# Talk:The Life of Pablo

This article contains details about the song "All Day", which does not appear on the album. Should all content about this song be removed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It was released in promotion for the album, so I vote no.1Sire (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Vojtesak (aka Charlie Handsome) produced on Fade...his name should be added in the credits section for that record

 Done This appears to be resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
DJ Dodger Stadium (Jerome Potter) should be credited for production too, as well as production on Feedback 4, Low Lights, Ultralight Beam and Father Stretch My Hands Pt 1.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.74.53 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 

I don't know where to put this so sorry, but the album is dropping today https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/698175350854021120  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.51.121.111 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The only source for Shrkeli being able to hold up production is Shkreli himself. As a legal matter, Shkreli's argument is absurd. Even if Kanye were himself a corporation, corporations are not under any obligation to hold a board vote over any yahoo's offer to purchase an asset they own. That portion in the intro really should be either removed or at least edited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.22.127 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


### Remove that martin skhreli bs
"The Life of Pablo is the seventh studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It will be released by GOOD Music, Roc-A-Fella Records and Def Jam Recordings on February 12, 2016, however this the release is subject to change to Martin Shkreli applied for acquisition of the album and publishing rights for the price of $10 million which will result in him having sole copy of the album and in the application Martin Shkreli has stated not to release the album commercially"
Ugh.... not only is the Martin Skhreli proposal extremely likely to be rejected (you really think Kanye would do that?  Since the proposal was created he's said he's still releasing the album), but this is a terribly written sentence.   I can't edit this but someone ought to fix this.
The proposal not only isn't likely to be accepted, it doesn't even need to be considered. Shkreli's legal argument is outright absurd.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.22.127 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 

Earl Sweatshirt co-produced "Ultra Light Beams" as randomblackdude. Rtjfan (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Source? I can see it, the drums are very Earl.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.66.4 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is a possible source for whoever suggested this: http://goodmusicallday.com/2016/02/kanye-west-life-of-pablo-album-tracklist/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.206.188 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC) 

Would help to clarify that it was released exclusively to stream through Tidal and exclusively to purchase through Kanye's website (www.kanyewest.com). Also may want to consider inputting notes on the rocky rollout and Tidal's intially incorrect track listing re: Fade and Facts. Initially the streaming and downloadable versions of the album had the same file for Facts (Charlie Heat Version) and Fade.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltease (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC) 

The howl before the Frank O. section comes from Nightcall by 	Kavinsky featuring Lovefoxxx from the Drive soundtrack. 64.147.210.162 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Appears so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV_3Dpw-BRY  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.206.188 (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC) 

According to this review - http://music.theaureview.com/reviews/kanye-west-the-life-of-pablo-2016-lp/ - the intro for "Ultralight Beam" featured an uncredited sample from a vine. Linked to in the review.

I've added an "unreferenced section" tag to the Tracklisting section, which includes not only the tracklist but a long list of Notes and sample credits. Does the single Tidal inline citation really provide sufficient evidence for these many notes and credits? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering if it is correct to include the Telegraph review by Neil Cormick in the "Critical Reception" since that is not reviewing the released album, but instead the songs played at the Yeezy season 3 event.
I know that event was supposed to be an album listening party, but in the end the released album has a lot of changes from the event, including 8 more songs.
The review is from the 12th of February. Seems weird to have that review for an album released the 14th of February.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorwikiroj (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC) 
The Telegraph's review should not be here. The critic could not have even had the full quality files to listen to before writing the "review". It's obvious the review was driven by the 24hour news cycle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestIRL (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC) 

The album did NOT receive "rave reviews". It clearly has gotten mixed reception. Just because you are a fan doesn't mean you have to be biased and overhype it when it hasn't been earned. Majority of reviews released thus far have been mixed. Even the star ratings in the article prove the same. It is such a lie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4601:84D1:2C40:B57D:F2CC:62B5 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC) 
Update Metacritic to be be 74/100 out of 6 reviews'  Olapecko (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

All the featurings should be added  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.51.39.165 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 

Perhaps this is a suggestion to move the featured vocalists in the Notes section to the Track listing section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

