album name not having been announced. I moved it over one column as it does confirm the 2015 date. My final, damaging edit converted the bare url to a full reference. As Funkatastic has removed the cite needed tags three times so far (twice reverting me and once reverting ), I am giving them a WP:3RR warning. I will wait one day for anyone to reasonably explain why this material would not need to be cited. Users may, of course, add sources at any time. While the material is unsourced, if anyone specifically doubts the material, they may remove it as unsourced ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." WP:V). I intend to wait a bit, restore the cite requests, see if I can find sources and eventually remove the material if I cannot. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Outrageous Reference Requests
The user User:SummerPhD has made his way over to this page and started throwing demands around. I've had to remind this user on multiple occasions that Wikipedia runs on communal efforts, but operates by his own rules. Requesting references for albums that were announced over a year ago is just flat-out ridiculous. I apologize to any users who will suffer from this and I especially apologize to any readers or fans of Top Dawg Entertainment who could possibly lose the opportunity to be informed of accurate information of their favorite artists due to this users actions. If you're reading this please feel encouraged to help fix this issue, if you don't agree with me, that's fine as well as you're entitled to your opinion, feel free to weigh in against me. I have made attempts to try and reason with this user but he has made no attempt to change his ways and has shown minimal interest in working with others. Please don't hesitate to contact me or this user via our User talk pages. Funkatastic (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you seem to be having problems. For information on how to cite sources, please see WP:CITE. If you still cannot figure out how to cite sources, feel free to ask here on my talk page or by placing on your talk page.
 * I am neither "throwing demands around" nor "operating by (my) own rules". Wikipedia is based on 5 core principles. One of these is verifiability. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."
 * Material that is not directly supported by independent reliable sources may be removed at any time by any editor, as [was done here by another editor. If you wish to restore this information, you must include and inline citation to a reliable source. You restored the material without the required sourcing, including the incorrect assertion that the other editor did not have the "authority" to remove the material (any editor may do so). I cleaned up the sources, as detailed above. Most of the material was unsourced. I added standard maintenance templates. You removed them without addressing the issue. I warned you, using a standard consensus warning. You ignored the warning and removed the citation requests. A third editor restored the cite requests and warned you. You ignored the warning and removed the cite requests again, with the incorrect assertion discussed above.
 * As explained above, you now have a choice:
 * You can find reliable sources and add the cites to the article. That would be great. The situation would be resolved.
 * You can ignore the situation. I will restore the cite request tags and see if I can find sources. The material will end up cited or removed.
 * You can continue to remove the maintenance tags and, if the material is removed, restore it against the clear WP:CONSENSUS and our core policies. You will be blocked from editing and the situation will continue as if you has simply ignored the situation.
 * Either way, the material will be sourced or removed, unless you can put forth a policy or guideline based reason why this particular information should be an exception. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hy
I don't know what this app is but I wanna use it because it's seems like it gonna help me in many things so this is my topic thank you 105.107.25.160 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)