Wikipedia

Talk:Young Thug discography

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Nyasha Abel190 in topic Migothuggen 1&2
Learn more about this page

Digital Albums

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

A Digital Album is released to ZERO free download sites, and is only available through Digital Retailers like iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, etc. I'll be in the process of updating the Digital Albums for entries that were counted as mixtapes in the past. Just because something is released to a Digital Retailer doesn't make it a Digital Album, it must be released to Digital Retailers exclusively.

Please do not delete this section without stating your claim here first and gaining approval.

Funkatastic, this is all original research, there is no such thing as a "digital album". You can't just invent project categories as you please. I've seen you implement this section and similarly intuitive section headers at multiple discographies, like Riff Raff (rapper)#Discography and Gucci Mane discography. I've similarly seen MusicLover1Hunnid do the same at Lil B discography and Soulja Boy discography. Projects are either albums or mixtapes, mixtapes can be released to digital retailers, like Drake's If You're Reading This It's Too Late (iTunes), Lil Debbie's Young Bitch (Amazon), and Nicki Minaj's Beam Me Up Scotty (Google play). I've worked out the possibility that you may have been confused at the fact that some listed mixtapes charted in the US, but there's nothing on Billboard guidelines that prohibits the charting of mixtapes. Many of Lil Wayne's mixtapes have charted, and would supposibly meet the category for your "digital album" theory, but are specifically listed as mixtapes, because...well, they are. At the template for release types, showing different colours for the strips in infoboxes, mixtapes, albums, even demo albums are listed, but no sign of a "digital album". Unless you can provide some reliable sources to prove that such category as a "digital album" exists, we should revert back to original formats, slotting projects into either albums or mixtapes.
And finally, to address your last sentence, nobody needs your approval to edit on this page, or similarly other pages you've introduced these sections at, you do not own this article or any other on the site.
Kww, SNUGGUMS, Chasewc91 Tomica, Calvin999, IPadPerson. Pinging some helpful contributors I've seen involved in discography based discussions in the past, would appreciate any comments. Azealia911 talk 14:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's that simple. Very few people only download an artist and/or band's work (including mixtapes that have been released to actual music stores) via file sharing websites as torrent files which others have purchased on a music store then upload it online, which does not count as an album sale because they are not actual music stores where you pay for them. A free download also does not mean that they are actually supporting the artist/band's work, which is why we have online music stores. IPadPerson (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
IPadPerson so are you supportive or opposing of the "digital albums" section? Sorry, your answer was a tad vague. Azealia911 talk 15:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  I am opposing. IPadPerson (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
IPadPerson and Azaelia911 said it all. No such thing as simply "digital albums". Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Co-signed. And let's all keep WP:V in mind. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is an issue that's been evident with certain artists discography pages because of the constantly evolving ways of releasing music. Artists these days like Gucci Mane or Young Thug record and release albums but are lacking in distribution deals. Instead of simply not releasing the album, they release them exclusively to Online retailers like iTunes, Amazon, Google, etc. and don't authorize free download's through legal sites like Datpiff, Livemixtapes, etc. who only allow downloads to music that's intentionally released for free (Mixtapes). The difference between sections here has nothing to do with the charting of these releases, it has to do with the way they were released. If we were to count these releases as Studio albums it would leave someone like Gucci Mane to have 20-30 entries in the Studio albums section of the discography page. Yet, this is still copyrighted material that technically downloading for free is considered pirating, leaving it still significantly different than Mixtapes. I added the Digital Albums section not only to stop confusing readers, but also to stop confusing editors who argue about where a certain piece of work should go on the page. The lines are blurred and these Digital Albums are still promoted and released like regular albums, leaving editors confused and the pages becoming inconsistent. Look at Spotify and Apple Music, technology is constantly evolving the ways music is being released and the Digital albums section reflects that. The page was behind on times, and so were all of you. This was a section I added almost a year ago and I opened a section on the Talk page for every page I added it to. Until now, not a single person disliked it. Then Azealia911 brings his personal beef with me to this page, tries to paint me as a bad guy for asking people to discuss the topic before deleting the section I worked so hard to put in place. So, IPadPerson, SNUGGUMS, I'd just like to ask you to reconsider one more time after hearing my case. Removing this article will only make the page worse, it's our job to report accuracy in these pages, that's all I'm concerned about. This isn't about me, this is about the page and the readers.Funkatastic (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Woah woah woah, personal beef? To my knowledge, the only time we've ever had a run in was when I was (and now stupidly I realise) removing chunks of text from certain discographies, only for you to add it back crying out "it doesn't need to be sourced!11!!!" So let's drop the whole personal act, I have absolutely no issue with you. It's not so much that you introduced these sections, but did it with a complete lack of consensus from project pages concerning these album types like WP:Discography, Template talk:Infobox album, WP:Album, or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. You should have started a discussion on one of the relevant talk pages, and proposed to introduce this new category. But instead you waltzed through several discography articles, declared there was a new album type without any verification, and barked at people to gain your approval before touching the section. The reason nobody until now has taken issue with the page since you put the sections into place is that these are very lowkey articles. This article has less than 30 watchers, and has had less than 15 editors since you included the