Jump to content

Talk:Vultures 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BarrelProof (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 23 February 2024 (→¥$ listing: clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article title

What should the article title be? "Vultures (¥$ album)" is a weird search term and a stylization of YS, so IMO it should be either the old title of "Vultures (Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign album)" or "Vultures (YS album)". ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS could be an argument against that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a big issue with ¥$ as a title, not many keyboards have the yen symbol. I personally lean towards Vultures (Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign album). I think it should be moved back to there for now, the move to the current title was undiscussed + there are a ton of redirects that are broken now. ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles that use the yen symbol, such as ¥€$, an album by Tommy Cash. Txmb (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other stuff exists, it doesn't mean it is correct. TSC is policy, probably better to follow it. Also that title seems like a very obvious stylization of "YES" lol. Even Ty Dolla Sign doesn't use the $ symbol and that's a very common symbol. ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
now that i think of it, you're right and the move should be moved back. i didn't start a discussion when I should have and it definitely causes problems with redirects. Txmb (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no problem, I was contemplating this exact decision when I was first drafting the article last week lol. ULPS (talk • contribs) 20:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol Txmb (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look at it closely, WP:TSC doesn't directly say not to use characters like '¥' or '$' in article titles. MOS:TM comes closer, by saying to "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters ... unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name." I suspect we need to look at what WP:IRS sources do. Looking at the sources cited in the article, most of them seem to refer primarily to the two artists rather than referring to "¥$" – perhaps just mentioning it once somewhere in the article if at all. The Billboard article doesn't even use the symbols – it just describes the string as "the yen 'Y' symbol with a dollar-sign symbol". The Daily Beast just says "billed under the superduo name ¥$" (which is the only source I found that uses the term "superduo", but it's used with "billed under" in a way that indicates it is the name being put forth by others rather than in Daily Beast's own voice). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even streaming services list the two artists, this really should be at the old title, and a discussion on whether to move it to ¥$ should be held. ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit reintroduced the term "superduo" (without providing any edit summary to explain the edit). Please see the discussion of this term above. It seems promotional, and as far as I know, it is not commonly used in reliable sources. It seems acknowledged to be a promotional term. ULPS seemed to agree that it isn't needed. The only identified somewhat reliable source in which that term appears is phrased in a way that makes it clear it is a promoted term rather than a term being used in the author's own voice. And that is the Daily Beast, which is a marginal quality source as described at WP:DAILYBEAST. I also found it in a WP:FORBESCON article, but that is not an acceptable source (as described at that link). I also feel the same way about calling these two people a "supergroup". Supergroups usually consist of more than two people. Both of these terms seem to verge on calling them "super" in Wikipedia's voice, which I think is not appropriate. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it isn't necessary, but I'm also not strongly against including it. Going by the dictionary definition of supergroup, I'd agree that they are a supergroup (which can have two people, e.g. Kids See Ghosts) but if no sources call them that then 🤷‍♂️ ULPS (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody other than me seems to mind the super. It's been there a week now and no one has re-removed it (or added citations to support it). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Album on streaming services says it's by "¥$, Kanye West $ Ty Dolla $ign." Would this be appropriate for Wikipedia? Calex112 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vultures 1 doesn't have the artist "¥$" credited in streaming services and the account was only used to release the singles. For those reasons I think that "Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign" would be better. Mutantxmonster013 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¥$ or YS

Should ¥$ be taken as a stylisation or not? On other articles, money signs are usually credited as stylisations (e.g ASAP Rocky, Suicideboys and Tommy Cash). Could really use some other opinions on this. Txmb (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in an RM concerning Tommy Cash's album ¥€$. 162 etc. (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering most sources refer to the album as by West and Ty Dolla Sign and very few actually call the duo ¥$, I don't think this applies here. Even streaming services credit the two. ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vultures (Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign album) → Vultures (¥$ album) – It is set to be released under their superduo name ¥$. The lead single was also released under that name: https://music.apple.com/us/album/vultures-feat-bump-j-lil-durk-single/1717979540. This is an easy case. 23.134.91.245 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page Getting Moved

