Talk:5.0

Trippin in the Club

Ok first the Single "Trippin in the club isnt released at press time, and if it released should put the Reference to I-Tunes or Hiphopearly or Hotnewhiphop or not? well thats my point. Roberto-Contreras--Roberto-contreras (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What do u mean as of press time??? There is no deadline here. When its released there will be a iTunes source but as of now there is a Rap-Up source that says "Tippin in the Club" will be released in June so we go by that untill June is over and if its still not released then the date will be changed to 2010. STAT -Verse 23:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually is July 13 and Nelly's single "Tippin in the Club" isnt released we need more sources or more info about Nelly 5.0 Roberto-Contreras--Roberto-contreras (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

"Tippin' In Da Club" is produced by JukeBox. Discography: http://jukebox.scratchmedias.net/discography —Preceding unsigned comment added by What3ver83 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Edit request from 58.167.86.241, 2 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Nelly new song 'Just A Dream' produced by Jim Jonsin and Rico Love

New Release date

58.167.86.241 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No sources.  Not done Red Flag on the Right Side 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional Info

You might also want to note that the song "Angel Eyes" was originally performed by the producers Play-N-Skillz. Link to the original is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0ZCYy78fA ElMeroEse (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Release history

(talk)

Region	Date	Format	Label	Catalog
United States	November 16, 2010	CD, Digital download	Universal Records
Japan	November 17, 2010	CD		UICU1203

References

Album title

THE ALBUM NAME IS ONLY 5.0, NOT NELLY 5.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.250.62 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Edit request from Sky'sSweet, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Nelly works with production team "The Runners" and Juke Box for upcoming album.

"http://www.billboard.com/news/nelly-regains-cool-with-taylor-swift-s-help-1004112885.story#/news/nelly-regains-cool-with-taylor-swift-s-help-1004112885.story"

• Nelly Unable to get Taraji P. Henson or Janet Jackson for upcomong album.

http://rapradar.com/2010/09/15/nelly-says-taraji-p-henson-absent-on-lp/

• 5.0 features a song featuring and produced by rapper T.I. titled "She's So Fly"

"http://www.billboard.com/news/nelly-regains-cool-with-taylor-swift-s-help-1004112885.story#/news/nelly-regains-cool-with-taylor-swift-s-help-1004112885.story"

• Avery Storm set to feature upon the Album.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Q5Dvc2N40&feature=channel

• Polow Da Don actual producer of the song Long Gone/She Got Me.

http://v103.radio.com/2010/09/07/nelly-debuts-his-new-song-long-gone-ft-plies-with-greg-street/

• The-Dream maybe a guest set to feature upon the Album.

http://thatgrapejuice.net/2010/09/grape-juice-interviews-nelly/

• Song called One featuring Baby and Dj Khaled produced by Infomaus

http://www.rapbasement.com/nelly/092310-rapper-nelly-talks-about-his-new-nelly-50-album-and-just-a-dream-single-watch-here-click-now.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.52.182 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Song titled 'Go' appearing on 5.0

http://www.vibe.com/content/nelly-talks-new-album-almost-quiting-rap-overcoming-adversity-and-his-little-brother-being-r

Sky'sSweet (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please read the instructions for the template you used. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sky'sSweet, 24 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Track titled 'One' produced by Infomaus featuring Birdman and Dj Khaled

Sky'sSweet (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Album cover

Did Rap-Up.com revise this article [1] after posting it on/before the 15th? The album cover shown there is currently on Wikipedia at File:5.0albumcover.jpg, albeit at a resolution that may be too high to use. Accordingly, I don't see a source to verify File:Nelly-5.0.jpg as the album cover, even if the only changes are the advisory sticker and a few streak-type photo effects. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because because albums are always released with and without the parental advisory sticker. Rap-Up always revises its articles with higher resolution covers when they're are available. The omission of the parental advisory sticker does NOT compromise the reliability of the source or credibility of the image because it is not an intergal part of the cover. It has to be issued by law but the sticker/logo itself is not part of the image which forms the cover if that makes sense? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How are we able to verify, then, that the earlier cover without effects came from Rap-Up as well? Is there an archived version of the page available? —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That I'm afraid is an editorial decision. All I can personally say is that the original cover must be official because its obvious that the parental advisory had to be added afterwards. I.e. you cant have the parental advisory version without having the original version too. I don't see why it is an issue because at the end of the day the image is the same just the superimposed legal advisory logo isn't there. Its not like content-wise the image of Nelly is different... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some subtle differences in the image—positioning of the text and some streak-type effects at the side. In the long run, we can make sure the image conforms with what actually goes on the cover, so it's really just an issue of what image to use at this stage of the article's development. —C.Fred (talk)

