# Talk:Donda

I think it's fine to include criticism of Manson and DaBaby's appearance on the album, but let's be honest, The Independent's "review" is hardly a review and shouldn't be considered as such. -- Calidum 14:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Calidum: I assume you think it should be excluded from the table? Since the rating is contextualized in the "Critical reception" section, I think it's fine to leave it there, especially given that The Independent is a reputable publication. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That may be the case, but The Independent is a reputable source, and its (very low) rating adds to the diversity of the table, which is the ultimate goal of the table itself: to provide an overview of different viewpoints made by different reviewers. There should be some positive, some mixed, and some negative reviews in every single {{Album rating}}. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. The point of the table is to show an accurate representation of consensus by subject matter authorities (like all Wikipedia). For example, if an album had universal acclaim but one review out of hundreds was negative, it wouldn't make sense to put that in the table. It's not aiming for equality in gradations of opinions on the album. In this case, the consensus is mixed as of now, so it's representative of that. Transfo47 (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Neither of you are exactly right. The purpose of the table, per MOS:ALBUM, is simply to serve as a supplemental tool to list the scores from reviews used in prose. This is to prevent bloat from working the scores into the writing. Also, per MOS, the reception section should feature an overview of critical consensus, including minority opinions, as long as they are properly cited. As a consequence, outlier scores may naturally find their way into the table. TarkusABtalk/contrib 12:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I get why you may disagree with the critic issuing zero stars, but it's still a review. The author does the review music in her writing, and it's a reliable source. It's valid to use here. TarkusABtalk/contrib 12:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be talked about in the review section, but not in the table header. The entire reasoning for the 0 star review is the presence of Marilyn Manson and DaBaby alone. It hardly counts as a review of the album that way, just of guest artists' characters. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It is not our job to evaluate whether or not a critic's reasons behind their rating are reasonable. As TarkusAB says, a review is a review. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kettleonwater: Since you have introduced the change, per WP:EDITCON, the burden is on you to seek consensus for your edit on the talk page. Your latest edit does at best seem unconstructive and at worst to be in violation of WP:NPOV (you have already expressed bias against the Independent review above and in previous disruptive edits). I also don't understand why you are invoking WP:DEMOCRACY. Please elaborate. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not our job to evaluate whether or not a critic's reasons behind their rating are reasonable. As you said, a review is a review, and a reason is a reason. Therefore, I stated the exact reason why the reviewer gave the album a 0 star rating on the page. Previous edits held bias, but I see no problem in stating the exact reason for the 0 star, which is why I reverted that in particular - it's plastered all over the review (even the headline). I also hold that the edit I made to say that Donda has been edited post-release was in good faith. It's not original research - it's a primary source. It is also a questionable source, since it came from a user blog, however WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as it is a detailed analysis of each change to the album (even comes with a spectograph). As WP:Reliable sources states: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", and this can be easily done by anyone by listening and comparing the former edit with the new edit. Kettleonwater (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kettleonwater: The source you provided in your first edit is actually a secondary source. Since it is a blog post by an anonymous person, it is generally not reliable, see WP:RS. The fact that you assume that something might be covered in the future is no justification for inclusion, see WP:CRYSTAL.
In your second edit, you simply put unnecessary weight on the fact that the rating was given for certain reasons. This is especially problematic given your bias, as mentioned above. The version that was previously in place gave sufficient context without undue emphasis.
Lastly, you fail to address that you are supposed to seek consensus for your edits, as explained above, instead of reverting back to them, which you did again here. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop abusing ping. I'll make my point clear, I even agree with you that the first source whether primary or secondary is not fully reliable, but there is a important reason for keeping it to improve the article (because the album's content has changed), and it can be easily independently verified. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I am not saying "Donda will release on [DATE HERE]", I am saying "There will most likely be a better source to replace this one soon" - even if self-published, the existing source IS verifiable by the listener. Ignoring the rules here for the meantime will add important information to the article, and as information about the album grows over the next few weeks (since this source proves a post-release edit) there will be significantly better sources for most information already present on the page.
As for the second source, I removed the initial bias, leaving only the remark about the reasoning for the zero star. No unnecessary weight is given, as the reason is directly in the headline: "Marilyn Manson’s inexcusable presence leaves a sour taste that no amount of gospel can cleanse". I do not think opening a consensus poll for this is necessary as these two points comprise only two sentences of the page. A section talking about the Independent review above starts mentioning "criticism of Manson and DaBaby's appearance", as a reason to deny it from the table, and while I no longer think it should ("a review is a review"), it remains it was the reason the topic was brought up, so I don't think people will disagree with it being cited as the reason for the zero stars (again, read the article). I noticed the article's headline does not mention DaBaby, however, so I will remove him.
As a last note, it is useless to do a scrutinizing consensus vote for two small lines of text at the moment. This album's page will be heavily edited for at least the next week or so. Kettleonwater (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not "abusing" the ping feature, I am using it to alert you that I have responded to your comment. It is never "useless" to try to seek consensus, in fact, it is necessary, no matter how short the passage. Per your arguments, I have to assume that you are unfamiliar with a few of Wikipedia's most basic policies. I'm not even sure you exactly know what consensus means.
Your "critical reception" edit I can get behind, though I believe you should remove yourself from editing that section given your bias. Your first edit is unacceptable, see my reasoning above. Since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere though, I will let other editors take it from here, if they so wish. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Really? Report me over 25 words? You like wasting time. Kettleonwater (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The Independent review does not belong in this article. It is not encyclopedic nor is it notable. Please remove it. 36.232.47.62 (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