The page keeps getting moved between (¥$ album) and (Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign). I say we keep it as the second one until we agree wether to change it or not. anyone agree or have different opinions??? Txmb (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a formal RM should probably be started over this if people really want to move it. ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that even if there is one, there's still going to be people who move the page every few hours and that isn't good if the discussion lasts over a few days like the Mos Def → Yasiin Bey one has. Txmb (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's page move protected now, so should be fine :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
good :) Txmb (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The album might not be dropping

Kanye removed the album from apple music 23thehater (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per this Uproxx article ([1]), it doesn't look like it's getting delayed for now, coupled with the now-often setbacks for Kanye releases. Give it a few more hours, I'd say. ! Quwoting2 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Album might be delayed, might be cancelled, we just wait for sources to cover it. ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all know that the cover art is pretty much PD, right?

The cover for Vultures is very much based on Caspar David Friedrich's now public domain work, Landscape with Grapes. We can legally recreate the cover by using the original Gregory Normal font and some image tweaking, right? 3dollarsinmybankaccount (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the copyright for the Friedrich painting has expired, a lawyer might argue that combining it with specific words with a particular choice of location, font, and size for those words results in a new creative product that can be copyrighted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative album cover

Now that the album is on, and the cover art at streaming is different from the Burzum-like one, why not add it at the article as an alternative album cover? The previous one still at the vinyl pre-order on yeezy.com, so isn’t necessary take it off. Uterimemo (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024

Ozzy Osbourne dispute over Black Sabbath is for the song Iron Man, not War Pigs. See IG post or Rolling Stone article.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C3JTmo9PY1A/

Osbourne is also misspelled as Osborne. What kind of clowns are running this locked page? Y’all are ridiculous! Fix.

On February 9, 2024, Ozzy Osborne posted on Instagram that West was refused permission to sample a 1983 Black Sabbath live performance of "War Pigs", but that West had done so anyway.[56] 2601:482:8002:A600:5CA2:FA4E:FCE5:509 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ULPS (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COVER & RELEASE

I uploaded a new cover for someone to add.

File:Vultures 1 Cover.png
Official Cover of Vultures 1

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vultures_1_Cover.png Kancarzy (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's worth mentioning that the ¥$ branding is no more. On Apple Music & Spotify it simply says "Kanye West & Ty Dolla $ign."

Once these are fixed, this page will owe pretty much perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kancarzy (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many producers and writers are missing and they have Wikipedia pages

Many of the people who have collaborated on the album, including producers and writers are still missing, even though some of them have Wikipedia pages, the album cover is missing as well. Stefrwrk (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The album cover is correct, but for caching reasons, the old one shows up. Clear your cache and it'll be updated. We don't know the full writer and producer list as those aren't officially available on a reliable source (Genius isn't reliable) ULPS (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¥$ listing