section. Had this been a busier discography, this would definitely have been discussed. As of present, clear consensus would be to merge the Digital albums sections into Studio albums or Mixtapes. I do strongly suggest you open a discussion at one of the four pages I bolded, as I do think you're onto something, but at current it's a completely unsourced, originally researched theory, not appropriate for inclusion. Azealia911 talk 10:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Here we go again, trying to paint me as the bad guy when I'm simply trying to fix confusion. Never did I say that discography pages didn't need to be sourced. I said that just because it isn't sourced doesn't mean it isn't accurate. And instead of simply deleting huge chunks of pages, you should try being more community friendly and just add the references. Editors view on editing these pages shouldn't just be "Delete unreferenced material regardless of it's accuracy" instead of checking to see whether or not the information is accurate. Maybe "personal beef" wasn't the right word to use, but nonetheless your approach to this is extremely counterproductive. I don't want to butt heads over this, I want everybody to be able to work together as a community in a productive way instead of simply deleting information who editors might not have known needed to be referenced. You're approach is exactly the same as it was over on Gunplay discography, and in that scenario it turned out that you were incorrect. You're only argument against Digital albums that didn't have to do with me personally was that it isn't referenced, even though technically no sections on discography pages are referenced, just the entries in the section. I'm asking you to have an actual discussion about whether or not the addition of this section helps or hurts these pages. Like I said in my last comment, this isn't about me, this is about the page and the readers. We have a serious problem here with the page being outdated in new ways to release music. Drake's If You're Reading This It's Too Late is classified as a mixtape despite the fact that the sales numbers force Cash Money to consider it as a an album in his record deal and it's received a late physical release. There are inconsistencies stretched across all of the pages for artists who are using technology to find new ways to release music in an otherwise struggling music industry. In your first post on the talk page, your first three sentences were all claims against Digital albums that were based on me and the way I added them, rather than the section itself. If you say this isn't a personal beef then I'll go out on a limb and take your word for it, but act on those words. Let's stop being counterproductive and let's start working together, I'm only trying to help. I won't apologize that I'm finding new ways to help that leave these pages accurate for the readers while we discuss possible alternatives. There was an imminent problem with multiple pages, I fixed it and invited people to discuss where to go from there. The only thing you've suggested is deleting the section and merging it with another, which is the exact problem that led us here in the first place. From what I've seen so far, your only approach to discography pages has been to delete rather than fix. All I'm asking from you is to stop deleting and start fixing. On Gunplay discography you did nothing but delete, and left all the fixing to me. And you're attempting to do so again here, the only editor that can benefit from your approach is yourself, I'm asking you to think about everyone else. That's not too much to ask. Funkatastic (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Agree that digital album is abritrary and a waste of time This is the same issue I brought up back on Talk:Soulja Boy discography. "Digital" may impact the album's avenue of distribution but has nothing to do with the content of the album itself. It does not impact whether the album is a live, remix, or studio or whatever else album. There is also nothing preventing them from being released physically, and since virtually all albums are released via download services, all of an artist's albums would qualify as "digital albums", which renders such a heading completely useless. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Revisiting: After reading Zeke, the Mad Horrorist's comment, admittedly rather late, I'm moving to close this discussion. The consensus of five editors, including myself, feel that digital albums are unverifiable as a section of a discography. In reply to your excruciatingly long message, which was part of the reason it took me so long to regain motiviation to plow on with the discussion, I'll say this; this isn't personal, this is purely concerning the verifiability of sections. The section headers do not concern how a project was released, but its content. It's the same reason we don't have headers for Physical albums and Vinyl albums. So unless there is anything else that needs to be said, that isn't concerning personal differences like the bulk of your last message was, there seems to be conclusion. Azealia911 talk 13:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've now split the Digital albums section and merged it all into the Mixtapes section. There may be need to move one or more to Studio albums, but that can be decided out of the discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist, is it ok to use this discussion as a reference when merging other articles with the section header too? Just checking before I proceed to do just that (if you could also do the same that'd be a big help!) Azealia911 talk 16:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I imagine it would be. No proof has yet been offered that digital albums is a worthy subcategory - it's really on the other two to prove that it is, not on us to prove that it's not. There is a clear consensus here, and this discussion can be used as evidence that such proof has yet to be brought forth. And don't worry about doing it everywhere it needs to be done - I'll see what I can do. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Slime Season 3

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What happened to it? Mista-X (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Young Thug discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The total number figures need updating. — Zawl 15:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The total number figures need updating. — Zawl 15:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Metrothuggen

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is a mixtape of Young Thug and Metro Boomin released around 2014-2015 Nyasha Abel190 (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Migothuggen 1&2

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A joined collaboration mixtape between the Migos and Young Thug Nyasha Abel190 (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Young_Thug_discography&oldid=1201569749"