As above in "kettleonwater editing disputes". Need consensus over two things:

if it's alright to state that on the 31st of August 2021 numerous differences to the tracks from their initial release on the 29th were noticed and compiled together by an independent user blog[1], which basically boils down to the statement that "on 31 August 2021, like West's previous album The Life of Pablo, Donda's audio was reportedly further edited post-release, featuring equalization, vocal and instrumental changes." Kanye's team have already suggested that more edits to the album are to come, including the addition of left out songs from the listening sessions ("Never Abandon Your Family" being directly talked about).[2].
if it's alright to state the sole reason for the Independent's zero star rating review[3] was for the presence of Marilyn Manson, as is repeatedly stated in the article and the headline itself: "Marilyn Manson’s inexcusable presence leaves a sour taste that no amount of gospel can cleanse". DaBaby is also included in the article, but not the headline, so he is not explicitly mentioned as the sole reason for the rating.
The problem with the first source is obviously that it's by default an unreliable source, but even if self-published, the existing source IS verifiable by the listener. For example, comparing the outros of "24", where the track transition to "Remote Control" is now much faster. As stated, Kanye's team have already suggested that more edits to the album are to come. Ignoring the rules here for the meantime will add important information to the article, and as information about the album grows over the next few weeks (since these sources prove post-release edits) there will be significantly better sources for most information already present on the page.
As for the review, the writer's reasoning is directly in the headline, and should be mentioned. When mentioned in an above section, the first thing a user did was mention this reasoning. Why can't it be stated outright that Manson's presence was the reason for zero stars? She explicitly states her reasoning in a tweet[4] "I cannot in good conscience award a star rating to an album that knowingly involves a man whom multiple women have accused of rape, torture, sexual assault, psychological and physical abuse, grooming and blackmail".
Please give me your thoughts below. Thanks Kettleonwater (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

1) We can discuss the revisions when reliable sources report on them. Based on what you said, these edits were literally made yesterday. Just give it some time. It sounds like an evolving situation. If we have another TLOP situation in the works, reliable sources will cover it. 2) Yes, I agree the reviewer issued zero stars solely because of the Manson feature: "Critics often have to remind themselves to review the music [...] But by involving Manson, West has made this impossible. [...] Zero stars." TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
For the second point I far prefer the wording that was previously used in the article: Granting zero stars, Roisin O'Connor writing for The Independent, called out the guest appearances of Marilyn Manson and DaBaby as "impossible to forget – or forgive"; Manson for the multiple sexual assault lawsuits he is facing, and DaBaby for his controversial comments about HIV-infected individuals. She specifically called out Manson's presence as "inexcusable" and leaving "a sour taste that no number of good beats, gospel choirs or church organs will cleanse." This is far more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and also presents her reasoning for giving the album zero stars. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
As the original author of that wording, it is misleading. That wording suggests the score was given because of both Manson and DaBaby's presence. However, if you read the article, the author states the zero stars was given because of Manson alone. EDIT: However, on the lines of neutrality, I do think that the word 'solely' used currently in the article adds unnecessary emphasis and tone. The meaning is the same without the word. I've removed it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 00:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I've made some slight changes to the wording which I hope won't be too controversial, just noting that here for those participating in the discussion. Alduin2000 (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this is fine. This rewording satisfies my point, and looks neutral. The "post-edit" thing seems to have not gone immediately further like I thought it would (Life of Pablo expectation), so I'll take it as WP:TOO SOON for now.  Kettleonwater (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Kettleonwater, TarkusAB and Alduin2000, I fully understand that the review score was so low mainly because of Marilyn Manson's presence, but would my revision that merely changes to mentioning the critic being "heavily dissatisfied" instead of writing out the rating be acceptable since this part itself needn't be in prose when it is in the ratings box? --K. Peake 08:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Critics virtually never issue zero star reviews, and it was issued for a specific reason, so it should be explained. TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Seconded. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I was not aware of the reasoning behind the inclusion in prose; now that I am, I support this. --K. Peake 20:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Now that it's been a few days, could we start expanding the article a bit more and giving it some length considering the incredible amount of attention it's been receiving? Just see the daily page views.
Specific recommendations would be - 
1) Expanding the lead - add listening parties, viewing numbers for those, add Marilyn Manson, DaBaby Controversy, starting to add some of the records such as apple music #1 in most countries, most streamed on Spotify, 2nd biggest one day stream on Spotify etc

2) Adding some extra info in both the lead and the article - adding that West claimed that Universal released it without his approval, adding the Drake beef

3) Expanding on composition, possibly adding a new section called themes - some analysis of the influences, call out direct influences and his use of newer sounds, mention the organs all over the record, adding lyrical themes from songs such as Jesus Lord, No Child Left Behind, Come to Life etc
4)I would recommend changing the tone of the reviews to polarizing rather than mixed in both the lead and the reception section as I feel that is more suited to a record like this, especially one that is garnering extensive criticism for it's inclusion of Manson. Maybe adding something like "The album received polarized reviews, with some critics praising the production, features and overall themes and messages, placing songs among West's best work. Other critics were more critical of the album, deriding the appearance of (.....) and criticizing the album's run time and calling certain tracks as filler" in the lead maybe.

5) Expand on the coverage this album received such as the Kim Kardashian in a wedding dress, his mother etc and include all this in the themes too.

I was thinking about expanding the article soon too since I plan to bring it to GA status and yes, the points you raised are very notable ones. Currently I am in the midst of conducting a GA review while have only made slight edits to this article, but I will be able to focus more of my time outside of work on it when the review is complete. One thing I'm not sure about is the polarized description instead of mixed – I know The Independent gave the album zero stars, but most reviews have been around two or three and the highest is four stars, therefore it does not seem like anyone has conversely rated it incredibly high. --K. Peake 08:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Cailin Russo (an article I created, how meta) claimed on Instagram that she wrote and arranged on the album yet there is no credit on any platform showing that. Are we supposed to believe this and include her name? Other people who went to social media about their work showed liner credits. Trillfendi (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No. In this case, Cailin Russo is a self-published source and, without verification by an independent source, her statement can't be taken as fact, especially given that she is not credited on the album. If a reliable source claims her involvement or the liner credits are changed to include her, it can be added. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources conflict on the way the last four song titles are spelled. Apple Music and Spotify don't capitalize "pt" and don't add any punctuation, whereas Genius, for example, does. The article currently uses the spelling Genius uses. I would consider Apple Music and Spotify primary sources and therefor preferable in this case (spelling of song titles). What do you think? Throast (talk | contribs) 22:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know that MOS:MUSICCAPS covered this. So never mind. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The article had the word mixed for the first few days, then polarized, then once it was expanded properly had mixed again, and had polarized until today, where it was changed to mixed again in the lead and reception section.
I feel that we should use polarized, since 'polarized' reviews isn't always an album simultaneously receiving a 0/10 and 10/10. It's an album getting a wide range of reviews, that differ from each other substantially, which is the case for this album. The album (on a 1-5 scale) either received a 3/4 or a 1/2.
More than that, I feel that the word polarized should be used as many of the extremely negative reviews (of which there are many, see the metacritic for this album not just the scores mentioned in the article) were given mainly because of the controversial features. If critic's are criticizing/praising the album for very different things from each other, I think the word polarized should be used.
'Mixed' greatly implies that it was considered an average album by most reviewers, that simply isn't the case, the album got either a pretty positive review (4/5) or a negative/very negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackner2 (talk • contribs) 

