Talk:Kamikaze (Eminem album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kamikaze (Eminem album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Kamikaze (Eminem album) was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 14, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kamikaze (Eminem album). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kamikaze (Eminem album) at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Eminem High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eminem, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eminem on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EminemWikipedia:WikiProject EminemTemplate:WikiProject EminemEminem articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hip hop Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Track listing and featured artists

Do others think they should be included? The style guide doesn't require them but does encourage them in some cases. I find it distracting. Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at every other hip hop article made in the past two years... why would this one be any different? Smh Nice4What (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the other ones should change. The track listing template is usually not a good idea if ever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is distracting. Actually, I'm of the opinion that it should be a requirement for hip-hop albums. ―Rob Frawley 2nd (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robfrawley: Can you explain more of your thinking here? Why would a certain genre be separate from others in this regard? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: The hip-hop genre "features" artists quite differently than other genres. 1. Features are much more common.; 2. They often have a high impact on airplay, reception, and audience.; 3. Features may bring two distinct hip-hop followings together whom would otherwise not experience the others' body of work.; 4. Those who follow hip-hop have a higher interest in "features" and "producers" than many other genres (individuals do not, generally, immediately seek out the producer of Tool's Lateralus, David Bottrill, whereas people follow DJ Khaled and others in the hip-hop world).; 5. Generally, tracks on hip-hop albums contain more diverse contributions in terms of features, producers, writers, etc.; 6. Hip-hop "features" generally credit an artist whom wrote and performed on the track (though this isn't a "hard" rule, of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfrawley (talk • contribs)

why is the track listing wrong? yes i know its like that on stream sites but its not like this on the album cover so its WRONG!?!?!? really annoyingDazzMc89 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Please note that all information needs to be sourced, including producer credits, genre, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this article is about a topic related to a living person which has extra scrutiny about sources. Unsourced material can and should be removed immediately. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links

@Koavf: Please explain your revert. A link to stream the album on Spotify is deemed promotional and should be avoided. Discogs and Genius are crowd-sourced websites which are inappropriate per WP:ELNO. You've made enough reverts on this page today. Hayman30 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can have crowd-source sites as external links per WP:ELNO: please show me which of those guidelines say we can't. Plus, providing a stream of the album is preferred but if you think one provider should be removed, that's fine. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline 12 states that open wikis should be avoided. Genius and Discogs do not have "a substantial history of stability" (Genius has a history of misinformation), and Discogs has been listed under WP:ALBUMAVOID. Providing a stream of the album is not preferred. Such links are promotional because they can lead the reader to buy the album. That's the same reason why we never include links to every digital retailer, they're only used for credits. Hayman30 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'd never seen avoiding Discogs. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looked at this and it's for sourcing info, not external links. @Hayman30:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but it being listed there implies that it is unreliable and thus does not have a "substantial history of stability" as required by ELNO. Hayman30 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. An unreliable source can be stable (no contradiction there) and plenty of things are appropriate as external links but not sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K. Hayman30 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes review

The removed review is by someone who has a background in music writing for publications (e.g. Paste). Per Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_246#Forbes.com, this can be included. What am I missing here, user:Cornerstonepicker? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paste since 2015? that doesn't make him a notable journalist to justify his comments. Bryan Rolli's articles have been previously removed from pages. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

@178.89.176.220: Please stop the consistent reverts without explanation and come to the talk page. I'm bring this here regarding your consistent efforts to change the tracklist.

On all streaming services, Paul Rosenberg is credited as the artist for Track 4, not Eminem. As done with other articles, a note detonates that the track is performed by him.
Since the track list uses the official numbering provided by the album's back cover, it's important to note that streaming services have Tracks 9 and 10 switched.
No other album article abbreviates "featuring" as "ft. / feat." and such should not be done.
Our song writing and production credits are adapted from Tidal, there's no point in removing the sentence and citation that says that.

