# Talk:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Why can't we have personnel for individual songs like every other Kanye West album article does? Kjinho (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Noted by music writers for its varied elements, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy incorporates musical components from West's previous works, including soul, electro, and symphonies, and features themes regarding excess and celebrity."
Kanye West has not written a symphony as it is defined as a form (see Wikipedia article for "symphony"). I believe a better phrase would be "including soul, electro, and symphonic elements..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcasas314 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 

He does not sing soul music either, but this statement is clarified by "musical components", so adding "elements" would be redundant and would require adding it to soul, electro, etc. Dan56 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've recently read several articles on the new ""The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time"" listing, and they have claimed that My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy was put onto the list. However, since I don't see the ranking here, shouldn't it be added? I would add it myself but I can't seem to find what rank they placed it on. 72.225.206.221 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's cause they're not relevant. Come on. Pompous rock critics slightly revise the 300s, 400s, etc. but they still got that inaccurate top 10? No wonder it's not listed. Who cares. Dan56 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.tram7.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kanye_west-my_beautiful_dark_twisted_fantasy.jpg
the original pic should replace the default one  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2booze (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 

Mike Dean may have played *some* piano on the track but the main hook was taken from Richard James (Aphex Twin's) song called Avril 14.  The liner notes themselves give credit to James.  They don't say WHICH part Dean plays but it is obvious to anyone familiar with the James track which part was sampled... the main instrumental basis for the song.
From the liner notes:
"11. BLAME GAME
feat. John Legend
(K. West, J. Franks, K. Mitchell, M. Dean, J. Stephens, R. James) (BMI/ASCAP/Copyright Control)
Produced by Kanye West for Very Good Beats/Hip Hop since 1978 & DJ Frank for Side 3 Entertainment.
Additional Production by Mike Dean for Dean's List Productions
Recorded by Andrew Dawson at Avex Recording Studio, Honolulu, HI and Noah Goldstein, Phil Joly & Ryan Gilligan at Electric Lady Studios, NYC
Mixed by Mike Dean for Dean’s List Productions , Andrew Dawson & Anthony Kilhoffer at Platinum Sound Recording, NYC
Piano & Bass: Mike Dean for Dean's List Productions
Cello played & arranged by Chris "Hitchcock” Chorney
Poem by Khloe Mitchell
Additional Vocals: Chris Rock and Salma Kenas
John Legend appears courtesy of Getting Out Our Dreams/Sony BMG Music Entertainment.
Contains elements of "Avri114" by Richard James. Published by Chrysalis Music Ltd. (PRS) administered by Chrysalis Songs (BMI). All rights reserved. "
--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen these already ([1]). But where in the liner notes does it say "may have played some...", or "the main hook"? (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). It clearly says "Piano & Bass: Mike Dean", so going beyond what is explicitly stated by the source is based on what? Dan56 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The line you continue to edit and use to give more weight to the "sample" seems to be dealing with people who actually played on the track (Dean, Legend, Rock). The "contains elements of..." bit is duly noted in the track listing section, along with the rest of the sample/interpolation credits for other songs. We're not regurgitating those credits in prose, and you don't seem to be removing the John Legend or Chris Rock pieces of that sentence, so I'm wondering why you're hung up on that piano bit to begin with. Saying things like "may have" and "gave the song it's primary melody" don't seem neutral in tone either, and you still haven't verified "a piano hook sampled from..." Either way, use the talk page to make your case, not edit summaries via reverts. Dan56 (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The piano bit is the whole song. It's not "undue" to identify where the main loop comprising the whole instrumental bed from them. The whole song is built around that piano phrase.  It's James playing the piano. Which parts did Dean play?  Identify them.  It's common knowledge that *the* sample in the song is Avril 14.  The Fader is a well known music publication http://www.thefader.com/2010/11/15/yeezy-taught-you-well-chris-rockaphex-twin/.  Unrelated to this disagreement (since what you and I have heard has no bearing here), have you actually heard the Aphex Twin track?  --Jerk of Thrones (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, cite a source that explicitly says the song's piano is sampled on "Blame Game". Otherwise, it can just as well be assumed that its composition was interpolated and instead actually played by Dean, who is ACTUALLY CREDITED as playing piano in the liner notes. Dan56 (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a good one.  Why would they interpolate when they have the actual smaple.  James played it on a specially modified (treated, a la John Cage) instrument, which is the one heard on the track.  It's identical to the one heard in the track.  Why is it worth mentioning piano at all in this article.  