Polarized does mean that it's largely at the poles – by the table in the critical reception section, that doesn't really seem to be true given all of the middle of the road ratings. "Mixed" more accurately summarizes good, bad and average. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Volteer1, see my response below. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead states:

Donda polarized critics upon release. Many critics felt the album was overlong and lacking in coherence, though some deemed it superior to his previous albums Ye (2018) and Jesus Is King (2019).
I haven't read any reviews which have argued that the album was specifically better than Ye and Jesus Is King, and I also haven't seen many articles which are particularly positive. The consensus seems to be more "mixed" than "polarized" (only 5 of the 19 Metacritic reviews have scores above 60, and only 1 review has a score above 75). Am I missing something? To me, the lead should be revised to:

Donda received mixed reviews from critics upon release, with many critics describing the album as overlong and lacking in coherence.
Or something similar. SiliconRed (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reviews by Consequence, Exclaim, and Slate "deem it superior" to those albums (they are all cited in the critical reception section), which makes it worthy of a mention in the lead in my opinion.
I agree on the second point. Virtually all reviews acknowledge that it is flawed in some way. Some are more positive, some more negative, but generally mixed. "Polarized" would indicate that reviews are mostly at the two ends of the spectrum, meaning roughly equal praise on one hand and rebuke on the other, which is not the case. The lead has been updated to reflect the version you proposed. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Since this is proving to be a contentious issue, I'm starting this discussion here. I've been arguing that the table caption "Donda track listing" under the "Track listing" section is redundant and should therefor be left empty. The section header right above the table says "Track listing", making it clear to the reader that a track list of the album the article is about will follow. Per MOS:TABLECAPTION, a table caption is recommended, not mandatory. In cases where multiple versions of an album with differing track lists have been released, table captions are useful to discern between those versions. In this case however, only one version exists, rendering a caption redundant. In my opinion, this is a case of common sense over "it's been done on other articles too". What am I missing?
Tagging TheAmazingPeanuts, since we've already had this discussion. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Another editor Ss112 want to my talk page and says MOS:ACCESS is a policy, and MOS:TABLECAPTION is an extension of that policy. I was just following the guidelines like any other editor should, I kinda think this have something to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT then anything else. I personally think this discussion should take place at WT:ALBUM instead of here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
You quote another editor but I'm not sure you understand what they are saying. I've countered their arguments above. If you read my arguments, you'd find that this has a little more substance than "I don't like it". Since this is a case-by-case issue, as I've explained above, it might as well take place at the article it is concerning. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: I understand what you saying, but MOS:TABLECAPTION doesn't say anything about the table caption under the "Track listing" section is redundant and should therefor be left empty. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
MOS:TABLECAPTION also doesn't mandate table captions. It recommends them. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: So what, I don't see anything we should remove the table caption. It's in the guidelines, you can find headlines "redundant" all you like, but it was decided by consensus on Wikipedia to have a caption describing what a table is for visually impaired readers, particularly those who use screen readers. Again, take this issue at WT:ALBUM and see if more experienced editors would agreed with you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
How many times do I have to repeat that MOS:TABLECAPTION does not mandate captions but merely recommends them, hence leaving leeway for editors to decide in which cases it is necessary or not. Since MOS:TABLECAPTION doesn't say that captions are mandatory, the guideline doesn't need to be changed. I repeat, this is a case-by-case issue so it can be discussed here. Visually impaired readers using screen readers would hear "Track listing" (the section header) before being read the actual track list, so even in that case, "Donda track listing" is redundant. If you're not going to engage with my arguments and keep dismissing me to WT:ALBUMS, you might as well stop because this isn't going anywhere. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: Nothing in the guidelines says it's redundant to use the table caption, the section header don't have anything to do with it. It's you who is making a big deal about it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Binksternet, Kyle Peake, Walter Görlitz, Zmbro,  and JG66: in this discussion. I like to hear other editors opinion about the table caption. Maybe I be wrong about it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Somebody at MOS:TABLECAPTION is overreaching, trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There's no style guide in the world that says we must repeat ourselves when context is perfectly clear. We don't say "Donda commercial performance" or "Donda critical reception" because this is obviously the Donda article. We just say "Commercial performance" and "Critical reception". The context is obvious. The same idea should carry over to any table "caption" (not really a caption but a header.) Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion the table in question should have nothing at all for a caption. The section header is directly above it. The context is very clear. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Binksternet: Thank you for responding, I have a question to you. Should it be better to use a center template for the caption instead, such as this? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe there should be a caption, in the same way that charts tables have captions. --K. Peake 15:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Not better. Same bad repetition. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Responding to ping. I do think these headed or captioned tables are often redundant, and it's a bit embarrassing when the section heading says it all. Binksternet has some good examples above. Your example here, Peanuts, is laughable, imo (sorry, that's not aimed at you personally, just my immediate reaction to what I see on the page). There are similarly redundant headings/captions at several song articles, I've noticed of late. These headings appear in a section titled Charts and say something like "Chart performance for [song title]". Well ... what on earth would it be otherwise apart from, if set in table form, a table documenting the song's performance on the charts?
Admittedly I've not read anything above Peanuts' post, so perhaps I've missed some valid reasons for including these table captions/headings. But they don't get around the "uh??" reaction that many editors might have, and it's the latter that, I think, we need to avoid at all costs. It makes Wikipedia look pretty stupid. (Sort of like a sketch in Rutland Weekend Television where a newsreader reports what a government minister has recently announced, and then the minister is shown making his announcement and using the exact same words we'd just heard from the newsreader ...) JG66 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I proposed changing the accessibility tutorial... See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Wrong_for_11_years. I think in the great majority of cases, context is already very clear what the table contains. I proposed that the tutorial offer the table "caption" as an option rather than a requirement. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The heading is not necessary for the standard edition. There is a principle in MOS:HEADING that indicates that one does not need to repeat the article title or a previous heading in a heading. Repeating the album name is not necessary, and the heading itself indicates this is the track listing. At best it should be "standard edition" (assuming a deluxe or other edition is released) but leaving it blank is absolutely fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion having captions on track listing templates is necessary for older albums that have LP-style listings (i.e. side one, side two, etc.). But recent albums that don't have that—meaning primary CD/digital only—it does feel redundant when the heading "Track listing" is literally right above the table. I've felt this way about Blackstar (album) and I can see why others might think it's an issue. – zmbro (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Binksternet, Kyle Peake, Walter Görlitz, Zmbro,  and JG66: Thank you all for responding, I admit that my English is little off and probably don't understand what I talking about. The reason why I ping you guys because nobody don't really question the table captions in album-related articles and Throast was the first to point that out. I was just following the guidelines. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I get the table captions' redundancy. This is what I was saying last year when editors like Koavf fought tooth and nail (or just wanted to argue for longer) regarding pushing this through. That's (part of) the reason MOS:TABLECAPTION does not say it's a policy: Because it was first suggested over a decade ago, and was only a recommendation up until last year. However, there was a Wikipedia-wide consensus last year to include a caption for all data tables, even when considered "redundant": see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 15#RfC on table captions. As I understand it, all the explanatory text hasn't been modified to include said Wikipedia wide-consensus. MOS:TABLECAPTION itself is not a policy or guideline, but it does say that it's a how-to guide on how to make tables more accessible per MOS:ACCESS, which is a Wikipedia guideline. MOS:ACCESS also makes it clear that accessibility for visually impaired readers is Wikimedia policy.
Perhaps a compromise here is to use RexxS' Template:Screen reader-only to wrap the caption so that it doesn't appear for everybody, and only those using screen readers actually have said "redundant" caption read out to them. My only hope is that this is not some attempt to introduce a backdoor local consensus to override what is expected Wikipedia-wide. If there is some rough or actual consensus achieved here, please don't cite this as some precedent. Binksternet appears to have the right idea here, and that is to go in to the lions' den, so to speak: the discussion page where editors who feel very strongly about an issue like this would see it. Those are the editors those who disagree with the captions should be arguing with, not TheAmazingPeanuts, Kyle Peake or myself, who are just following the cited consensus/push to make all data tables compliant. I'm not arguing for using table captions here, so there's no need to refute what I've said or argue back at me. I'm just pointing all to said consensus and explain my understanding of how table captions, by extension, are essentially a policy. Ss112 04:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I'm absolutely in favor of table captions whenever they are necessary and helpful to the reader. In this specific case on this specific article, it is clearly neither of those. The impaired reader argument has been brought forth before and I've addressed it above. In this case, where it is so plainly obvious that a table caption is redundant, would it be so wrong to invoke WP:IGNORE in regards to the data table "clause" at MOS:ACCESS?  After all, I think we can all agree that removing redundancies from articles would improve them. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, this is not the venue to be trying to override what is Wikipedia-wide consensus. Editors who supported the Wikipedia-wide consensus at WT:ACCESS were very clearly made aware multiple times there were plenty of instances where table captions would be redundant and were still in support of it anyway. That being said, Graham87 has told Binksternet at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Wrong for 11 years that "screen readers identify tables by captions and sometimes determine whether a table is worth alerting a user to by the presence or absence of a caption. [...] For cases where it's highly undesirable for a sighted user to see the caption there's {{Screen reader-only}}." (The latter point was one I already raised.) Ss112 11:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ss112 that discussion from last year kinda help explaining why the reason of table captions, most editors have voted in support for it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Citing some fringe screen reader feature as the rason to include a table caption in every single case is ridiculous in my opinion. That being said, I don't want to relitigate that discussion any further. Some editors are hellbent on enforcing rules without questioning their efficacy, which I find unproductive. WP:IGNORE is literally a tool to override Wikipedia-wide consensus (if it keeps you from improving Wikipedia) but I will refrain.
I take it that everyone here would be fine with using {{Screen reader-only}} in this case? Throast (talk | contribs) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a lack of certainty whether the section should be titled as above or controversies, I would like to point out how Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice suggests using the title of controversy when there is any in general surrounding an album. --K. Peake 19:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Although I see that "controversy" can be used both in singular and plural sense, I feel that "controversies" would be more clear since the section covers multiple unrelated events. Using "controversies", the reader would have no doubt that the following text covers multiple events. Using "controversy", the reader might expect a single event and could be caught off guard when seeing this is not the case, as I and (I assume) Ronherry were. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You're interpreting it wrongly. It advices to not use the word "controversy" as a title when the section's content describes only one controversy. It advices editors to title the section after the actual controversy instead. For example, The Weeknd's distaste with the Grammys is covered under the section titled "Grammys controversy" in After Hours. In Donda's case, there are multiple independent controversial events covered in the section, hence "Controversies" is the most appropriate title. Ronherry (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This section could use some trimming, particularly in its elaboration on speculative and gossip-y items, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. In fact, I preferred the location of the reviewer complaints in briefer form in the reception section. It feels like we are pandering to the twit mob, which also feels like a fringe view (WP:UNDUE). Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of O'Connor in the reception section, specifically the lament of Manson's appearance without a defined reason, lacks coherence. Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The word controversy carries the connotation of being public. I don't consider an album review published in The Independent to be public in the way that social media lynch mobs are, which involve people as a whole (to some extent). So I believe we can differentiate the two and restore the earlier forms of O'Connor and Love's reviews. Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think this section is unnecessary, in terms of layout, organization of information. You can spread most of these items across the other sections where they are more closely related, such as the listening event backlash (in listening event section), the aforementioned critical reviews (in reviews section), the (lord help me) Peppa Pig review "story" (again in reviews section). Because in the current form, they are merely tangentially related and do not cohere into a well-written section. Additionally, a controversy is a disagreement that is particularly prolonged and heated. None of these purported disagreements have another side publicly voicing itself. It reads as a one-sided overblown backlash. Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The most controversial thing mentioned in this article is not even in this section: West's claim of disapproving the release, a claim the label then publicly denounced. Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree. I was confused when the "controversy" section appeared. The critical reception section seems to be the better place for the Manson/DaBaby situation and it was already well written and incorporated into the section before it was split up. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I would like to comment in response to the issues arisen that initially, I was thinking someone might try to dispute the section itself so here's the reasoning behind it. The elaboration of any opinions from fans does not fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL, as multiple sources are used and it is not trivial or pandering when there appearances have become a notorious part of the album. O'Connor being used twice is not really creating coherence issues since it is acceptable to mention an interview/review twice in an article if different parts are used later on; both instances reference Manson but the first focuses on him and the reviewer's overview of the album instead with mention of musical content and "sour taste" is a different quote too. Furthermore, the inclusion of reviews here is moreso done to show actual commentary/quotes on the controversial aspects, rather than to represent the reviewers as general public/West fans.

