Talk:Bitches Ain't Shit

message: You have recently reverted an edit done by me on this article. I would like to know whether the act of reverting my edit was right or wrong. As of now, I still stands on the point that my edit was correct. Just check the link number 8 last 2 lines. You will be able to see that there is an opening and closing bracket present which can be removed only by implementing my edit. Please reconsider your edit. Adithyak1997 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As the present version's main author [diff (before–after)], I've seen this seeming fix incidentally done before [diff (earlier unbracketing)], and promptly undone it then, too, even while granting other formatting fixes that were due [diff (restoring brackets)]. In sum, I created the present note #8 not as a citation, but as an elaboration, rather, that in turn merely contains a citation, bracketed. The bulk of the note's content predates my edits, though. I found it, specifically, in a dedicated section that listed putative "Bitches Ain't Shit" covers and remakes. After trimming the section [diff (trimming §)], I soon deleted the section [diff (deleting §)]. Later reclaiming the trimmed content, I made it into a note [diff (reusing §)]. Soon, I added to it the claim—and cited the claim—that the song had been sampled over 40 times by 2020 [diff (adding to note)].  The opening bracket opens the contained citation, and the closing bracket closes the contained citation, altogether like going, "This here claim calls for a citation, which I impart right now ['Title', Publisher, Date]." — Occurring (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

text: To prevent repeated confusion about the brackets, I've rephrased the note to dispel brackets [diff]. — Occurring (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted an edit 

message: I was thinking, would it be a good idea if small audio samples of both Dre's version and Ben's version were added to the article so that readers could easily compare both versions? Like, people could listen to the first verse of the original song as performed by Dre (I used to know a bitch named Eric Wright) and listen to it's bass/synth heavy backing and then also be able to hear the same verse as performed by Ben, which is more alt-rock/piano driven.
--PeteStacman24 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That idea may be good somewhere. Yet I think it exceeds this encyclopedia article's scope, mainly the original. Although some music listeners were unfamiliar with the original's massive influence on rap, R&B, popular music, and American culture, the original was far more influential than was the cover. And although only the cover charted on the Billboard Hot 100, it so charted probably via the original's underground popularity. If this article were mainly about the cover—since the original had been comparatively insignificant—then I think it could be more warranted to craft and insert into the Wikipedia article a direct, audio comparison. Anyhow, the Dre version, linked to above, is authorized and is already linked to in the article, whereas the Folds version, linked to above, is unauthorized and thus unusable here, while Folds has reportedly sought to terminate the cover's streaming availability. If there were an acceptable, secondary source that itself made the direct, audio comparison, then I think it would be due to cite that source. — Occurring (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I've added a note, sourcing as well as, or at least as legally as, I could while respecting intellectual property, to partly integrate your above idea.  If you see some flaws in this, I suggest simply editing as you see fit.  Most likely, the editing process with clear edit summaries will refine it smoothly enough.  Anyhow, the note is #158 in the 11:03 10 Aug 2021 version — Occurring (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

text: PeteStacman24, as the article's coverage expanded, I think your above idea became due. Accordingly, I've added subsection "Composition" with explanatory notes to compare the versions, rap versus rock.  Yet as to direct audio comparison, I still don't know of the rock version being available free literally legally, much less with a means to go directly to time marks. — Occurring (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of small music samples 

message: As the main author, I had put Ice T, if originally hyphenated, in the text last year, but maybe yesterday removed the hyphen.  I had recently cited Wire's July 1996 issue, where Ice T is interviewed while both the cover and the article title lack hyphen. In fact, his own website's homepage has its header—or whatever it's called when one hovers the mouse over the browser's tab and then some descriptive text about the webpage appears over the tab—include the hyphen, yet the homepage itself has no hyphen.  Bold letters colored gold, the ICE T there is declarative, and though a graphic, not so stylized as lacking hyphen by necessity.  If a hyphen were wanted, then there would a hyphen.
The Source's April 1996 cover emblazons ICE T, no hyphen, and the May 1991 types Ice T, no hyphen. AllMusic lists 10 album entries: the 1992 not shown, 1989 and 2006 cover images may lack his name, while three hyphenate, namely, 1988, 1991, and 1993, whereas four don't, 1987, 1996, 1998, and 1999. No hyphen, his debut or 1987 has ICE vertical above horizontal T—ambiguous intent—yet the cassette edition has ICE T fully horizontal, still no hyphen. Ironically, that cassette liner has Ice-T, hyphenated, aside from the cover image. But the 2002 album Ice T Presents Westside lacks hyphen. I side with the sources and aesthetic without hyphen. — Occurring (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Wikipedia article is titled Ice-T, so I've hyphenated it again. It seems like the other sources mentioned above stylize Ice-T's name; according to MOS:TMRULES, these stylizations ought to be given less weight in matters like this. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ice T'' or ''Ice-T'': To hyphenate or not? 

message: What happened to this article? It's ridiculously overlong and pedantic relative to the subject and the explanatory notes seem like they're twice as long as the main section. Looking over the history it seems to be the fairly recent work of one editor, and the article certainly reads that way too. Maybe older versions were too short, but this is overkill. 2600:8801:710E:7E00:1462:3C27:7F0F:12BE (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also written by someone who clearly can't write. I mean, geezus. 2A01:C22:8C96:8F00:D31:E6C:76F:15D7 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of control