To much Deans in tracklist. Need to clarify this point. --Mr Jefferson (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think readers of this article will want to know something about what West has said, or not said, about the album's title. West explained to SNL staff backstage that he is "by 50 percent" more influential than many people name-dropped in the immediate aftermath of his album's release: "Stanley Kubrick, Picasso, Apostle Paul, fucking Picasso and Escobar ... By 50 percent more influential than any other human being." Not sure how relevant that is, but West clearly had these cultural inferiors in mind as he executed his project. Pablo indeed. Shouldn't this be noted? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree.  The most important thing about this album is the answer to: "Who the [F-word] is Pablo?"  The answer to this question is the *ONLY* reason that I'm looking up the "The Life of Pablo" on Wikipedia.  This should be a section on the main page, preferably near the top.  This question, with expletive included, is repeatedly asked of Khloe who asked Kanye about it.  Kanye answered Khloe by giving three names: Pablo Picasso, Pablo Escobar, and Apostle Paul.  "A saint, a sinner, and a nutjob walk into a bar, ..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.24.220 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the last 5 tracks are bonus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.102.122 (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 
I don't think the last 5 are bonus tracks either. --  (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)<

Under Track Listing for track number 5 under the writer(s) Marcus Byrd is linked to the wrong Marcus Byrd. He currently does not have a wiki page. Should be unlinked immediately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanikkap (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 