On streaming services, it's credited as Kanye West & Ty Dolla $ign, not ¥$. Should we change it or is it similar to the Unc & Phew album where it isn't listed as it on streaming services? Txmb (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the duo is ¥$ and will stay that way. Streaming services are notoriously unreliable in this regard, WTT by the The Throne and OBFIL by Unc & Phew Sickpanda42 (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the above comment starts with the word "Correct", apparently agreeing that "it's credited as Kanye West & Ty Dolla $ign, not ¥$", Sickpanda42 seems to disagree with crediting the album that way in this article. See also the prior discussions of this issue, e.g., in the #Article title and #¥$ or YS and #Requested move 12 December 2023 and #Page Getting Moved and #NEW COVER & RELEASE sections. I suggest that the artist parameter of the infobox should continue to say "Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign", not "¥$". Or perhaps "Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign (aka ¥$)" or similar. Sickpanda42 appears to disagree. My impression is that Sickpanda42 is in the minority. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The album is on the ¥$ page on Apple Music as of yesterday. There are singles released under that name as well. It not difficult to infer that this is an album by the duo, ¥$ either. I'm also willing to bet that the official metadata will be updated to ¥$ later as well. Sickpanda42 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also for more proof, Apple Music themselves have now added a duo biography and origin to the ¥$ page, further proving my point. https://music.apple.com/us/artist/%C2%A5%24/1718573158 Sickpanda42 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Album was just re released again under the ¥$ page. Looks like I was correct. Sickpanda42 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on how the group is mostly referred to; e.g. while the Throne is referenced a few times on WTT, no one calls that an album by the Throne, but rather Kanye West and Jay-Z. Similarly, I haven't seen anyone call OBFIL an Unc & Phew album at all.
In this case I think the listing should continue to show both artists separately.! Quwoting2 {converse} 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The album was literally just rereleased as ¥$ on all platforms. Sickpanda42 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sickpanda42, it continues to look like you're in the minority. Per the prior discussions and Quwoting2, "the listing should continue to show both artists separately". I notice, for example, that the article currently cites 8 sources in its table of professional reviews. None of those have "¥$" in their headlines and all of them mention at least West individually or mention both artists. Please stop trying to impose your own opinion by editing the article to align it with your own opinion without establishing a different consensus here first. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The album has been released as ¥$. Go look at all streaming platforms. All singles have been released as ¥$. Kanye and Ty are headlining rolling loud as ¥$. Your logic is flawed and it seems as though you do not understand how duos in music work. Sickpanda42 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All materials have also been released under both artists' aliases; the album, the singles, the compilation EPs...
Even if ¥$ is the "proper" name, simply listing it as being under both artists' aliases makes it more recognizable.
Also, we should take note of the fact that compared to Kids See Ghosts or Silk Sonic, which had official announcements, promotion, etc., ¥$ has just seemingly materialized into being. ! Quwoting2 {converse} 00:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, no charts credit the album as being under ¥$. Just checked.
! Quwoting2 {converse} 00:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the "charts" credit the album as ¥$. Ye and Ty deliberately made the choice the release the project as a duo with the name ¥$, that is why it is billed that way on streaming services. They are also debuting as ¥$ at rolling loud, per their announcement. Sickpanda42 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sickpanda42, the consensus here is clearly against what you are repeatedly doing. Please stop the edit warring. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sickpanda42: I see that you are continuing to insistently enforce your own preference on this issue when others change it. The consensus is clearly against you. Please stop the edit warring. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof What consensus? It seems that you are enforcing your own preferences on this "issue". If you think logically and review any other album page by a group, they all follow the exact same structure. Can you provide me with any evidence on why you disagree with this? There is no difference between this album and KSG for example in terms of how the album should be addressed and billed. I have repeatedly provided evidence that you choose to ignore. Think logically and think about how a duo album works and then go and review the pages for other duo albums on Wikipedia. If you would like more examples please let me know. Sickpanda42 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: side note, I will continue to revert the edits that are incorrect. Sickpanda42 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album was first released under both artists' aliases, and then under this specific order: "¥$, Kanye West, Ty Dolla Sign".
  • As BarrelProof has stated, none of the citations on this page mention ¥$ in their headlines: they either mention West individually or both artists.
  • It's clear that they're more notable and recognizable individually, hence the listing I've been correcting to.
  • One of the examples you initally provided, Watch the Throne, is not explicitly stated to be a Throne album at all; the only provided source for that moniker is a WP:FORBESCON.
  • GA nominee section below is concerned with consistency of naming.
  • The consensus here is that You're Wrong.
! Quwoting2 {converse} 07:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the album was released in the order ¥$, Kanye West, Ty Dolla Sign. This means that the group is ¥$, consisting of Ye and Ty. The same way that Kids See Ghosts is Kids See Ghosts, Kanye West & Kid Cudi. It’s not hard to understand.
  • They either mention West individually or both artists in order to avoid confusion because their duo name is 2 symbols.
  • You are ignoring many other examples, Silk Sonic, Jack U, KIDS SEE GHOSTS, Madvillian, NehruvianDOOM, JJ DOOM, NxWorries, the list can go on. This is how we list and refer to superduo albums on Wikipedia.
  • There is no “consensus” unless you are ferreing to yourself and “BarrelProof” which both of you are wrong.
Sickpanda42 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the comments in this section, I suggest to see also the prior discussions of this issue, e.g., in the #Article title and #¥$ or YS and #Requested move 12 December 2023 and #Page Getting Moved and #NEW COVER & RELEASE sections. For example, a WP:RM discussion was held for a suggestion to rename the article from being identified as a "Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign album" to being identified as a "¥$ album". That suggestion was rejected. Please see the comments by ULPS, Pillow da Don, and DollysOnMyMind (and Jonesey95 below) as well as those by myself and Quwoting2. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard credits them as ¥$. https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/ Sickpanda42 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have also mentioned the comment by Mutantxmonster013. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what comment? the album is listed as ¥$, Kanye West $ Ty Dolla $ign on all streaming services. Sickpanda42 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're using a browser that is making it difficult for you to find Talk page comments. The comment from Mutantxmonster013 that I was referencing is the one here on the article Talk page that said "... I think that 'Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign' would be better." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages for producers