Perhaps then we should remove the image? he has yet to put it on his website and equally retailers have yet to upload the image. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Which takes us almost full circle: is Rap-Up a reliable source for (leaked) album covers? —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well its different cause normally the artist unveils it through rap-up etc. but its been unusual for Rap-Up to reveal the cover without his website or retailers to confirm it. I think in this case it might be best to remove it until its confirmed by other reliable sources too. Its not that Rap-Up is unreliable but you have to take into account the relative circumstances and judge it subjectively. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: done. The title is 5.0, and despite the concerns about disambiguation, no other article is named 5.0 and it is unlikely that anyone will search for 5 in that manner. If they do, that's what hatnotes are for. Fences&Windows 11:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Nelly 5.0 → 5.0 — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)As I've said before the album is confirmed to be called simply 5.0, but before there was perhaps confusing coverage now its crystal clear. HMV Japan, HMV UK, Rap-Up (who revealed his album cover), MTV Nelly's officially verified twitter, Billboard and [http://www.amazon.com/5-0-Nelly/dp/B0042RUME6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1287442374&sr=8-1 Amazon] all confirm it as does the album cover. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. There doesn't seem to be a name clash at 5.0; it's currently a redirect here. The sources all agree that 5.0 alone is the name of the album, so the article should follow suit. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose 5.0 should not redirect here. It should redirect to the integer 5. This can be called 5.0 (album). This is not even close to the primary usage of the term 5.0 -- 76.66.200.95 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the merits of the refs yet, but are you claiming that people turning to Wikipedia for information will search for "5.0" when trying to understand their calculator's response to 2.5 × 2? It's more likely they'll use that term to find the Mustang 5.0, which I think is itself a bit of a stretch. In any case, there's no article for 4.0, so the logic here's a bit wobbly (assuming you're even serious). There is an article for 3.0, though. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It would seem like a likely thing to enter if the know that wikipedia's 5AD article occupies the primary position. Thanks for pointing out 3.0, I'll nominated it for renaming, depending on the outcome of this discussion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when are years entered as real numbers? And please don't say, "since 5AD". — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

They're not, but no one's suggesting it, either. I believe the IP editor's point was that someone who knows 5 is about the year might instead type 5.0 in an attempt to get to 5 (number). The article 3.1 I think provides a better approach that should be considered for both 5.0 and 3.0. Powers ^T 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

IP's suggestion that people searching for information on the number five would type 5.0 is a little misplaced. The name of this album is 5.0. A hat note could explain about the number five article being located at 5. But according to wiki's policy on article naming and article titles there is no other article with the name 5.0 and so Nelly 5.0 → 5.0 -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 13:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works; we can determine that this album is not the primary topic for "5.0" even if there's no other article that is named "5.0". Powers ^T 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Either way the album is not called Nelly 5.0. I would support 5.0 (album) with 5.0 redirecting to 5. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support correct name since the beginning and should have been moved several months ago, but I guess that's not important now it's really clear. Yves (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose Now the cover is out and it says Nelly 5.0 5.0 has always just been the shortened name for the album to aviod saying Nelly has a new album called Nelly 5.0. Thats just redundet. STATic message me! 23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Okay now I don't see anything recent that says Nelly 5.0 just 5.0 so I support a move to 5.0. STATic message me! 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Nelly 5.0 has never been the album title. The "Nelly" on the cover is just the artist's name. The album title, 5.0, is in a smaller font below. It was announced as 5.0 by all sources mentioned above, as well as the record label, Universal Motown (here and here). Yves (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The artist is called Nelly hence his name appears in one style and the album title 5.0 appears in another. Equally if the album was called Nelly 5.0 wouldn't it say the artist's name seperately somewhere else? Is there any reliable coverage which trumps the record label and independent coverage calling it Nelly 5.0? no... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