Normally featured vocalists appear in the track listing itself, not a Notes section below. Is there a reason we display this information differently for this article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the two covers are switched. The original cover is being portrayed as the alternate album art, and vice versa. Per the cited source, the cover with two photos is described as "Another Cover" whereas the cover that Wikipedia now lists as the alternate cover is described as "Cover by Peter de Potter"
http://hypetrak.com/2016/02/kanye-west-the-life-of-pablo-alternate-cover/
2605:E000:4DDB:FE00:8513:9AD0:6B93:5FA4 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zlernersinsheimer (talk · contribs), I am in agreement with you that the first album cover should be included in the article, along with the alternate cover which is now being used. I have uploaded the cover to Wikipedia: [1]. However, I note that the dimensions of the image you posted may be more appropriate. Feel free to update it if you feel so. I have also found out that the reason the image was originally removed from the article was because it was erroneously described as an "almost replica of the actual cover art": Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_April_20#File:The_Life_of_Pablo_.28Tidal_Front_Cover.29.png. Pending the current discussion of the deletion of the image based on the previous deletion, taking place here: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_July_13#File:Kanye-west-life-of-pablo-art-2016-billboard-650.jpg, my proposal is that it be included in the infobox, as is done with other articles of albums with alternate covers (for example: Wolf (Tyler, The Creator album)). I agree that the image currently used in the article should be described as the alternate cover, with the new image used as the main album cover on the article. Cjhard (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey 2017NewYearNewMe (talk · contribs), I don't disagree that the cover now used (almost?) exclusively for The Life of Pablo on streaming services is the "main" cover as far as you, I, and everyone else is concerned, but reliable sources say otherwise. And those sources are very reliable (Complex and Billboard). Were the sources weaker, I'd be inclined to WP:IGNORE all rules and accept that the more commonly used cover is the main one, with the original being the alternate. As it is, it seems more appropriate to accept that the original cover is the main cover, with the newer being the alternate, despite one being used more often than the other. I haven't been able to find reliable sources to explain that the newer cover is now more commonly used, but if you can, some explanation of that fact would be beneficial to the article. Cjhard (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Up until yesterday the date in the infobox listed two dates. One for the February tidal release and one for the April general release. Recently that was changed by an editor who believed that this was no longer necessary since we had info about it in the article itself. I, however reverted the info believing that it still deserved to be covered in the info box. It was reverted back by another user who agreed with the previous user.
My issue is that the infobox provides users with a quick glance at the most important info about an album. For instance if I wanted to know the release date for Sophie B Hawkins second album, Whaler, I could look it up and see it was released in October 1994, and then move on. In this hypothetical I am not interested in anything els so I would not check the rest of the artcle at all, which works because the album did become widely available in October of 1994. The problem is that if I used the same method for Life of Pablo I would get info that, if not wrong, would not be telling the whole story. 
I do not think it's excessive at all to have two release dates in the info box. One for the Tidal release and one for the general release. It's similar to how films are handled where if a film is released at a film festival before its general release it is listed under both release dates. (for a good example of this see Following (film))
I just wanted to bring this up for discussion so the majority could weigh in. --Deathawk (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Btw, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim made here that there will be a physical release in June. 80.219.20.147 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This looks good quality from a glance. Nobody has nominated the article yet, but would anyone like to assist me in GA nomination for this as a last-ditch attempt to keep this topic, considering I have no experience in hip-hop albums here? It's currently at WP:GTRC and it'd be a shame for it to fall so soon after it was promoted. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  19:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor A lot later after the denotation has occurred, but I am currently making Kids See Ghosts up to GA status and targeting this afterwards. You can help me with the former right now if you want or prepare this while I do KSG? --Kyle Peake (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, but you're probably the better person to lead the preparation (my rap experience is limited but I can help with basic article fixes). I would absolutely help once the review comes, though, should it be nominated. dannymusiceditor  oops  00:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
DannyMusicEditor Do you mean you will be open to reviewing KSG? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
No. I meant that I'm the kind of guy who helps when reviews arrive and there are suggestions to fix the article from someone else already (I don't mean to be lazy). Kanye West albums are out of my comfort zone, but I would be willing to try and help. dannymusiceditor  oops  11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor: My main problem with TLOP in its current state is more the references than the actual writing. Loads of them are treated like book references in the sources section when they shouldn't be. Would you care to help move them to citations for me? See this as a guideline on how to. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kellymoat:, you reverted this edit, stating that there had been a consensus that it should be "seventh solo album and eighth studio album" rather than simply "seventh studio album". [2]
I was curious as to where that discussion is, as it does not appear to be on the talk page for this article. Thank you. Cjhard (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that it has been archived. It is also possible that it happened on one of the other albums containing the wording. It is also possible that it is on one of the artist pages. It is also possible that it happened in a MOS discussion.
Watch the Throne is the culprit. It is a studio album, but not a solo album, but not a "group" album. So from WtT forward, for both artists, we state the count of both studio and solo. (example - 8th solo, 9th studio).Kellymoat (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you please find the consensus? It seems inappropriate to use a consensus you can't find to revert good faith edits. Cjhard (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
No. I won't do that. But if it is that much of an issue with you, feel free to review the history of the affected albums and artists. You'll see plenty of reverts and numerous edit summaries stating the same. Kellymoat (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this what you're referring to? [[3]] Otherwise it seems like you're referring to a history of edit warring as 'consensus'. However, in the discussion linked there is no consensus that Yeezus should be referred to as Kanye's "sixth solo album and seventh studio album", it was suggested by one person, to whom no one responded. Further, Yeezus and The Life of Pablo are the only albums with articles which describe them in this way. New Jack City II is described as Bow Wow's "sixth studio album", excluding the collaborative album he did with Omarion, Face Off, from the count; Joanne is described as Lady Gaga's "fifth studio album", excluding the collaborative album with Tony Bennett, Cheek to Cheek, from the count. Most tellingly, Jay-Z's post-WTT album, Magna Carta Holy Grail is described as his "twelfth studio album", excluding WTT from the count. None of these refer to solo albums when solo artists have a rare collaborative album. Collaborative albums aren't counted as 'studio albums' in their descriptions, so there's no need for convoluted introductions about "xth solo and yth studio album". Cjhard (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