Regarding the organisation of the info in controversy, the listening events sub section should have info focusing on the events themselves, so the controversy caused by revealed appearances goes better here. I have already explained how the comments from reviewers fit into this section and also, reception is already extensive enough I believe. The Peppa Pig story does not fit into reception because it is mocking the album for one of the reviews rather than actual reception of it, while you do not seem to have mentioned the story from Manson's ex partner since that appears to have no closely relevant sections.   The label part was only controversial for West himself so it does not belong in a section of his own article about this and as for Manson/DaBaby controversy already being here before the section's creation, I expanded it further when creating this section. --K. Peake 06:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
You have phrases like "appeared to," "seemingly," "a source," "speculated," "confusion", all vague, all flimsy, if not smoke and mirrors. And you repeatedly have WP:CITEBOMB, as if to compensate for the fact that these ideas lack heft or inherent significance. Piotr Jr. (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Manson's ex partner has no strong relationship to this article. And as a whole, it all reads very shallow. There is no escaping that. Piotr Jr. (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
O Connor lacks coherence in the reviews section since you discuss her objecting to Manson without saying why until she appears again two sections down. I see what you're trying to do. I still think it's a bad execution and would be better off splitting apart. There is too much detail given to these minor backlashes, no matter how much cheap journalism covers it. Piotr Jr. (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL discourages rumors, and it cautions using even well-sourced speculative information to avoid creating a bias. Piotr Jr. (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
What would justify or give substance to this section is a reputable source that outlines and summarizes the topic. And I've found a few, and believe you should consider revising the section around them as the basis, the meat-and-bones of the section: Lang in Time magazine, "Kanye West's Controversial Donda Is Finally Out. Here's What You Need to Know", and Romano in Vox, "Donda: The hype, the controversy, the music, the Kanye of it all, explained". Some of the current sources are tabloid-like, like People and Buzzfeed. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, both People and Buzzfeed appear on WP:RSP with at least some cautionary note about contentious claims. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The Peppa Pig story doesn't fit anywhere because it's trivia. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Jr Are you sure suggesting that I move this information to the relevant sections then? Also, Buzzfeed News is separate from Buzzfeed and cited as reliable at WP:RSP, while People needs secondary sourcing for contentious claims which is provided and the Peppa Pig story may seem comical but it's from a famous character's Twitter account so isn't really trivia. --K. Peake 20:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
RSP notes that editors have recommended exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after [2018]. Quite frankly, the state of journalism has been on the decline, and we as editors of this grand attempt at an evolving online popular encyclopedia have a right to exercise editorial judgment for the betterment of an article. And the ideas in your response undermine the seriousness of that effort, with all due respect. I suggest you stick to the best sources available on this article's topic, such as extensive news and journalistic articles, and not tidbit social-media briefs from historically tabloid mags. Time and Vox are of the more historically reputable news-journalism sources, and I've offered pieces that really go in depth, far more than the current sources seem to do, on this topic. See what they have to say, and use them as your new template and skeleton for this section. Start from scratch with them. That is what I recommend. Piotr Jr. (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that the section should probably be dissolved or at least resturctured and rewritten, telling a user who's taken time out of their day to write an entire section to "start from scratch" while throwing a couple of sources at them that you'd like to be included, doesn't seem productive. I'm going to add a {{Cleanup rewrite}} to the section with reference to this discussion so everyone can have a go at it. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I responded to the editor's question and offered my suggestion. I made no demands, although I still will take the opportunity to say it would be best for the article to do so. Piotr Jr. (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Piotr Jr. I respect that you have tried to be constructive with your suggestions and I have implemented a good amount of them, retitling the section to controversies, adding Time, cutting down on the usage of People and what you called "smoke and mirrors" language. However, I did not add Vox since none of that info is content that isn't already included. Regarding your issue with the word "confusion", it is a fully usable term to describe what some are feeling while "a source" is fully acceptable when a reliable outlet like NME have reported this. Also, I find it quite insulting that you have accused me of undermining the seriousness of editors' effort to exercise editorial judgement since I not only used WP:RSP to explain my sources, but pointed out specifically the supplements in place for People per that same guideline. You may be providing respectful suggestions, but you should try to treat fellow editors in such a manner too. --K. Peake 10:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I find the defense of a fictitious Twitter account insulting to the integrity of the article. Piotr Jr. (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
There is still WP:CITECLUTTER, seemingly synthesized sentences, etc. Piotr Jr. (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no reason given as to why anyone is "confused," making it pointless to readers. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Just because something was reported, even made verifiable, doesn't make it acceptable for inclusion here. (WP:VNOT) That is where you haven't exercised editorial judgment, instead indulging in these cheap stories. Do not feel insulted. I am just trying to get these points across to you to encouraging better decisions in the article. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr.: "I find the defense of a fictitious Twitter account insulting to the integrity of the article" Your personal opinion on “integrity” does not matter, if reliable sources report on it and think its important to write about there is no reason for it not to be on the page. It’s 2021, not 1961. You need to get with the times, where this sort of stuff is normal in popular culture. SK2242 (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Then why are editors pinging me, asking for my opinion? Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
We are not obligated to mention popular culture trivia merely because it is verifiable. There must be some depth to the discussion (MOS:CULTURALREFS). And, using the powers of my "personal opinion," I find none in what is currently cited here about a cartoon character Twitter account "trolling" this album. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