I hope you have the time to stop with the disruptive edits and come to the talk page, but it seems your IP has solely focused on editing the Kamikaze page. Nice4What (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel styling

Hi, I wanted to bring this to the talk page since there's been a lot of reverting between me and @Koavf: on two different styles for the personnel section. Both seem to be consistent with WP:Album, I've just made mine (Proposal 2) more consistent with how the sections appear in other articles for hip hop albums (most of my contributions here).

Proposal 1 (Koavf)

Eminem – production lead vocals, production

Musicians

Joyner Lucas – vocals on "Lucky You"
Jessie Reyez – vocals on "Nice Guy" and "Good Guy"
Paul Rosenberg – discussion on "Paul"
Royce da 5'9" – vocals on "Not Alike"
Justin Vernon – vocals on "Fall"

Production and arrangement

Swish Allnet – production on "Normal"
Fred Ball – production on "Nice Guy"
Boi-1da – production on "Lucky You"
Cubeatz – production on "Not Alike"
Dr. Dre – executive production
Illa Da Producer – production on "The Ringer", "Lucky You", "Normal", and "Good Guy"
Tay Keith – production on "Not Alike"
LoneStarr Muzik – production on "Normal"
Mike Will Made It – production on "Greatest" and "Fall", composition on "Greatest", for sampling "Humble"
Backpack – production on "Greatest"
Luke Wild – production on "Greatest"
Luis Resto – production on "Stepping Stone" and "Venom"
Ronny J – production on "The Ringer" and "Not Alike"
S1 – production on "Normal" and "Nice Guy"
Jahaan Sweet – production on "Lucky You"
Tim Suby – production on "Kamikaze"

Proposal 2 (Nice4What)

Credits for personnel adapted from Tidal.
Production and arrangement

Eminem – production (tracks 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9–13)
Dr. Dre – executive production
Illa Da Producer – production (tracks 1, 3, 5, 12)
Ronny J – production (tracks 1, 8)
Mike Will Made It – production (tracks 2, 9)
Backpack – production (track 2)
Luke Wild – production (track 2)
Jahaan Sweet – production (track 3)
Swish Allnet – production (track 5)
LoneStarr Muzik – production (track 5)
S1 – production (tracks 5, 11)
Luis Resto – production (tracks 7, 13)
Cubeatz – production (track 8)
Tay Keith – production (track 8)
Boi-1da – production (track 9)
Tim Suby – production (track 10)
Fred Ball – production (track 11)

Musicians

Eminem – lead vocals (tracks 1–3, 5–13)
Paul Rosenberg – lead vocals (track 4)
Joyner Lucas – featured vocals (track 3)
Royce da 5'9" – featured vocals (track 8)
Jessie Reyez – featured vocals (tracks 11, 12)
Justin Vernon – uncredited vocals (track 9)

For Proposal 2, I used the credits listed on Tidal for personnel, producers are listed in the order they appear, tracks are numbered instead of named, and musicians are listed in order of prominence (lead vocals → featured vocals → uncredited vocals). I'm hoping we can get a vote on this to end the editing dispute. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talk • contribs)