That conversation took place 4 years ago. I remember the end result (particularly since it has been edited and reverted numerous times) but I don't remember the specifics.
Also, I just edited Magna Carta to include the wording. Not sure how that one wasn't done. But it is now. Kellymoat (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Once again, if you're going to use this consensus as the basis for your edits, you need to provide evidence that it exists. At this point it looks doubtful that it does exist, and it's not other editors' responsibility to find the evidence for your edits. Unless you can find this consensus (and I'm not sure how that determinative it would be if it does exist), then a discussion should be had about the wording choice, especially considering only the Kanye West album articles (and now the Magna Carta article) have this wording, and all other album articles with similar circumstances have the simpler, cleaner wording. Cjhard (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot of WP rules that I couldn't find if I needed to. That doesn't mean that you get to break them. Kellymoat (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
But you're not citing a rule, you're citing a discussion while providing no evidence that it exists. Do you think you don't need to provide evidence for a consensus you're using as a basis for your edits? I'm really confused at that. Cjhard (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
You pointed to one discussion. What exactly do you think a consensus is? THAT's a consensus, even if not the main one. Kellymoat (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
As I said, in that discussion, it "was suggested by one person, to whom no one responded." Granted, the fact that the article proceeded on that basis does mean that it was technically a consensus, but certainly not a strong enough one to shut down the discussion here. May I request that you please try to exercise social competence and discuss this issue properly? Wikipedia requires the ability to collaborate civilly, otherwise we all end up banging our heads against walls. Cjhard (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It's been discussed. Sadly, a consensus doesn't require a 5,000 vote minimum. You were a member back then, you had your opportunity to speak. You chose not to. But now, because you don't like the result, you want a do-over? Kellymoat (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Until you're ready to have a civil, constructive discussion on this matter, please cease reverting on this issue. Your reversions coupled with your complete refusal to resolve this through discussion is textbook edit warring. Cjhard (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, it has already been discussed. Also, if you want to discuss it, than it goes back to the original until the issue is resolved.Kellymoat (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 3O Response:  I don't think the enumeration of Kanye albums needs to be in the lede sentence at all.  Power~enwiki (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki Thank you for responding to the 3O request. However, the enumeration of the artist's studio albums is standard practice on all studio album articles. Do you have any further thoughts on the matter? Cjhard (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see this mentioned as a rule anywhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide or elsewhere; I agree that it is common but don't feel it necessary, especially if it is controversial and/or long-winded.  Power~enwiki (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Kellymoat:, regarding your reversions of @Bchris26:'s edits, 3O responses aren't binding and do not become the new consensus, so this discussion isn't a citable reason to undo a third party's edits. Also, I believe that Power~enwiki's solution is the least good option. @Bchris26:, it appears you agree that the article should simply be described as Kanye's seventh studio album, could you provide Kellymoat with a short explanation?
Kellymoat, further reversions of this sentence on this article so soon after being banned for edit warring on this exact issue would likely be considered edit warring, are you now willing to discuss the issue or let it go? Cjhard (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to make up your mind. You disagreed with the way the previous discussion ended (to include both numbers). So you wanted a new discussion, you even sought out a third opinion.
However, that discussion ended with "there is no rule stating a number needs mentioned". The number was removed and no one cared. But now you are defending the person that re-added the very number that was removed?Kellymoat (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
"The number was removed and no one cared." No, I thought it was the least good option, but saw no need to argue with the 3O provider, as their opinion is an unbinding suggestion, and I had assumed that you would agree that it was the least good option. It was inappropriate for the 3O provider to edit the article to match their opinion, but as a sign of good faith to you I refrained from changing it until you could participate in the discussion, should you choose to discuss it. Now a third person person with a large amount of experience editing music articles has edited it to match my suggestion of the shorter phrasing. That alone shows that someone -other than me- cares.
The 3O provider has now suggested that if we can't agree on a short phrasing "(i.e. 'seventh studio album')" we should take this to DRN.
I believe this is consensus in action, but if you're unhappy with that, let's hash it out. Do you think that any description should be omitted from the lede sentence? Why? Do you think it should be described as Kanye's "seventh solo album and eighth studio album"? Why? I've provided my reasons for the short phrasing "seventh studio album", what issues do you have with my reasoning? Cjhard (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
So, basically, you are saying that because someone changed it to state what you want - the answer has been agreed upon. Kellymoat (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I've looked into it. This article never used the phrasing "seventh solo album and eighth studio album" until you made [this edit] citing a consensus. [6 days later] it was changed back by IP:174.119.250.69 to the previous wording. [You reverted] it to your wording almost immediately. Later that day [it was reverted] by IP:2605:8d80:5e4:bcfe:d0be:a860:6e4:a500 and you [again.]
IP:174.119.250.69 and you went [back] [and] [forth] [and back again] a few days later.
[This happened again] in June, leading to this dispute in which [I], IP:66.87.121.137 [[4]], and Bchris26 [[5]] have changed it to its original wording.
Assuming IP:2605:8d80:5e4:bcfe:d0be:a860:6e4:a500 and IP:174.119.250.69 are the same person (their IP information is similar), you have that person, Bchris26, IP:66.87.121.137 and myself against the edit you made to this page. Since you made this edit it has been the ongoing basis of dispute. Other than Elmodivot, who mistakenly believed they were remedying ban evasion, no one other than you has edited in favour of your edit.