Gustave Rudman Rambali, Morten (Rissi) Risturp, and The Legendary Traxster have all Wikipedia pages. 2806:262:496:836E:44D2:498E:C05:C57F (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

Producer credits real name for DTP is „Denis Raab“ and should be added as producers in the list on top of the article. FrankoManko (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create artist page for ¥$

A lot of information on this page could be relocated to a new artist page for ¥$. With 2 more expected upcoming albums there will be a lot to discuss. Similar to how KSG has both and album and artist page Sickpanda42 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other comments above. Sickpanda42, can we please keep the discussion of the distinctness of "¥$"–versus–"Kanye West and Ty Dolla Sign" in a single place on this Article Talk page rather than continuing to open more new sections about it? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They should have their own artist or group page, as they have released two singles, one album, have collaborated with each other many times before and will release two more albums and a world tour. 2806:262:496:836E:C89:7763:FE3D:F7BE (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Sickpanda42 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first step would be to find multiple reliable sources that refer to the collaboration by this two-symbol name. The existing citations in the article do not look promising. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard credits them as ¥$. https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/ Sickpanda42 (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...you'll need more.! Quwoting2 {converse} 07:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated section for sample issues?

There have already been three sample and/or interpolation problems (Backstreet Boys, Ozzy Osbourne, and Donna Summer). The back-and-forth about what is essentially the same issue in different sections (Background and recording and then again Release and promotion) feels very confusing to read, in my opinion. I believe there should be a section or other dedicated area in the article for more clarity. However, I'm unsure on how to go about it. Does anyone have opinions or suggestions? Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 00:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this does seem to have enough material to warrant separation - how about a sub-section and would that be more suitable for release or background? --K. Peake 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominee

I will be working on promoting the album to GA status, if anyone is interested to co nominate with me let me know and I'll be monitoring this article to make sure everything is up to date as well as reliably sourced with adequate details. K. Peake 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Camper has a Wikipedia page, Beg Forgiveness was written by singer Faouzia who also has a Wikipedia page, Back To Me was produced by Mike Dean, many of the writers, and producers are missing or not properly edited with their respective Wikipedia pages, the album is also #1 in many streaming platforms all over the world and this information is missing, so please do something about it, also it seems to be boycotted through Wikipedia as only the bad or negative reviews are here, and the good and positive ones are missing. 2806:262:496:836E:C89:7763:FE3D:F7BE (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Leon did not produce Stars, but Leon Thomas III did produce Burn although his proper credit is not there. Vultures lists Marlonwiththeglasses as a producer but is Chordz instead, Fya Man producer credit is missing, the song was written by Really Doe (Warren Trotter) and his credit is missing as well. 2806:262:496:836E:C89:7763:FE3D:F7BE (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Roca and DJ Vitinho Beat did not produce Paperwork, they are writers of the track, Rafael “Fai” Bautista has no credits on the album. 2806:262:496:836E:C89:7763:FE3D:F7BE (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the streaming services information shortly and get into revising critical reception, as for the credits I'd have to research that more since my knowledge there is limited at the moment. --K. Peake 09:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a lot of work on the article originally, I'd be happy to help finish it up and co-nominate when it's ready :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would be up for this collaboration, I was looking at the statistics and did notice you are the top contributor actually nice job! Once more reviews and analysis start to come out, should we begin to focus more on music and lyrics sections? K. Peake 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that's the main thing missing considering the album, probably won't be too much, as well as structuring the background and release sections cleanly. ULPS (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of these has stuck out in particular; I will be revising a sub-section for the listening events under release today since this is a key example of something certainly needed! K. Peake 11:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article, including the infobox, sometimes uses "¥$" to refer to the artists, despite that vast majority of reliable sources cited using the two artists' individual names. Most of the article uses the names used by sources. For a GA, this naming should be consistent throughout the article, perhaps with a footnote or short bit of text explaining how and when the "¥$" name was used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Please see the section above entitled ¥$ listing for further information about that issue. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the consensus of editors is with the artists' individual names, per reporting in reliable secondary sources. Only one editor is insisting on the symbols, using primary sources and WP:OR. I don't think a GA is likely if the current state of the prose and the infobox prevails, showing the symbols. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ULPS I am working on the songs and commercial sections being completed, after that should we work on the lead and refs then make sure all issues are resolved on talk page before GAN? --K. Peake 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the move. BTW, I have been inactive this past week, but I'll be much more active starting this weekend. ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ULPS What a coincidence since that will give me time to have done my share the week days and then you at the weekend, when I'll be away! --K. Peake 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs proper fixing

DJ Camper has a Wikipedia page, Beg Forgiveness was written by singer Faouzia who also has a Wikipedia page, Back To Me was produced by Mike Dean, many of the writers, and producers are missing or not properly edited with their respective Wikipedia pages, the album is also #1 in many streaming platforms all over the world and this information is missing, so please do something about it, also it seems to be boycotted through Wikipedia as only the bad or negative reviews are here, and the good and positive ones are missing. 2806:262:496:836E:C89:7763:FE3D:F7BE (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Leon did not produce Stars, but Leon Thomas III did produce Burn although his proper credit is not there. Vultures lists Marlonwiththeglasses as a producer but is Chordz instead, Fya Man producer credit is missing, the song was written by Really Doe (Warren Trotter) and his credit is missing as well. 2806:262:496:836E:C89:7763:FE3D:F7BE (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Roca and DJ Vitinho Beat did not produce Paperwork, they are writers of the track, Rafael “Fai” Bautista has no credits on the album. 2806:262:496:836E:C89:7763:FE3D:F7BE (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology and singles

Hello all, after this discussion on my talk page it is clear the chronology should not include Vultures 2 for now since we know how West is with following through and a month is quite soon especially for someone with this reputation. If anyone does find anything against this, please post here. Also regarding the singles, "Talking / Once Again" is sourced as a single which has not been changed at all but I've noticed the context of its initial release then single release has been removed a few times – please refrain from doing this since it was initially premiered through social media platforms and then released as a single days later, therefore listing the premiere date as single release is misleading and the original date is needed to also list the music video that was released before it was a single. --K. Peake 16:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about Vultures 2. Or at least the chronology should identify Vultures 2 as "upcoming" until it actually arrives. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names

I have noticed that editors do sometimes change later mentions of Ty Dolla Sign to Ty, please do not do this since it is not his real name and he is never going under simply Ty as his stage name. --K. Peake 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vultures_1&oldid=1209816073"