Vote

In favor of Proposal 1

In favor of Proposal 2

As post creator. Nice4What (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for posting. Per the album style guide, either of these formats is acceptable but 1.) there is already an established style here, 2.) choosing some hierarchy of producers being more important than vocalists is just arbitrary, 3.) obliging users to look back at the track listing to figure out which track someone participated on (and almost all of them are one to three total) is an annoyance, and 4.) you are misusing small text: the function of the <small> tag in HTML is not for styling and using the template just for styling is unnecessary, as Wikipedia is not paper; it's okay for us to write "... on "Not Alike"" instead of "{{small|(3)}}". Also, we shouldn't be citing a store unless it's really necessary; the actual source of the credits is the album liner notes, so citing something that reproduces them is poor practice per WP:SOURCE. Thanks again for giving your thoughts. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No hierarchy of "producers over musicians", I'm fine with whichever is listed first. Also a bit odd to call "obliging users to look back at the track listing" an annoyance – seems more like your personal preference considering how widespread the practice is on hip hop album articles. And please, if you don't want Tidal cited then you can simply cite the liner notes additionally. Tidal is very easy for anyone to access (as compated to liner notes) and let's anyone check the credits (kinda why we use it so often, right?). Nice4What (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: It seems like you misunderstand how sources work. Please see WP:SOURCE. If Reliable Source A claims "x" and then Reliable Source B quotes it, then we should use Source A. If the liner notes are reliable, then cite them. Why cite something that cites them? If they are unreliable, then both sources are unreliable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're unfamiliar with Tidal (or Spotify for that matter, as seen below) but the artist and/or their label upload the liner notes and credits onto these streaming services now. There has been no physical release of the liner notes. I am going to put Tidal back as the source of the producers and song writers since that's where we got them (you still haven't cited song writers). Nice4What (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about a physical release? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that's what you meant with liner notes, wanting a physical version cited since you refuse to use the digital version uploaded by Eminem lol. Nice4What (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What digital version uploaded by Eminem? Are you saying that Eminem has access to Tidal's servers? See my point above about sources citing sources. The source should be the liner notes, not someone else reproducing the liner notes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn just give it up. YES the label/artist upload the credits to Tidal and other streaming services. Just try to think where else would they get this information? Tell me where else to find these liner notes? You seem very unfamiliar with this so please "chill out". Nice4What (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you find the liner notes to an album...? The album itself. That is the source. Once you have the album, you look at it. I don't know why I have to tell you this. Also, albums can be digital and liner notes can be digital. If Tidal is just reproducing the liner notes of the album, then don't cite Tidal any more than you would cite Justin's Liner Notes Blog. As I said before, citing sources that cite reliable sources is not appropriate: cite the original source. If the original source is reliable, why would you cite someone reproducing it instead of it directly...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so... Digital albums can have digital liner notes + streaming is now popular → Streaming services now have digital liner notes. Nice4What (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And are a different source than the original source. It is more popular now to have digital books but Jane Eyre is still the source for the chapters of titles of Jane Eyre. You don't cite a blog that says, "Jane Eyre's table of contents is...", you cite Jane Eyre. If you have something controversial or a claim about something other than the contents of the media itself, then use an outside source. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is what was provided to Tidal. Get it now? Tidal didn't adapt it from anywhere, they were literally provided the credits. That is the original source, like how all your "reliable" sources also cite Spotify. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry. Do some more research on digital liner notes in the streaming age. Stop lying about a fictional liner note that you got song writers from, stop lying that you found out who the co and additional producers were from outside sources because they don't list it. You're an experienced editor, you should know better. Nice4What (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Producers

There is evidently a lot of confusion about who produced what on the album and Tidal is making claims that no other source is making (e.g. Complex, Fader). Until there is agreement amongst sources, I think we should stick to what multiple independent sources say. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complex: "The Ringer" Producers: Illadaproducer, Ronny J, Eminem "Greatest" Producers: Mike Will Made-It, Jeremy Miller "Lucky You" f/ Joyner Lucas Producers: Boi-1da, Jahaan Sweet, Illadaproducer, Eminem "Paul" (Skit) Producers: Eminem "Normal" Producers: Illadaproducer, S1, Lonestarrmuzik, Swish Allnet "Em Calls Paul" (Skit) Producers: Eminem "Stepping Stone" Producers: Eminem, Luis Resto "Not Alike" f/ Royce da 5'9" Producers: Tay Keith, Ronny J, Eminem "Fall" Producers: Mike Will Made-It, Eminem "Kamikaze" Producers: Tim Suby, Eminem "Nice Guy" f/ Jessie Reyez Producers: Fred Ball, S1, Eminem "Good Guy" f/ Jessie Reyez Producers: Illadaproducer, Eminem "Venom (Music From the Motion Picture)" Producers: Eminem, Luis Resto	Fader: "The Ringer" Produced by Illadaproducer, Ronny J, Eminem "Carousel" Produced by Jeremy Miller, Mike WiLL Made-It, Eminem "Lucky You" Produced by Boi-1da, Jahaan Sweet "Paul Skit" — "Normal" Produced by Illadaproducer, S1, Lonestarrmuzik, Eminem "Em Calls Paul - Skit" — "Stepping Stone" Produced by Luis Resto, Eminem "Not Alike" Produced by Tay Keith, Ronny J, Eminem "Kamikaze" Produced by Tim Suby, Eminem "Fall" Produced by Eminem, Mike WiLL Made-It "Nice Guy" Produced by Fred Ball, S1, Eminem "Good Guy" Produced by Illadaproducer, Eminem "Venom" Produced by Eminem, Luis Resto	Tidal