That is what I’m calling consensus. Cjhard (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It is possible that I may have been the one that added the previous consensus wording to this article. But, you failed to mention how many times the article was changed back and forth from 7th to 8th album. Hence, the need for the discussion that led to the consensus.
But if the previous consensus wasn't good enough for you, what makes you think that this one is? Unfortunately, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You didn't like the previous consensus, you even said it wasn't a consensus. You didn't like the third opinion that came here at your request. But now someone wrote it your way, and you praise him as "an experienced editor" and you consider the issue closed? Kellymoat (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
That's almost as bad as you opening up an SPI on some innocent bystander that picked up the slack while I was unavailable. Someone always picks up the slack when I am not around. Kellymoat (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
What are your arguments in favour of the wording you have added to the page? I've laid out my arguments for the wording above (namely consistency with other similar articles and simplicity). To expand on this point, the reason no other articles of solo artists post-one off collaborative albums have this confused wording and use the simpler, shorter wording is because it's unnecessary and messy. The use of "Xth studio album and Yth solo album" is for artists formerly in bands, not for solo artists who have a one-off collaborative album. Cjhard (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've never voiced an opinion on what wording I personally feel is best. I didn't make the revert based on what I feel is best. I made the revert based on the previous consensus.  Kellymoat (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe you've made an honest mistake. The Yeezus discussion [[6]] took place 4 years ago. Who [suggested] the "sixth and seventh" compromise 3 years later. No one responded to them because the discussion was over years ago. Who then implemented this change: [[7]] It was changed back a month later: [[8]] which you reverted citing the consensus: [[9]] The "sixth and seventh" wording was never used before this time.
There was no consensus. It was one person: Who, responding to a discussion that had ended 3 years earlier. Cjhard (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I am going to point out your own hypocrisy for a moment --
You consider BChris an experienced editor because he agreed with you. He has less than 1000 edits in 3 years.
Yet, user Who has over 23,000 edits. And I have 13,000. But you are dismissing what we say. Kellymoat (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay? Fine, I'm a hypocrite. That's not at all what I said, but okay. Can we put this thing to rest now? Cjhard (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
And prior to the consensus wording, how many times did the album count switch between 7 and 8 because no one could agree. Kellymoat (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait, why are you still calling it the "consensus wording"? I just gave you irrefutable evidence that it wasn't based on consensus. Rather than throw another personal attack at me, are you going to make some sort of argument about how, despite the fact that it was put in the Yeezus article in response to a discussion that had ended 3 years earlier, was put in the article by the same person who suggested it, it was removed a month later, and no one else has made an argument in favour of the wording, it's still the consensus wording? Please do. Cjhard (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Did anyone take it to the talk page to disagree?
Also worth noting, the editor that "removed it a month later" was also a senior/experienced editor (56,000). When it was reverted, not only didn't he get into an argument over it, he came to my talk page and was like "oh yeah, I forgot about that album". Kellymoat (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's policy on consensus it doesn't matter if someone took it to the talk page. If you're trying to argue that there was consensus through editing, the fact that it was undone and keeps getting undone shows that it doesn't have consensus. (See WP:SILENCE)
If you're trying to argue that there was consensus through discussion, that requires persuasion through conversation. One person proffering a suggestion 3 years after the discussion ended is not "persuasion through conversation". Cjhard (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And you still need to take into consideration why the need for the change of wording. How many times, between the few affected albums, were the the numbers changed (in this case, from 7th to 8th, and back again)? That is why it became an issue in the first place. Sure, the new wording was reverted a couple times, but nothing in comparison. And, after your requested "third-opinion" changed it, if you noticed, it didn't take long for someone to come in and change that wording, as well.
So, really, if you are going to use "but someone reverted it" as a valid argument, the fact that the consensus wording lasted a month before its first revert, clearly it is in a better position than the other options.  Kellymoat (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I have attempted to discuss this on the merits with you, but you refused. We're clearly not going to come to an agreement on this, so I'm going to make a request for comment. Cjhard (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
You only assume that I am not discussing the merits because I am not agreeing with you. The third-opinion that you requested didn't even agree with you. Kellymoat (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
"You only assume that I am not discussing the merits because I am not agreeing with you."
I've asked you so many times to discuss the merits with me and you've ignored it every time. This is the most you've said: "I've never voiced an opinion on what wording I personally feel is best. I didn't make the revert based on what I feel is best. I made the revert based on the previous consensus."
Why are you doing this? What is this about for you? I just don't get it. Cjhard (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I reverted based on the previous [insert whatever word you approve of because you deny the word consensus], and I am defending my actions. I am not voicing an opinion. Nor am I consistently asking for a "re-vote" until I get the result I want. I am doing as has been previously done.
There are a good number of things I disagree with on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that I get to ignore them and edit based on however I feel. You should try it sometime. It would prevent scenarios where 53.5% of an editors edits are to talk and incident pages instead of to actual articles.Kellymoat (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is clearly already an edit war.  If you can agree on a short phrasing (i.e. "seventh studio album"), use that.  If you do not agree and insist on including this fact in the lede sentence, you should probably go for formal WP:DRN at this point. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to squabble, at least follow protocol - the original stays until a final decision is agreed upon. 185.122.57.61 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You are talking to deaf screens. I've already said that.Kellymoat (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
As discussed above, Kellymoat's version is not the original and has been a point of contention since the day she made the edit. Cjhard (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
For purpose of this discussion, it absolutely is the original version. Kellymoat (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the original tracklist be mentionned and included somewhere ? It's the album a lot of people heard first before Kanye edited the album  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiko (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC) 