Could it be because piano is heard throughout the song?  Where does it SAY that piano is heard throughout the song.  It could actually be a tuba. To say otherwise is original research.  Please provide a source indicating that it is important that who is playing piano and that it should be given any weight here.  Also I ask you again, have you heard Avril 14?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The only mention of "Avri1 14" in the liner notes is that "Blame Game" "contains elements of" the song. What you're saying "advances a position not advanced by the source" cited. Your change is simply not supported by the source cited. Find a source that actually says "a piano hook sampled from Avril 14", or your change will be removed again. Dan56 (talk) Dan56 (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You never answered, why is worth mentioning that Whats-his-name played the piano on the track?  What part do you think he played?  It doesn't really say, so you're probably having to, er, extrapolate that he interpolated the James composition.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the liner notes don't state specifically where the sample is, we can't include it in the article. I agree with Dan, if a citation can be found that directly states where the sample is in the song, then it can be mentioned, but until then, we have to stick with what our current references say. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As User:Dan56 seems unwilling to keep any criticisms of his editing style on his talk page, I thought I'd take it upon myself to repost my comments about his edits to the lead paragraphs here:
1)"...involved [them] between 2009..." is not a run on sentence by any known rule of grammar. 2) If chronology is what you're after, three of those promotional singles also preceded the album's release by at least one month. Why haven't they also been moved ahead of the bit about the album's release? And why is one type of promotional material discussed in a separate paragraph than another? Any reason? 3) "drinking and drug use"..alcohol is considered a drug...in fact, a Class A drug, say the experts (says google), so why the separation and redundancy? 4) "There, he produced the album" what does "produced" mean in the context of this hip hop article—music production, as in West produced the album himself, or some more general kind of artistic production? Is that ambiguity not important? Because it's completely unclear. 5) "transparent lyrics expressing emotional extremes, ego" there's not one source that claims the lyrics are "transparent" or that they express "emotional extremes" or "ego"—those are all terms critics have used to describe the work as whole, not qualities of West's lyrics. Are you going to do anything about these problems, or dismiss them because Your Are The Boss? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

1) I never said that sentence was a run-on (there's only so much you can fit into an edit summary when POINTY editors like you force me to), but that was bad grammar; an "environment that involved a wide variety of" is typically flowery language from you. Most people don't read the way you seem to want them to, so just KISS.
I can't possibly figure which part of "environment that involved a wide variety" could be considered "flowery": is "environment" too big a word for you, or is it the verbose prose of "wide variety" that's causing you such mental strain—there were literally hundreds of contributors, does that not justify a four-letter modifying adjective? I literally can't think of a simpler word than "involved." "Included?" Nah, about the same level of difficulty. "Had?" ooh, that one sounds sufficiently elementary. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
As for the run-ons, the second and third sentences in your revision were run-ons ([2])
There's nothing that irks me more than a zealous editor who misunderstands basic grammar. So let me invoke the Purdue MLA guide's definition of a run-on sentence for your convenience: run-ons, comma splices, and fused sentences are all names given to compound sentences that are not punctuated correctly. The best way to avoid such errors is to punctuate compound sentences correctly by using one or the other of these rules: 1. Join the two independent clauses with one of the coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet), and use a comma before the connecting word [...] That's right, it doesn't say  "run-on sentences are sentences that are long and list different things and therefore make my head feel sad." It's about punctuation, not length. Compound sentences, if punctuated correctly, are perfectly valid grammatically, and can be very helpful in listing things without having to start whole new sentences that clutter up a paragraph.
Now let's look at our examples:
"Noted for its maximalist aesthetic, opulent production quality, and dichotomous themes, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy incorporates aspects of West's previous works, including soul, baroque, electro, and symphonic styles." So we have a dependent clause followed by  an independent clause followed by a dependent clause, all of which are conjoined by proper commas that distinguish the separate clauses. In other words, it's grammatically fine. And logically sensible.
"The album deals with themes of excess and celebrity, and explores such issues as consumer culture, race, and the idealism of the American Dream." Admittedly, this sentence was missing a comma—way to spot it—which I've now placed after "celebrity". And again, voila, we have a grammatically proper sentence that summarizes similar ideas without recourse to new sentences.