Nah, let's not be stupid about this and use the digital liner notes uploaded to Tidal by the artist and their label. Complex and Fader both use Spotify for their credits. Fader even has the second track listed as "Carousel", which is from Astroworld. Stop making this difficult, this shouldn't even be a discussion. Nice4What (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please chill out. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying chill out doesn't add to anything. Your disruptive edits where you shape the whole article to your style doesn't help either. You pretending like those are the sources where we got the credits instead of Tidal... does absolutely nothing, it's quite dishonest. Please, back down and let the article be. Nice4What (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "source where we get credits". And why would we give a direct link to one store instead of another one??? See above note about sourcing as well: if Tidal just reproduces the liner notes, then cite the liner notes. If they don't and they contradict several other reliable sources, then what is your proposal? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯

Tidal has always listed credits, where as Spotify recently adopted it and that's why one service is used more often than the other. You "reliable sources" also just copy from those online liner notes and the articles are incorrect (such as listing "Carousel") and just want clicks (why point out just Kendrick Lamar as a writer on track 2 and not Playboi Carti or Lil Uzi Vert?) Nice4What (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a good point: Fader clearly has something wrong with it. That's why it's okay to talk about things and post to talk to discuss them. How about you stop editing while I'm trying to parse this, please? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of putting in the effort stretching for different sources, you just accept Tidal which has been used many times before? It is a reliable source, I guess since you're just unfamiliar with it you don't see it as such. You can keep talking about Complex and Fader but both state they have adapted their credits "via Spotify". Nice4What (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because reliable sources are contradicting one another. That's the whole point. My question before to you was what do you propose we do when reliable sources contradict one another? Why should we use Tidal over another source? It's not hard to answer these questions instead of endlessly reverting. Doing research and finding sources is actually an important part of writing an encyclopedia. I'm taking time out of my day to make this the best article it can be and all I'm asking is that you give me some time to do it and work with me to explain your reasoning. It could be totally sound: I just don't know it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal is a direct source, like how you've mentioned you wanted a "direct" source many times. The reliable sources just copy half-information from Spotify, there is no point in using them. Just use the liner notes. Use the liner notes unless reliable sources provide proof of uncredited writers/producers. In my opinion, that's so so very simple. If you're confused as to why there's differences, it's because the "reliable sources" are filled with erros. Disregard them. Nice4What (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now the liner notes are cited. It was that simple the whole time and you made it a huge war for no reason. Please stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me where you got the liner notes, and where I or any other editor can see the song writers. Granted, Tidal seems to have the digital credits... Hmmm... Nice4What (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opening section

What exactly is happening in this sentence? "The album has executive producers by Eminem (credited as Slim Shady) and frequent collaborator Dr. Dre, while actual production on the album comes from a variety of musicians." How about: "The album's executive producers are Eminem (credited as Slim Shady) and frequent collaborator Dr. Dre, while production for individual tracks comes from a variety of musicians." ―Rob Frawley 2nd (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Settled on a variation that took later edits into account: "Eminem, credited as Slim Shady, and Dr. Dre served as executive producers, while production for individual tracks comes from a variety of musicians." ―Rob Frawley 2nd (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section Context

The "Controversy" section needs some additional context regarding the use of "faggot" against "Tyler the Creator", most importantly, that Tyler the Creator himself uses the word "faggot" as well as other "homophobic" slurs regularly (he used it 213 times on his 2011 album https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/tyler-the-creator-faggot_n_4254885.html). Additional references include Tyler's current wikipedia page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tyler,_the_Creator), as well as http://www.towleroad.com/2011/08/tylerthecreator-2/, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jul/25/tyler-the-creator-flower-boy-gay-man-or-queer-baiting-provocateur, https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/may/09/hip-hop-homophobia, and https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/07/tyler-the-creator-flower-boy-coming-out-queerness/534486/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfrawley (talk • contribs)