Pretend that this is an encyclopedia, where people who don't know about stuff, turn when they want to learn about stuff. Don't think of it as a fansite where everyone already knows everything. Explain what you are talking about. Only then can we make an informed decision. Kellymoat (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, Craiko. However, as most of the changes to the album were changes to the tracks themselves rather than the track listing, I doubt that including the entire original tracklist would be particularly useful. I think the "post-release updates" section of the article explains the changes to the album sufficiently. Cjhard (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

West and numerous secondary sources have called this album gospel, so that can be kept as a genre alongside hip hop, as it is sourced and multiple gospel tracks are on the album. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Most secondary sources talking about "gospel" haven't described the album that way—they've only identified it as an element. I only see one source referring to it as a gospel album. It's also up to Wikipedia editors to exercise basic discretion here—apart from 2 tracks ("Ultralight Beams" and the "Lowlights" interlude), there's nothing that could be reasonably described as gospel, in sound or content. No reason to privilege this over another, more reasonable label. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: In this case, I would evoke WP:IGNORE over MOS:TABLECAPTION since the table caption "The Life of Pablo track listing" right below the section header "Track listing" doesn't serve any purpose. It should be clear to the reader that the track list on this article pertains to the album the article is about. Since the table caption doesn't specify the section header any further, it is redundant. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: I see your point, I have reverted my edit. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