Here's the thing: the problem with run-on sentences is that they're confusing and hard to read. Those sentences just aren't hard to read. They're so so easy :) GentleCollapse16 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
2) I'm kinda after a lead that sounds like it makes sense. It doesn't make sense to write "also preceded the album's release" when you haven't established the items mentioned before it having preceded the album's release. kapish? Dan56 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It really is quite simple: to promote the album in months/weeks leading up to its release, West released both a short film and several free singles. Considering these things seem to be related by their basic nature, I put them together. On the other hand, I'm not sure how a sentence about a short film being released has any business in a paragraph otherwise completely devoted to describing the album's contents. Care to elaborate? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
3) They're commonly distinguished from one another. Google it ;) Dan56 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say they aren't often distinguished; I said they're doesn't seem to be any need to distinguish them here. If the conflation is good enough to serve as the title to a public notice by the US Dept of Health & Services center dedicated to alcohol abuse, it's good enough to justify cutting down some unnecessary words in a wikipedia article ;). GentleCollapse16 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
4) "Produced", in the context of this English-language Wikipedia article lol Dan56 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
So despite the fact that "produced," in the context a discussion of a hip hop artist known specifically for being a music producer, is actually just being invoked to signify "made" rather than "performed the general task of overseeing the music's making" or "literally made all the music himself with some contributions" it's fine, huh? Because we're going to a priori assume that the average wikipedia reader can't possibly know that "production" means different and specific things in different contexts. And don't give me dispassionate definitions of music production as support—you know full well that in the context of hip hop discourse, production typically means something very specific: the hands-on creating of beats and music. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The lead isn't a "hip hop discourse". And what difference does it make?? He did produce the album there, didn't he? so what is the issue?? Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No User:Dan56, he and a whole host of other producers produced it there. He may have "executive produced" it, but production on individual tracks was handled by particular combos of producers that simply included him. There's a term for the general overseeing of production, and another for the specific act of making the music, and a third for the vague act of "creating" the album. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean that. Writing it that way isn't negating that fact either. It's just focusing on West. But I changed it to "worked on". Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
5) The sentence you're talking about in the lead says "lyrics", not "West's lyrics". The A.V. Club's quote about "manic highs and depressive lows emotionally" seems to support that summary, as does "Greg Kot, writing in the Chicago Tribune, praised West's transparency and 'almost pathological allegiance to expressing his emotions, unfiltered'." You did nothing to replace what you felt was wrong and instead removed the entire sentence. Sound familiar? Dan56 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
As I've just made clear, the A.V Club quote doesn't actually mention the lyrics. Whoever pulled out that sentence editorialized it. Otherwise, none of those phrases are specific to the lyrics. "Transparent lyrics?" Not only does Kot not call the lyrics transparent, his use of "transparency" doesn't even refer to a particular lyric at all—it refers to West's persona generally, and anyway, I wonder if you've taken it upon yourself to decide that an artist can only "express[...] emotions unfiltered" through lyrics and not sound?
And you're seriously going to call me on flowery language while you defend laughable fluff like "transparent lyrics expressing emotional extremes"? Dear me—you cant even defend those phrases by saying they were taken directly from sources. I'm also not sure what the heck it means to be "expressing emotional extremes"—based on my cursory understanding of the english language, one expresses ideas or feelings, not alternating states of being; do you mean "encompassing" or "exploring"?...oh wait, big word alert— and I don't see why the average wikipedia reader would either. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Dan56 Anything to respond or am I to take the silence as a reasonable concession? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of your changes weren't needed, and your know-it-all tone throughout this whole thing undermines the quality of your responses. I cut out the things about the lyrics and separated promotional efforts into a separate paragraph. That's my compromise. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
See that wasn't so hard! You can play nice. Cheers.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Dan56 cool, all looks good to me. Last question: why not join each pair of paragraphs instead of four skinny ones? Otherwise, looks good. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting revising the "reception" part of this article to feature a part of the rather significant and rare Pitchork 10/10 review for Best New Music. The last one was in 2002.