If I may not be completely with the times, then perhaps you are not entirely with the standards of an encyclopedia. In all fairness. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the cartoon Pig story can be reduced to one or two sentences and be relegated to a footnote alongside the actual Pitchfork review. Otherwise, I don't see how it fits the definition of a controversy or an encyclopedic threshold of notability, even a common sense threshold. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It's just not interesting or engaging enough, other than the probability that a reader would wonder why this is even mentioned or what does it mean for a social-media account representing a cartoon television character to be "bragging" (I guess?) as if in competition with an artist (West) that the character has no previously defined relationship to (WP:ASTONISH). Otherwise, nothing really goes on that seems readily apparent to be of consequence to a reader's understanding of this article's topic, Donda. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:AUDIENCE is a key guideline: "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. Avoid using jargon whenever possible. ... Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? ... Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?" "trolling" is jargon; a cartoon pig with no connection to Donda or its purported controversies makes little to no sense to a layperson. "When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article." Does any source explain who the person is who manages the Twitter account of a cartoon pig and what their reason was for "trolling"? Does any source explain how this is "trolling" and why it is significant to understanding Donda? Please ask yourselves that before presuming this information ought to be normalized, simply by virtue of its existence in some paltry news briefs from a handful of otherwise reliable sources, in an article that aims for encyclopedic practices and values. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:EDITDISC: "Common sense and Wikipedia policy dictates that editors must practice discretion regarding the proper inclusion of relevant and well-sourced content." Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
In response to Kyle's recent edit summary, I would still defend the inclusion of Vox (in place of sources like People and the miniscule NBC News brief) because it represents a broad overview that essentializes information rather than focuses on one particular detail or aspect. It, in my mind, represents a better source on the topic of "controversy", particularly in the aspect of proportionality and weight; it is much larger, which translates to more information to add from to this article, as opposed to fleshing out a paragraph (from a few news briefs) that is disproportionate to the coverage given to an aspect (i.e. the cartoon pig) from the briefs that are currently cited to construct that paragraph. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
More extensive news articles should be given preference to meager news briefs. More editorial oversight is usually paid to them, more breadth and focus as well. Just like an encyclopedic article itself, extensive features and reports are published to represent a leading coverage or source on the topic. News briefs, especially in the on-demand internet culture of today, often have spelling errors in headlines and represent immediate reactions to on-going events and occurances; they do not represent the same care and consideration that goes into more final works. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
And that is where I have been coming from. I am not here to denigrate any editor for the sake of it, and I hope you can appreciate these views and the guidelines I've attached to them. Thanks. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Jr. I have further taken on your suggestions to improve the article, removing the likely trivia of specific detail about what aspects of the collaborations fans criticized online. The cluttered citations are also not here like when there was five for a sentence; three are only included for ones where extra verification is needed, like the derision being "widespread" and "some publications" seeing a response to cancel culture. People has an additional two because WP:RSP says it is usable for contentious claims if any supplement can be provided may I remind you, but why do you keep on complaining about this source when I've already addressed how it is backed up anywhere in this section? Furthermore, I have now put info such as the opinion of some publications into separate sentences to avoid synthesized ones. --K. Peake 07:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Why bother using People at all if the material can be verified in better sources? Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
To quote @NinjaRobotPirate: from the last discussion on People for RSP: "As far as People and other celebrity magazines go, I'd say that we need to be very careful not to repeat rumors or speculation. I don't like the idea of using celebrity-obsessed tabloids, ... I think an interview from People would be fine." Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Concerning the quotation of an anonymous source (can't tell from which source because of the cite clutter), here is a relevant guideline from WP:BLPGOSSIP:  Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.  Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"Weasel words" is a key term here: do any of the sources actually define the subjects who are supposedly deriding West? I see the Buzzfeed source actually attributes the opinion that he is responding to cancel culture to fans rather than the publication making that interpretation. Consequence says this was "Presumably" a response to cancel culture. Can you please eliminate these vague/ambiguous sources/phrasings and just depend on the more reliable sources and stick to what they say individually? Especially in a controversial section like this, it is important not to get lost in a sea of synthesized claims and original research. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Even Buzzfeed attributes this backlash to "some fans". Which begs the question, are we sure we are not inflating this section in the manner of WP:REFBOMB to demonstrate a notability that really isn't there? Merely just reflecting a sensationalized response from a handful of "reports"? Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Piotr Jr. This is becoming frustrating now, as I have been working hard and taken on multiple suggestion of yours but just because the article is not meeting your perfect vision, you are nitpicking and refusing to give me any credit whatsoever. I am getting particularly fed up of discussing People since I've already explained this to you multiple times, though I will point out the fact WP:RSP says "the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source". NME and Time are definitely strong sources so the fact they have reported the quote definitely is supplementary to showcase reliability, also I have kept People still due to the website being where the quote was originally reported.
Also, I did read through the refs again and have changed to the publications seeing a possibility that he collaborated with them as a response to cancel culture. This is fully acceptable since it is not only the manner that they are indicating at, but it is also the opinions of publications not individuals like fans so what they see as possibility is notable. I will try to look at the widespread part later on after work. --K. Peake 09:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated. But the fact is the research and execution here have not only been imperfect, but significantly flawed. And I'm now now that Variety, one of the sources citing the leading sentence, mentions no such "widespread derision", merely that: "West was widely accused of trolling the public". Time, the other source, says the inclusion of the controversial artists "spark[ed] swift outrage from viewers for his apparent support of both artists". Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
And your defense of this, in all fairness, is redolent of OR: "the manner that they are indicating at". No. You have to say exactly what they say and attribute it to them. This is especially important with contentious claims. I don't agree that there was widespread derision, and there doesn't appear to be a single reputable source that says so either. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
"Derision" means ridicule or mockery; West's decision was disapproved for more political reasons. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You do have a point regarding the "derision" parts, though it has turned out I don't have the time tonight so will look at it tomorrow... also, the indication part was not worded too well by me. What I meant was that it is basically putting what they are saying into other words; the sources are clearly referencing a possibility of the cancel culture response, this is different from misphrasing. --K. Peake 19:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