So it seems that the sample for Waves was miscredited in the official credits posted on Kanye's website. Currently on the page it says:

"Waves" contains samples and elements of "Fantastic Freaks at the Dixie", written by Fred Bratwaithe, Robin Diggs, Kevin Ferguson, Theodore Livingston, Darryl Mason, and James Whipper, and performed by Fantastic Freaks.
I always thought it was weird because it never really sounded anything like what was on the song. I did some research out of curiosity and figured out that it actually contains a sample from Jamaican deejay Fire Links which had a few articles written when the song came out. For example:

1. http://jamaica-star.com/article/entertainment/20160223/fire-links-tun-it-kanyes-track
2. https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/entertainment/20160416/fire-links-creates-waves-billboard
3. https://britishlinkz.com/news-sports/fire-linkz-sampled-on-kanyes-tlop/
It seems that the original source is from a sample CD used by DJs in the 2000s, I don't really know where from exactly, but a reupload of the sound can be found on this SoundCloud page: https://soundcloud.com/sir-franchise-drake/fire-links-turn-it-up
Another sample that seems to be uncredited is from another Jamaican deejay Big Youth from the song "Be Careful" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APLxXtOCcP0&t=130s on his album Screaming Target.
If you ask me both of these samples sound identical to what's used on "Waves" while the Fantastic Freaks sample doesn't sound similar at all. I think whoever was in charge of writing the official credits messed up.
How should this be fixed? -Nicenice23 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nicenice23: No. All these sources that you pointed out are not reliable. The sample for Waves is also credited at Tidal and Spotify, not just Kanye's website. So I don't think that was a mistake at all. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

On October 3, 2022, during his Yeezy SZN 9 fashion show in Paris, West wore a shirt he was selling with a collage of pictures of Pope John Paul II. The caption refers to him as "Juan Pablo II." Above the Pope’s collage a Spanish phrase which translates to: “We’ll follow your example.” The back of the same shirt reads "WHITE LIVES MATTER", a move described by Forbes as controversial. Kanye's 2016 tour was named the Saint Pablo Tour although without overt reference to the Pope.
This is likely a connotation Kanye intended along with others such as Picasso but has become more clear by this 2022 use of the word "Pablo" and the religious connotation is also in his tour name "Saint Pablo Tour".  Pope John Paul II was canonized as a saint on April 27, 2014 and is now known as Pope Saint John Paul II and this is likely why Kanye used the word "Saint" in the tour title Central16 (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
link to Daily Mail article with caption "Juxtaposition: The front of West's 'White Lives Matter' shirt appeared to show a collage of Pope Saint John Paul II with the bottom caption referring to him in Spanish as 'Juan Pablo II'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11294645/Kanye-West-wears-White-Lives-Matter-t-shirt-daughter-Norths-basketball-game-LA.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central16 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC) 
another article can also be referenced:
JUAN PABLO II WAS ON KANYE’S MIND LONG BEFORE WHITE LIVES MATTER SHIRT
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/04/juan-pablo-ii-was-on-kanyes-mind-long-before-white-lives-matter-shirt/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central16 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC) 