The review for MBDTF on pitchfork is good too. plenty to add.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0C6:98B0:3157:88DC:556E:D59C (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 

User:Dan56, I chose my preferred version of the sentence because, as I said in the edit summary, an album's ranking on Acclaimed Music does not depend simply on where it places on "all-time" lists. Other ratings and scores (e.g. the album's Metascore, placements on other lists, other ratings on certain websites or in publications) are factored in. One who goes to the page for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy on Acclaimed Music will find quickly that many of the items which contribute to the album's numerical score are not rankings on all-time lists. That is why your preferred version is inaccurate, and why it is better to write that "according to Acclaimed Music, [it] is the 73rd most acclaimed album among music critics". This would not be puffery, because the sentence specifically says that the album is x or y "according to Acclaimed Music", which it is. Regarding the claims of your hostile edit summary, I wrote "celebrated" because I wanted to avoid using the word "acclaimed" twice. When something is celebrated, it doesn't mean parties have to have been thrown in honor of it. "Celebrated" is a synonym of "renowned" or "acclaimed". Please do not use profanity in edit summaries. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There are three numerical scores: by year, decade, and all-time ranking. The "About" section at Acclaimed Music's main page says nothing about those other items you mentioned being factored into either rank; only critics' lists are factors, which seems obvious enough. Dan56 (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the scores are not calculated that way. The home page says, "Acclaimed Music aggregates music critics' lists and ratings of albums and songs." If only lists of the greatest albums ever recorded are factored in, there is no reason for Modern Vampires of the City to be listed as the 218th most acclaimed album of all time, because none of the items that contribute to its all time rank of 218th are placements on all-time lists. It culls many rankings and ratings, and all-time lists are not the only factors. AndrewOne (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@AndrewOne:. GQ, Spin, Pitchfork, Studio Brussels, and Rock de Lux lists would be considered "all-time" lists by the website. You are wrong about another thing; the reference to "aggregating ratings" as well must be with respect to the site's " MEGACRITIC CHART" for which "albums are ranked by a weighted rating based on the average rating and the number of ratings from a selection of music magazines and webzines." There's no direct link to Acclaimed Music's "About" page, which explains at length the process for their rankings, without mention of any ratings or scores, but I urge you to seek it out for yourself via their main page at the top. So for the last time, your bold edit was reverted. You are editorializing and using non-neutral wording that the source doesn't explicitly verify. This is my last comment here, unless you choose to seek out some form of discussion (eg. WP:RfC) with the purpose of achieving a consensus to support your change. Speaking of "do's and don't's", you ought to know better from your past disruption at Terrence Malick than to revert repeatedly when your changes are being reasonably challenged. Dan56 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Dan56 I share Tjdrum2000's view that putting the release year in the first sentence between "the" and (number) studio album" is poor practice. The wording is grammatically awkward, and that's the likely reason no featured articles: [3] use this wording. The ongoing reversions by various different editors shows that this view is widely held.
I have attempted to satisfy your desire to include the year in the lead sentence, but you reverted this, calling the grammar terrible and noting that the information was already in the third paragraph. The fact that the information is already in the third paragraph is well-noted, as it is a reason your inclusion of the year in the lead sentence is not only awkward, but superfluous. As a note, the wording I used was based on Thriller (Michael Jackson album), a featured article. Many other featured articles use the same wording. How would you feel about removing "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy was released on November 22, 2010, by Roc-A-Fella Records." from the third paragraph and amending it to the lead sentence, so the lead sentence reads "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy is the fifth studio album by American hip hop rapper and producer Kanye West, released on November 22, 2010 by Roc-A-Fella Records."? Cjhard (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If you think the wording is bad - REWORD IT. There's no need for a complete deletion. Kellymoat (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
As noted above, I have reworded it, which was reverted, and I am now suggesting a different rewording. Cjhard (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
If the grammar is so awkward in your opinion, why do mainstream publications and reference books use the same format? "2009 debut album", for example. Dan56 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, awkward grammar can be used in mainstream publications. I'm not sure what your argument is. Do you have any issues with the text I've proposed? Do you have any argument supporting placing the year where you have? Cjhard (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you're defending a blocked editor's disruptive editing raises suspicions, but I won't get into that... My problem is your run-on sentence and clumsy arrangement isn't an improvement; it makes it unclear what is the subject being "released on November...", since it immediately follows "Kanye West". It's weird, and just because other articles use it, that's not any justification (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Dan56 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I honestly cannot understand how you can claim that a sentence with only two clauses is a run-on sentence. Further, the wording I've suggested is the same as the one most commonly used in featured articles for albums. Do all of those featured articles begin with run-on sentences too? Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I recommend you re-read that essay as WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, and the "essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else."