None of Donda's "important" features (e.g., Jay-Z on "Jail") are explicitly listed as featured artists/vocals in the official liner notes; (almost) every other contribution is listed, e.g., additional vocalists, engineers, or instrumentalists. The "important" features are only acknowledged with writing credits. To make things more confusing, the liner notes of Donda's only official single, "Hurricane", list Kanye West and The Weeknd as main artists and Lil Baby as featured artist (i.e., Kanye West and The Weeknd featuring Lil Baby). Not to mention that Donda's official liner notes could change in the future, which is not at all uncommon for Kanye West albums of the last years. 
How should this be reflected in a Track listing subcategory, and how can we balance the officially available information with providing useful information to readers? 
This is obviously something to discuss, but here are some suggestion on my behalf:  

Renaming the subcategory Featured artists to , e.g., Uncredited features
Rephrasing the uncredited feature descriptions, e.g., "'Jail' features uncredited vocals by Jay-Z"
(Removing the additional vocals credit from this subcategory, as they are all listed later on under personnel)
Any other thoughts? - Ragnarulv (talk | contribs)

I think all of your suggestions sound good. I believe there are some features that aren't even credited as songwriters too, like Westside Gunn and Conway on "Keep My Spirit Alive". I think what should be done is just have all additional vocals in Personnel and have any uncredited vocals go under "Uncredited features" section. Nicenice23 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Good to hear, thank you. I'll make those changes now. I suppose if there are any more changes to the liner notes (or more official singles), we may have to re-consider this. But for now I think having just one song with official featured artist credits ("Hurricane") is simply not enough to include it in the actual track listing. Ragnarulv (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the listening events section should be split into sub-sections (i.e. first, second, third). This way the paragraphs can be separated thoroughly (as it stands each para is more than ten sentences long). – zmbro (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I've gone ahead and separated it for now and I think it looks good. - Nicenice23 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Going along with this, the background and recording section should be split into numerous sub-sections (i.e. early work, initial work, etc.) Or even split 'background' and 'recording' into two separate sections, with sub-sections from there. Having everything at once looks extremely unorganized, especially with how large this article is growing. – zmbro (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Zmbro This section has been split where practical and I also added a sub-section to release and promotion, how're they looking now? --K. Peake 08:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Much, much better. – zmbro (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph on the Peppa Pig tweets under the "controversies" section, I really don't think this amounts to a controversy, particularly because it was entirely one-sided. It was a line of humorous tweets that got picked up by a few, albeit reputable, tabloids. It's a trivial, isolated bit of information that doesn't give the reader any valuable insight. If it even belongs in this article at all, it doesn't belong in the "controversies" section in my opinion. What do you think? Throast (talk | contribs) 17:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Doesn't seem like relevant info to the article or a controversy at all. -Nicenice23 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Throast A quick Google search shows that many publications did cover the Peppa Pig content, also there was a second tweet too and the character's account alluded to reviews from Pitchfork, a highly reputable source. I think with all of this in mind, the Peppa Pig stuff can remain in controversy. --K. Peake 09:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The fact that many sources, even reputable ones, report on it is by itself not necessarily an argument for inclusion. We as editors have to decide whether or not the information is important enough to be included. With all due respect, I think you're taking these tweets a bit too seriously, all it is is light hearted trolling. I think it's trivial and unimportant und should therefor not be included, but I believe we should definitely be able to agree that it doesn't amount to a controversy and is in no way whatsoever comparable to the remaining info in that subsection. I mean c'mon. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I am beginning to understand your viewpoint more, now that you have explained how I should take it less seriously and made the comparison to the other controversial info... maybe this would belong better at the bottom of reception? --K. Peake 19:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
No, putting Peppa Pig's Twitter next to reviews from serious music critics is no improvement. I repeat, I don't think it belongs in this article at all. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I agreed with Throast on this, the Peppa Pig stuff seems to be just a fan reaction a review by Pitchfork who give the Peppa Pig album a slightly higher rating then Kanye's album. I don't think it should be in the article also. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The removal of this completely is acceptable to be honest, but if there is ever enough info about any similar event(s) alongside it to start a section about popular culture, then do you agree re-adding would be fine? --K. Peake 09:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that might be a section where it would be appropriate. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever took time out of their day to write all of that but I think the subsections on the three listening events, particularly on the second and third, are way too detailed. In my opinion, all the detailed descriptions of how exactly the performances unfolded (what people wore, ticket prices, etc) can be scrapped. What do you think? Throast (talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Throast I was the one behind the section's content and about the detail level, I made sure to leave out stuff like specific songs played apart from the notable instance for "No Child Left Behind" when West rose to the sky at the end. Ticket prices and the activities are not trivial especially the former since they show how much the events cost, but maybe the costumes are unless reported by multiple sources such as the SWAT gear info... any suggestions on which should possibly be removed? --K. Peake 07:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Basically everything you added to the section here, here, here, and here. All of this constitutes WP:TMI. The version that was in place before was sufficient in my opinion. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Throast I have cropped down the content added in this edit that you listed, though will go through the others tomorrow since I'm tired out from work right now; I believe it adds to the article mentioning certain events of the listening party but including virtually every documented detail becomes trivial and kind of tedious. --K. Peake 20:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The following can be kept in my opinion:
The listening event sold out Mercedes-Benz Stadium's 2021 capacity of 42,000, alongside setting a record for the biggest Apple Music livestream globally, with over 3.3 million viewers.
It suprassed West's own record for the most popular live stream on Apple Msic, drawing in 5.4 million viewers.
the part about West setting up a replica of his childhood home