@Central16: The source you show me didn't mentioned the album one bit, you are just making up theories. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Look at what you don't complain about that already exists in the article:
By titling his album The Life of Pablo, West confused people as to which Pablo he was referencing with the title. Pablo Escobar, Pablo Neruda, Pablo Picasso and a child named Pablo who famously shouted his support of West for president at the 2015 VMAs were viewed as potential people referenced in the album's title
Kanye West has never mentioned the poet Pablo Naruda. Artists are often reluctant to explain their work, they may leave things out and keep people guessing. Later he mentioned Picasso and Pablo Escobar but not Pablo Naruda.
Here is another article which I have just added as reference, the title:
JUAN PABLO II WAS ON KANYE’S MIND LONG BEFORE WHITE LIVES MATTER SHIRT
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/04/juan-pablo-ii-was-on-kanyes-mind-long-before-white-lives-matter-shirt/
Thus if Pablo Naruda is going to be in the article Juan Pablo should also be in the article since Kanye wore a shirt with Juan Pablo, the Spanish transition of Pope Saint John Paul II and he called his tour "Saint Pablo Tour". I would be saying the same thing if the shirt had a picture of Pablo Naruda on it but it didn't.
You are simply biased toward one theory over the other and you want to censor the other. I say leave both Central16 (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Central16: I'm gonna ping @Binksternet: and @Kyle Peake: because you don't know what the heck are you taking about. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks like Central16 is violating WP:SYNTH by making connections not explicitly stated in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, we can't use Daily Mail because it is so unreliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
HERE IS A PICTURE OF KANYE WEARING HIS "JUAN PABLO II" shirt with "White Lives Matter " on the back.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11276339/Kanye-West-shocks-wearing-White-Lives-Matter-T-shirt-surprise-Yeezy-fashion-Paris.html
Here is a New York Times article:
There Is No Excuse for Ye’s ‘White Lives Matter’ Shirt
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/style/yeezy-kanye-west-paris-fashion-week.html
the article says: Except this leader was wearing an oversize shirt with a photo of Pope John Paul II and the words “Seguiremos tu ejemplo” (“We will follow your example”) on the front, and “White Lives Matter” on the back 
Pope John Paul II was made into a Saint by the Vatican in 2014. His proper title is Pope Saint John Paul II.
Kanye named his 2016 tour "Saint Pablo"
Central16 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely a WP:SYNTH violation, also the statement was made six years after the album came out; West's mind is obviously elsewhere by this point. --K. Peake 21:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Why isn't the mention of Pablo Naruda in the existing Wikipedia article a WP:SYNTH violation? Central16 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
As requested as of today November 10th, 2022 I have added the reference to to the end of the "Artwork and title" and mention this in the test, the article name:
Juan Pablo II Was on Kanye’s Mind Long Before White Lives Matter Shirthttps://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/04/juan-pablo-ii-was-on-kanyes-mind-long-before-white-lives-matter-shirt/ Central16 (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@Central16: You been told by Binksternet and Kyle Peake that you been violating WP:SYNTH, stop restoring your edits or you be blocked from editing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanutsSince they said that I have added a reference that says Juan Pablo II Was on Kanye’s Mind Long Before White Lives Matter Shirt.
That is an obvious connection to the title "Life of Pablo".  In addition the tour was called "Saint Pablo" which corresponds to the fact that Pope John Paul was sainted by the Vatican.
Meanwhile the poet Pablo Naruda and that has no connection at all, Kanye has never even mentioned Pablo Neruda over his whole career yet he is mentioned in this wiki.  You seem have a double standard The fact that you keep undoing the edit means do you have some other motive for undoing it, perhaps not liking the idea that the same shirt said "White Lives Matter " on the front as if that is some secret.
The whole universe knows about that and it is simply a fact about the shirt , that has this word "Pablo" on it. Central16 (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@Central16: Just because the shirt says "Pablo" doesn't mean it have anything to do with the album. You being delusional and we wasting time talking to you. Keep adding poorly sourced in the article, you will be blocked from editing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanutsNot only does the shirt say Pablo with a picture of the pope, Kanye West has many Christian themes in his music as well as calling his life of Pablo tour "Saint Pablo" and the pope, Juan Pablo II was made into a Saint by the Vatican. So we have two words of connection between Life of Pablo/Saint Pablo tour and Juan Pablo II (Pope Saint John Paul) and you can ask Kanye about this.  Furthermore you have a double standard. The poet Pablo Neruda is mentioned in this existing Artwork and title section for the album, yet he has ZERO connection to Kanye West. So it is hypocrisy to leave that in but the pope out and this suggests you have an ulterior motive for not wanting this obvious connection included. Central16 (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@Central16: What WP:SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. You clearly didn't read the guidelines. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanutsAgain, the wiki article as it stands now, Life of Pablo says this:
By titling his album The Life of Pablo, West confused people as to which Pablo he was referencing with the title. Pablo Escobar, Pablo Neruda, Pablo Picasso 
Kanye has never mentioned Pablo Neruda. My single source however, states this:
KANYE WEST’S 2016 ALBUM WAS NAMED AFTER JUAN PABLO II
Pope Juan Pablo II was also known by the name Pope John Paul. He was born in Poland and was Pope from 1978 until his death in 2005. He was later made a saint. Although many were surprised to see pictures of Pope Juan Pablo ll on Kanye’s shirt, the rapper had already named one of his albums The Life Of Pablo and recorded the track Saint Pablo. 
You have no argument.  You simply do not want people to know this. Everything bolded above is from this one article. Central16 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darthsungam (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Darthsungam (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Yeezus II has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § Yeezus II until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 07:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Yeezus 2 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 10 § Yeezus 2 until a consensus is reached.  CycloneYoris talk! 07:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)