<rant>Given that record companies are supposed to promote the records of the artists they've signed, why is it that the companies are so careless/lax/sloppy/irresponsible when it comes to releasing information? Maybe I'm just speaking as a frustrated Wikipedia editor, and I'd have a different viewpoint if I were an accredited member of the press and had access to some better record company connections, but it seems impossible to get a clear statement about, for example, what songs are being released as singles when. Is that really so hard?

Maybe they intentionally fail to release cover artwork for albums and singles to get fans and hoaxers alike to come up with photoshopped images of "the official cover", because they believe it generates excitement. Gives a record that all-important "buzz". Mostly, it just pisses me off.

Now to Nelly. The album artwork doesn't convince me, I'm afraid. I suppose it should, but it doesn't. There's too much room for stylized artistry here. The minimalism is cooler. Yo. If the album's named Nelly 5.0, they wouldn't necessarily need to add the artist's name on the cover, because it's just Nelly. And if they did include it, the cover would look like a children's playground chant: "Nelly Nelly 5.0! (Your dad's a rapper, your mom's a ho!)"

This Universal/Motown page almost convinced me, being an official source and all, but then again – jeez! What kind of a pathetic and useless communication is that! A five-word vague headline with no text. It seems purposefully minimalistic, so the missing "Nelly" is inconclusive. What I can conclude is that the folks at Universal/Motown are moronic dweebs.</rant> — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; but I support a move to 5.0 (album). 5.0 should be a redirect to 5 (number). Powers ^T 12:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Official press release here. Official name is 5.0. Yves (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to 5.0. I like Yves' link from Forbes on top of the other sources from Lil-Unique1. If you other fellows want a hatnote pointing to 5 (number), go ahead and add it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to 5.0. "Nelly" appears on the album because it's the artist's name, "5.0" is the name of the album. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we move the article to the right name already? He said it himself on Twitter that it's called 5.0 here MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose but like others here, I Support a move to 5.0 (album). 5.0 should clearly directly to the number 5. There are no less that 6 music albums name 5 ( 5 (Berryz Kobo album), 5 (J.J. Cale album), 5 (Jacques Brel album), 5 (Lenny Kravitz album), 5 (Megaherz album), 5 (Soft Machine album)), precariously close to 5.0.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why's that an issue? If someone was looking for Lenny Kravitz' album they wouldn't search for 5.0?! Mhiji (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. This would be consistent with 3.0, 6.0 and 9.0. Therefore oppose move to 5.0 (album). Mhiji (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I will nominate those for renaming depending on the outcome of this. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Album is called 5.0 not Nelly 5.0. Its called 5.0 by all retailers and Nelly himself is calling it 5.0. 0wendy33 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - per what everyone else has said. Moving 5.0 to 5 would be pointless. The only one I see that redirects to the number is 1.0. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 00:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the longest discussion ever... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, I remember seeing something relisted several times. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support 5.0 is the correct name of the album. I don't see any reason to disambiguate to 5.0 (album); "5.0" is particular enough that anyone typing it in or linking it is likely to mean the album. A hatnote to the number page and/or 5 (disambiguation) should be sufficient.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Why would anyone search '5.0' for something titled '5', or the number five? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support The appropriate title is 5.0, having it titled "Nelly 5.0" is a bit dumb. Ga Be 19 04:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

German release

The German release is not the 17th November, but the 12th [http://www.amazon.de/5-0-Nelly/dp/B0045NC7UE/ref=sr_1_143?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1288442348&sr=1-143 source] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.196.89 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Carl.hendrix 3. November 2010

{{subst:edit semi-protected}} MultiMan, Frenchie & Kadouch are the actual producers of the song Go.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Yves (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Producer JBEATZZ