@Robfrawley: Thanks. Probably best to see if/when he makes a public statement about this particular usage of the slur but it's a good point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing headline

@Koavf: Please discuss your changes here because any more reverts and you'll go over 3RR. Template:Track listing states that the headline is optional it is used "to denote sides/disc numbers of an album", and honestly I don't think the lack of a headline makes the article less accessible in any way. Hayman30 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template needs to change, then. The guidelines are at MOS:DTAB and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial, where it is "high" priority and "easy" to implement. Why do you want this article to be less accessible to users with disabilities? That just confounds me. I cannot understand making barriers to knowledge like this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lmfao I never claimed that I want the article to be less accessible to the disabled, it was you who's been accusing me of such intent all the way. I'm not the one who template, so it's not my problem. The guidelines are obviously specifically targeted at traditional tables, and it never stated that a caption is mandatory, you kept reverting my changes as if it's a requirement. Take it up at respective noticeboards or WikiProject talk pages if you want to dispute it. You're making claims that I think you can't back up. Hayman30 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: Or how about you do since you are the one trying to change something that is stable and that conforms with accessibility guidelines? You initially feigned ignorance, then refused to actually read them, and now you just say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. How is that convincing? Please point me to a claim that I can't "back up". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something being "stable" doesn't mean it cannot be changed. Track listing without a headline is an established style on album articles, which is something you don't seem to care anyway. The accessibility guidelines you cited aren't specifically targeted at the track listing template and my changes were made completely in accordance with the template's own instructions. I did read the guidelines you quoted, and there is no mention that a caption is required, but you act as if it is. I pointed out that it wasn't a requirement and you responded with a description of a caption, which is irrelevant. The you reverted me again saying that "captions are 'high' priority and 'easy' difficulty", which is again, irrelevant. You're obviously just dodging the question and it just seemed to me that you're defending yourself no matter what without providing a reasonable explanation, so I really don't know who's being ignorant here. Apparently you're trying to put me in bad light by falsely accusing me of making the page "less accessible" lol. Hayman30 (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it can't change but the burden is on you to justify it, not me. Accessibility guidelines supercede any particular lack of their implementation. What question am I dodging, as I don't see one that you've asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lolwut I already justified my changes. I said this is an established style on album articles and is fully supported by the template's very own instructions, which states that the headline is optional. The accessibility guidelines you quoted does not say that a caption is mandatory, and a caption differs from a track listing headline. You never directly responded to that and kept quoting irrelevant guidelines. Hayman30 (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD. See if you can make your case for a less accessible article to other users with "lolwut". Accessibility guidelines say that tables should include headings which is "high priority" and "easy to do". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but you don't make further reverts just because the 24-hour limit is over when there is an ongoing discussion happening on the talk page. See, you're still falsely accusing me of making the article "less accessible" without giving adequate explanation. The section heading literally says "track listing" so I don't know how a line below that says the exact same thing would make the article more accessible than it is. And again, you're repeating what you've said here without directly responding to my points. It doesn't really matter if it's "high priority" or "easy to do" (the latter of which is irrelevant lmao), it never said that a caption is mandatory or required. Hayman30 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've made it clear that you refuse to read the accessibility guidelines or abide by the BRD process so I don't know what I can do for you. Tables should have headings, this makes things more accessible. If you don't like that or refuse to understand it, then I can't help you. Please feel free to post more "lols" and say, "It's not mandatory" and see if anyone else finds that compelling. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally favorable vs positive?