The rest can't possibly be informative to the average reader. If someone wants to know how exactly every single event unfolded in tedious detail, they might as well watch a recording of it instead of reading this article. I also don't know how ticket prices and exact starting times add anything of value to the article. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Throast I do agree with what you have said about tedious detail and have removed non-notable parts of the parties, though I kept any notable events in my edit but removed trivial detail from them like "No Child Left Behind" being played and Kim Kardashian wearing a gown. The ticket prices can be kept because readers knowing these for listening events of such a large scale as this album (many in attendance and streaming records broken) is relevant detail, also listing start times is common for events so it is clear how early/late they were in the day. I hope you are happy with the over 2,000 bytes removed now and the sub-sections have been axed due to not excessive content to make them worthy of existence. --K. Peake 08:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake:
It started at 6:30 p.m. and finished at 8:00 p.m.
Though no cell phones or large bags were permitted at the event, clips of the event surfaced online showing West hunched over his laptop, wearing gloves and a ski mask over his head that left only his eyes visible.
During the event, West was joined by four pianists from a public music school of Kaufman Music Center, with whom he took a picture that was shared to the center's Instagram account.
It was set to start at 8 p.m. on the date, with tickets going on sale at the same time as the announcement for either $50 or $20.
commencing with the music playing as West emerged from a tunnel. The rapper then walked to the center of the stadium, where he mainly stood still and was illuminated by a shape-shifting spotlight. The spotlight focused on West throughout and he fell to his knees on occasions during the event, demonstrating a prayer-like posture.
It was scheduled to start at 9 p.m. on the date, while tickets were made available two days after the confirmation for prices between $30 and $75.
Livestreaming of the event later began at 9:30 p.m., with Demna Gvasalia handling the creative direction and Niklas Bildstein Zaar serving as the artistic director.
West was positioned in the center throughout, wearing an all-black outfit and a mask. He appeared inside a square of light, being encircled by dozens of dancers that were also dressed in black clothing. West paced around, danced, and prayed during the event, as well as performing push-ups at points. The event ended with him being elevated to the ceiling of Mercedes-Benz Stadium by harness, in a manner reminiscent of ascending to heaven.
The event was slated to begin at 9 p.m., while tickets went on sales two days after the announcement at prices ranging from $150 to $300.
Kanye West appeared by coming out from the replica home while wearing an all-black outfit, accompanied by footage and photo collages of Donda. West was joined on the porch of the home by Marilyn Manson and DaBaby; they were surrounded by backup dancers that wore bulletproof vests with the name Donda on. Shortly after the beginning of the event, West's setting devolved into a crime scene. For the conclusion, West came out of the home wearing a stunt suit after having been set on fire inside earlier and was quickly extinguished, unmasking himself to reunite with Kardashian.
This is all tmi and defo needs to go. Starting times and ticket prices in and of themselves are trivial. Nothing about them is notable in any way. The events were neither uncommonly long or pricey. We probably won't be able to compromise on the detailed descriptions of the performances, since you seem to think what I've listed above is relevant, whereas I think it's clearly trivial. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Throast I have removed most of what you requested from the section apart from some, which I will address below:
Starting or finishing times and tickets are basic background for events, so I don't see how they are not notable... it seems like you want nearly all info to be removed which is going too far.
You keep saying that starting times and ticket prices are notable while failing to explain how. It's trivial and unimportant. How is this information relevant in an article about the album? Thinking about starting an RFC on this issue. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I have kept the sentence about clips of the private listening event, but removed the cell phones and large bags part since it's not really relevant and did the same for his eyes being visible because that's trivial.
Including creative and artistic director for the events is like mentioning directors for music videos in song article, so I don't see how this is irrelevant.
This article is not about the listening events, it is about the album first and foremost. One of the two people you mention is not even notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article (a sign that they might not be worth a mention). Throast (talk | contribs) 16:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Most of the info about the events of the second listening party were removed, besides the center part because the summarizes how West remained throughout and the elevation to the ceiling due to the notability established by its relevance to the "24" music video that is later mentioned.
Even though the dancers and crime scene were removed for the third event, I have kept West's entrance from the replica home since the coverage this home received both before and after the event creates notability for the appearance. Marilyn Manson and DaBaby's cameos are notable here, as an entire section is later included that details the controversy caused by their presence. Also, the part about him setting on fire and then reuniting with Kardashian has notability due to its link with the "Come to Life" music video.
These are all my comments for now and I have put much effort into fixing the section, hopefully you will understand! --K. Peake 07:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: As this article is about the album and not the listening events, I feel like a concise summary of where the listening events took place, record breaking streaming and attendance numbers etc. and perhaps a very concise summary of what happened there can be included. Anything beyond that is WP:TMI. Please read it and maybe you'll understand. I agree with all the other comments you made. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: I have read through WP:TMI and you seem to be correct about the directors, those have been removed by me now and so have the ticket prices. The times are notable because they were often announced beforehand and not only is there this showing they were seen as significant by the organizers, but also that delays were present which help demonstrate notability. --K. Peake 19:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In Composition section, someone wrote that the album took inspiration from Heartbreak on a Full Moon. Does anyone else see that from the source cited? I do not see it. 
2600:1700:2171:670:F983:8A90:3AD:F2C2 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I will remove the sentence. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This sentence was removed, but another user re-added it until someone took it out again. I am posting here to say that to keep the article stable, nobody should return this sentence unless they look through a source themselves and find it works as proper back-up. --K. Peake 08:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have again reverted disruptive edits that update a certification and, in the process, delete a reference definition used elsewhere in the article. When making an update, it's important to comprehensively update the article and change not only the tables but the prose. Im this case, the update deletes a certification reference that's used within the prose; it replaces the reference with a new one that supports only the table but not the prose. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Kanye stole the cover of Lupe Fiasco's Food & Liquor II for some reasons. Bound 1000 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can copyright a black square Yyythats5yzzz (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Kanye stole too the cover to Gesaffelstein's Hyperion (2020) album cover much than Lupe's F&LII (2012). Bound 1000 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't copy PBSs from album covers. Is their own work. RAPGOD500 (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we mention the Globglogabgalab in remote control in the Section Songs? Uxfifig (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)