Are you willing to come to some sort of compromise? Can you suggest a wording other than the one which has been reverted by four individuals other than myself? Cjhard (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to answer to the disruptive, unexplained edits of a few users with questionable edit histories; not necessarily you but the others are red-linkers, one of whom has been blocked indefinitely. If someone makes a thoughtful effort to explain their change, I'll obviously consider and respond to it more thoughtfully than just reverting; I have responded here, and I'm not obligated to agree with you, just to force a discussion, which is the process (WP:BRD). My position remains the same; it is less awkward to have the sentence read with the year in adjective form alongside the album name, less awkward than having the artist name be followed by the clause detailing the release information. I don't care about what other articles have; that should never be used for justification, which is what you did before ("Many other featured articles use the same wording"). I don't think your change is an improvement to the current lead, and I don't think it's appropriate for you to claim to speak for anyone else other than yourself; I don't hear those other editors speaking to this issue, and it gives the impression there's a need for compromise; you're the only one who's been restoring your preferred change in the past month. Who else has cared? Dan56 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
TJdrum2000 is a blocked user, and his only attempt at making your preferred change was reverted by Ss112 on May 15th; and they have since been blocked. There have not been on-going reversions by multiple editors since then. This is simply you, Cjhard, speaking for a change here. Don't give the misleading impression that it's anything otherwise. Dan56 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are saying this. [4] [5] [6] [7] I will refrain from commenting on your conduct, but given my attempts to discuss this with you have not reached your standards for discussion and your stated refusal to compromise, I will open an RfC shortly. Cjhard (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Isento and I have reached a disagreement about whether or not the section with the chart listings written out should be titled sales or commercial performance. I had changed it back to the latter after the user initially changed it, but my edit was reverted by them and I don't want to edit war so decided to take this to the talk page. The user claims that due to sales being mentioned throughout the section, it should be titled as such; however, not all of the chart listings are attributed to sales which means that titling the section as commercial performance is more appropriate. Let's see what other users say. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No. I claimed that not only due to sales being mentioned, but due to the fact that chart positions are measures of sales, that it should be titled "Sales". As I explained in my edit summary: "the chart positions are attributed to sales in the text -- 'first-week digital sales,' 'sales decline' -- and regardless of the chart's criteria -- whether it be direct exchange of a physical CD for dollars at a store, or the record label exchanging streaming rights for dollars to a streaming service -- it is all, by the definition of the word, a 'sale.' --> Investopedia.com/terms/s/sale" isento (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, "Commercial performance" means the same exact thing but sounds pretentious and more liable to go over a reader's head. As WP:PEACOCK references, "If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be. As Ernest Gowers advised in The Complete Plain Words, 'Be short, be simple, be human.'" isento (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Isento I see where you're coming from, but logic wise you're implying that all commercial performance sections should be renamed sales. I am not using an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, just stating that I don't agree with yoyr retitling. It's best to see what other editors think of this, as neither of our opinions are the gospel. @TheAmazingPeanuts: Thoughts? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I personally think we should keep the section as "Commercial performance", since most album articles have it that way. I really like Isento as an editor but I don't agree with anything he said. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
"Since most articles have it that way" is not a valid reason, as Kyle pointed out (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). And seriously, you don't agree with anything I said? Do you have a valid reason for disagreeing with everything I said, disputing the definition of "sale" and the basis for chart criteria? isento (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Isento: It's more the retitling of the section, most editors (such as Kyle Peake) are not used to seeing the commercial performance section be renamed as "sale" and try to change it back to the original title. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Editors are not the concern -- readers are. A phrase like "Commercial performance" is way more jargon-y than "Sales", which would more clearly get the point of the section across to a layperson -- a Google search for "Commercial performance" appears to only get you technical articles for a corporate audience, for instance. And that is the concern -- to make the article "accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible … Avoid using jargon whenever possible" (WP:AUDIENCE) isento (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems like it's important to the article, but I may be wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XaotikHP (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 

Why would it be though? The differences from the final album are relatively minor (in my opinion) and aren't really that important to the creation process. Arhub (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Arhub

Hi so theres a little issue on this page where if u set the language to french the album cover doesnt show up i tried to fix it but it doesnt work 2A01:E0A:3BD:A8E0:6082:C6DF:53DC:226A (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)