So we are seeing a constant back and forth on this issue between some users and what seems to be a single IP. In the hope of achieving some consensus I thought I'd start this discussion before requesting page protection. My view is that we should use "generally favorable" or even "polarized" but "positive" after a 62% rating on Metacritic is nothing short of fancruft/puffery. What say you lot? Rob van vee 14:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. A 62/100 or a 56/100 (AnyDecentMusic?) are not favorable: they are virtually the definition of mixed. "Polarized" to me would mean that there are many very high and very low scores but that's not true: almost no one gave it a 10/10 or A and almost no one gave it one star or a D. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I'm fine with either mixed or polarized, I find them pretty interchangeable, but I cannot find any justification for "positive" or even "generally positive", especially when we're talking about one of the most critically praised rap artists of all time and you look at the score difference between this and his earlier work. While we're on the subject though, we should really talk about this kid that keeps reverting it back through multiple IP addresses - seems as though he isn't getting the message and doesn't plan on stopping. Personally I strongly think the page should at least be semi-protected because blocking him seems fruitless if he's using multiple IP addresses. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used "generally favorable" as that is how Metacritic described it but yeah even that is possibly too lenient. "Mixed" is probably better suited. Rob van vee 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there are 8 positive and mixed reviews on Metacritic, this should stay as "mixed", as although the average of the scores were "generally favorable", the amount of reviews say otherwise. Aardwolf68 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

This page has been unjustifiably tampered with one too many times by trolling Em fans and I strongly think this page should be protected. Anybody else? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally! Rob van vee 20:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So... shall we do it? I frankly don't know anything about how to get a page protected and I don't know if I even have the authority - do either of you? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Shadow-Fighter: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I think it's best if you make the request, since you made the thread but anyone can do it, strictly speaking. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did it using Twinkle. Thought it may be easier than explaining to Shadow-fighter. My first request too so I hope I did it right. Rob van vee 04:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why is "appropriation" used in the lead about the album art

Why is appropriation used when everybody considers it is an homage, including the Beastie Boys themselves, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML3NDyDQNj8 ? Drksl (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fantano's review of Kamikaze in the critical reception section of the article

@Aardwolf68: I think that the Anthony Fantano review shouldn't be removed from the section, since in the BBC article his review is a bit more than a mention. They discuss the review in some detail, giving out the reasons why the guy didn't like it, but they also give it a fair amount of importance: I believe that the UK's most important news outlet discussing the review in such a way in addition to giving it importance in itself due to its negativity merits a mention in the article. mike•owen ^discuss 09:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeowen: No matter our personal feelings on the matter, it's against wikipedia's guidelines to include his review unless there's a case where his review is specifically published by a third party, not summarized or mentioned. In my opinion, the rules should change. But as of now, the guidelines prevent the review from being mentioned. ~Aardwolf68

@Aardwolf68: Thanks for your reply. I understand you, and will not try and put the source in unless circumstances change. Have a great evening! mike•owen ^discuss 19:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeowen: You too, good sir. ~Aardwolf68

I apologize for our misunderstanding earlier, and thank you for listening to what I had to say- this album's page has been notorious for the "mixed" or "positive" argument, and I feel like that meeting in the middle's the best idea. In well regards, ~ Aardwolf68 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listening to what I had to say instead if just shrugging it off and that I'm to fancruft. However, it should also be noted in the Critical Reception body that the album OVERALL recieved mixed reviews, because that was the consensus. Hopefully both can be included as a way to meet in the middle ~ Aardwolf68 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf68, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kamikaze_%28Eminem_album%29&type=revision&diff=937164513&oldid=937007130 I'm happy to work with you on this encyclopedia. Glad you're here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that no matter what I do, the reply's in the wrong segment of the talk page- in any case- have yourseld a wonderful day and thank you for the help ~ Aardwolf68 (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I am of the consensus that the album has been met with mixed reviews overall, without a doubt. However, the fact the Metacritic source is MODIFIED to say "mixed" jnstead of "positive" is absolutely disingenuous and throws away the entire point of sources: to prove claims, as Metacritic's scale says that the album has received "generally favorable reviews", it should be noted within the section, as Metacritic is our usual source when we go over reception per nearly every album. ~ Aardwolf68 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf68, This is a good point: since the Metacritic source says "generally positive", then that is what the text here should say. Thanks for improving this article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]