Talk:The Blueprint 3

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Blueprint 3 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

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

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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Swagger Like Us

Please do not edit the "Swagger Like Us" track off of "The Blueprint 3" page. It has been confirmed. Read the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleEshna (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same song's on T.I.'s album why would it be on both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.42.9 (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason "Sexy Can I" is on Ray J's All I Feel and Yung Berg's Look What You Made Me. SE KinG (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swagga like us is of course not on both albums. Slu pt 2 is jay's version, ergo this will be the only slu on blueprint 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.89.99 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People don't bother to read... both albums will feature the same song and the song is a single for both albums. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

All of the songs on this list are complete speculation. Anybody that knows anything about Hov knows he rarely puts those singles that come out before hand on the actual album. Blue Magic was leaked from American Gangster like a few weeks before the release, and he took it off the album and made it a bonus track... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.226.240 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 16th?

How does anyone know that's the release date for sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.253.244 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blueprint 3 info...

http://pleasedontstare.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/the-overstanding-on-the-blueprint-3/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.75.231 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming Again

Possible Blueprint 3 track titled "Dreaming Again". Haven't listened to it and did not do a search for a reference but just giving some info.--Nyj1218 (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Tracks..?

Heard some things about tracks called "Kiss and Tell" featuring The-Dream, "Illest Gangstas" featuring The Game. Recently, heard stuff about a Premo produced track called Real Rap. And a Just Blaze produced Hip Hop In My Words with a Luther Vandross Sample with a Weezy third verse.

--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 13:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye released "Brooklyn (Go Hard)[feat. Santogold](prod. Kanye West)" by Jay on his blog... off the Blueprint 3 possibly? "Brooklyn (Go Hard)"

It's been confirmed to be on the "Notorious" soundtrack by MTV, it still isn't confirmed by a RELIABLE source that it is on Blueprint 3. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put it on the page already, so if you think that it's inappropriate, because of the "RELIABLE source" issue, you can take it off then. I just can't see why it wouldn't be on. But whatever, you decide for yourself, just know that it's there.

Sources? Nearly entire page is speculation..

Where's the source stating it's indeed The Blueprint³, and not just The Blueprint 3 or even The Blueprint III? 130.216.30.234 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the iTunes page for the single "D.O.A. (Death of Auto-Tune)", the song review in the upper right corner states that the album will be "The Blueprint III". Idk how much we can trust iTunes on this but I'm just stating the fact. (talk)

I think those are all the same thing. If I recall correctly I think the Blueprint 2 was officially The Blueprint2, so maybe it's just being assumed.

Either way I am more curious about where nearly all these speculated tracks are coming from. I follow Jay-Z pretty closely and I haven't heard anything about any of those, aside from the songs already out. Additionally, if the album is really looking to be released in September 2009 I think there is very little chance that Ain't I, Swagga Like Us, Jockin' Jay-Z or Brooklyn (Go Hard) will be on it. It would make no sense and be totally inconsistent with how Jay's dealt with singles in the past. Bknollenberg (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timbo beats on Blueprint 3 !!!

Timbaland and Jerome "JRoc" Harmon produced 5 tracks for the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.74.178 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Blueprint³ vs. The Blueprint 3

Where is the source that says the album will have a subscript 3? Every information up to this point says The Blueprint 3. If someone can't find a reliable source for The Blueprint³ the move should be reverted. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 19:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, the superscript 3 is total speculation, and seems unlikely. 121.44.47.165 (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The Blueprint³ → The Blueprint 3 — The subscript 3 is purely spectacle. I have yet to see any website claim the album title to be The Blueprint³. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the iTunes review of "D.O.A. (Death of Auto-Tune)" they identify it as "The Blueprint III", so this thing has a million different possible names haha. But I agree that for now we should just stick with "The Blueprint 3". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.159.186 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D.O.A. is the street single, Run This Town is the lead single

So please stop saying in the Singles section and on the page for D.O.A. that D.O.A. is the lead single

leaked

it is currently fully leaked on what.cd--24.78.46.155 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baring exceptional circumstances, leaks are non-notable --Madchester (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-Z commented on the leak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.224.164 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Album Review

{{editsemiprotected}}

please change the no review section to add a review

|Reviews =

The Koalition link

Fmills15 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reviewing your edit history, it seems all your edits have been devoted to adding external links to the Koalition.com..... just today an article to that website was speedily deleted. Wiki's not some platform for self-promotion. --Madchester (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the response. i agree that wiki is not a place for promotion, but i disagree with your methodology however as this review is still creditable. my edit history should have nothing to do with the content and reader contribution itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmills15 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request rejected. I'm sorry, but it's not so much the matter of your history or promotion as it is the lack of website notability. At this point, the site does not have enough notability (as defined by Wikipedia) to be included. Apologies, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried multiple times to add a review to this particular entry. Planet Ill had the album reviewed in August and if you read the other reviews many of them took their cue from what was written. It's not an act of self promotion but the reviews are in-depth and credible. Planet Ill is a legitimate unbiased review site. Please check it out. They are often first with reviews. Dr.deisel (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)dr.deisel[reply]

I would like to request a Canadian review to be added from BLARE Magazine. link -> http://blaremagazine.com/2009/09/14/album-reviews-14-9-09

Please note we are non-profit and all of our work is to represent artists, not ourselves. It is a true a lot of individuals say this, but we're more focused on providing a voice for music & Canadian entertainment publications. 99.230.239.19 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album Sales

Um, every citation for his sales is to a blog written by some 12 year old, can't we find one real source that has his sales? Because I'm going to have to remove the number until somebody does . . . BGRuthless (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found a decent replacement for now, but we should make sure we aren't relying on random blog posts for citations in the future. BGRuthless (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"On to the Next One" Justice sample

Is there a reference saying that "D.A.N.C.E." is sampled in this track? Dsavage87 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is in The Blueprint 3 Audio Listing Guide. I have it by myself so I can confim that. ChelseaFanJT26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Next single?

I've heard that it will be "Forever Young" or "On to the Next One"... But I heard "So Ambitious" on the radio in Chicago (107.5). Plus Pharrell talked the song up. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 07:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-Hop Classic?

A widely considered one no less? I don't think it is and the line has no references or citatations. The meta-critic rating (65/100) certainly doesn't justify the claim.

94.195.24.129 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Section

I feel this focuses way too much on negative reviews. Thoughts? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 00:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The middle part deals with the lukewarm and mixed reviews, the album received a considerable amount of mixed reviews (nearly half of reviews shown at Metacritic for the album are mixed). But since there were more positive reviews, those are included in the beginning and end part of the section. Dan56 (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positive, not mixed to positive

61 on Metacritic is just BARELY positive. You could put mixed for that. But 65 means solid positive. Not critical acclaim, but still positive. AndrewOne (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could also put mixed to positive when Metacritic shows an even amount of both, meaning that "mostly positive" wouldn't be very accurate. Dan56 (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]