Yves, please remove the incorrect Producer credits for JBEATZZ from "Go". It hasn't be verified, is not verifiable for the simple reason it is false and has been posted by a user previously posting vandalism to other sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tha_EnSiGN). If you do not wish to use this link indicating the correct names (http://www.goodlifemiami.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=479:frenchie&catid=34:music&Itemid=137), then at the least remove the false producer name for now. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistmanagementny (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Done: thanks. Yves (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

iTunes Bonus Track

It's not sure if the article tells the truth, but it could be. The article says there will be a itunes bonus track "Giving her the grind" featuring Sean Paul. Whatch yourself: source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.60.106 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Don't It Feel Good" song

Please add Rico Love on features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uur ekin ist (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rico Love, really?! Damn, i thought it was Usher!! he sounds so much like Usher!!! 77.97.110.227 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jason "Jay E" Epperson

{{edit semi-protected}} Jason "Jay E" Epperson is NOT the producer of "Go" as once again indicated under bonus tracks. It's not verifiable and can't be verified. Once again posted as vandalism by Tha Ensign. Can someone with administrative rights of Wikipedia stop these silly postings by this character. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistmanagementny (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Done I actually removed all of Tha ENsiGN's edits, as none of them were verified. If any of that can be verified, of course, it can be re-added. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Release Date

Itunes has the release date at November 16th. Change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.38.37 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: the earliest release date is used. Yves (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah, cos itunes is reliable! itunes shouldn't be used as a reliable source, as i've seen so many mistakes on there, it's amazing! 77.97.110.227 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (November 2010)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{movereq|5.0}}

Nelly 5.0 → 5.0 — Album is called 5.0 not Nelly 5.0. Its called 5.0 by all retailers and Nelly himself is calling it 5.0. 0wendy33 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an open discussion about the move above. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

…Into which I've moved your comment. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

MultiMan

{{edit semi-protected}} - Please link MultiMan - producer of bonus track "GO" - to his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiman and add him to the infobox under producers. Thanks Artistmanagementny (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Mhiji (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.13.33.26, 25 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Album isn't sell 64.500 in first week.Album is sell 64.500 in 3 days.

95.13.33.26 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Didn't specify what to change and no source provided. STATic message me! 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.185.85.22, 28 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm assuming the section below is your actual request, about the number of copies printed. As such, please provide a reliable source to support that claim--then it can be added. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Commercial performance

Universal Records only made a 200.000 album copy 78.185.85.22 (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Samples

• "k.I.s.s." contains portions of "Kissing You", written by Julian W. Jackson, Brion James, Janice Marie Johnson and Raphael Saadiq. Young5Deep (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

source? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 04:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

according to the liner notes. Young5Deep (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.110.152.246 (talk)

German chart position

The album reached No. 63 in Germany! --79.216.184.54 (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Superfluous (and unnatural (the parenthesis)) disambiguation, and consistency with other articles, per BDD. (non-admin closure) ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

---

5.0 → 5.0 (album) – this is not the primary topic of 5.0, which should redirect to 5 (number). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support obviously. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is WP:NOT a... calculator? Seriously, though, let's look at what happens with similar titles, since consistency is one of our core naming criteria:

1.0 redirects to 1 (number)

2.0 is a dab, though it looks like it wants to be an article

3.0 is a dab, though since it has two items perhaps it shouldn't be

4.0 is red

6.0 is a dab

7.0 is red

8.0 is red

9.0 is a redirect to 9.0: Live... um, ok

So this move wouldn't be unprecedented per se, though disambiguation would be more consistent with our treatment of similar terms. So for me, this comes down to whether readers are likely to seek 5 (number) with the search term "5.0." Seems unlikely to me. They'd be more likely to search 5 and get astonished to be reading about a year, though that's another matter. I think it stands to reason that readers searching for "5.0" want something with that name. For what it's worth, 5.0 -wikipedia doesn't have anything about the album, but neither does it yield the same results as if one had searched 5 -wikipedia (also, talk about some worthless searches). The status quo, including the hatnote, is entirely satisfactory. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per BDD's argument. If someone is looking for 5, why would they add .0 to it? STATic message me! 19:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.