Talk:Versus (EP)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleVersus (EP) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 21, 2012Good article nomineeListed

UK Bonus Track[edit]

UK music sites shows that a new song called 'Dirty Dancer' will also be on the deluxe edition of RVR for the UK, the song also features Enrique Iglesias http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/16041725/Raymond-v-Raymond/Product.html http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;0;-1;-1;-1&sku=220663 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.188.240 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Oppose Merge - - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into the Raymond v. Raymond article because this disc is the second disc in the deluxe packing of the album as well as being a stand alone EP. Usher has also said that it is the last chapter (an extension of Raymond v. Raymond). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that its good the way it is because there is both an extended play edition of the album and just a regular deluxe edition of Raymond v. Raymond. On the Raymond v. Raymond page it shows the deluxe edition cover and showcases on the track listing the deluxe edition version. Then the new page for the EP shows the the extended play edition. Though I am not against than merging I don't feel its necessary.ScottieAngelo (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the EP be bought separately? If not, then I will support the merge. If it can be bought separately, I will oppose it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward keeping since it is a standalone EP also. Candyo32 03:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The release was originally just a deluxe edition. However, as he did not want fans to have to rebuy the album, he put the deluxe tracks on an EP as well. Similar to waht Beyonce did with the re-released deluxe edition of I Am... Sasha Fierce. The Ep is included on the a;lbum page. On the other hand, Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster was originally released as an Ep and had its own page. For now it should be merged. It achieves any chart significance, then maybe it can get a page.--Drake&Ciara Fan (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was never officially stated that it would be a deluxe, the deluxe and EP were announced at the same time. And Sasha Fierce can't be compared, she didn't have an EP with separate songs. Candyo32 17:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The added songs for the deluxe edition are the same ones from the EP, look at the sources for the tracklists on both pages. And, yes Beyonce did. She released an EP which featured "Video Phone (extended Mix), "Why Dont You Love Me", and "Poison", on November 23, 2009, the same day as the re-relased deluxe edition. They were also the bonus tracks for the deluxe and it is merged into the album page. (Look at tracklist and release history sections of the album page) --Drake&Ciara Fan (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Beyonce's was just a simple digital EP, which are released all the time for example when artists want to release multiple remixes at a time. However Versus is also a physical EP, and is virtually on a bigger scale than the EP Beyonce released digitally. The Beyonce EP had no singles and was only three tracks, this is why it was merged with the album page -- it was only three songs. Versus has two singles, and is nine tracks long. It will get full coverage mostly an album in itself, unlike the simple, almost unnoticed Sasha Fierce EP. The two are incomparable. Candyo32 00:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Candy I am a big Beyonce fan and never heard of the EP.ScottieAngelo (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I think the page should be left alone. However, if it fails to chart after its release, then it can be redirected.--Drake&Ciara Fan (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it is going to chart it because it is a retail EP. Like I said before this EP is like My World (EP), it is considered more of an album, and cannot be compared to the small three-song EP that Beyonce released on iTunes. Candyo32 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. give it a new page if it is nominated for some awards or if it receives some recognition from the charts and critics. Snoop Dogg's More Malice is included on his Malice N Wonderland page even tho it was a full album succeeding malice n wonderland13:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.66.8 (talk)

I still think everything is good the way it is.ScottieAngelo (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven original tracks, which is nearly the size of a small studio album. I expect there will be professional critical commentary and commercial response. If, after several months, there is a lack of reliable sources and the article has no hope of growing to a decent size, then bring up another merge discussion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snoop Dogg's More Malice had 10 tracks and it was merged from day 1. Jay-Z's BP Collector's Edition which consisted of BP1 n BP2 was merged with BP1 altho it was a standalone album (30-40 tracks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.66.8 (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Versus" is a standalone extended play and not the part or re-release of Raymond v. Raymond and should be keeped as a separate page on Wikipedia. Also it is a redirection page for the second single from "Versus (EP)", which features Jay-Z, "Hot Tottie" (Still not sure about the correct name, is it "Hot Tottie" or "Hot Toddy"?) Jowkoul {talk} 14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a standalone extended play, but is also the second disc for the re-release of RvR. Candyo32 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Fame Monster. It has it's own article, so why can't this? ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official web site of Usher states (http://www.usherworld.com/) that Usher will release 1 SEPARATE EP AND RE-RELEASE OF RvR on August 24. As ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT suggested, this is the same thing that happened last year with Lady GaGas The Fame Monstwer and The Fame (she released a separate ep that charted at #5 on the Billboard 200 and re-released The Fame with some bonus tracks and The Fame Monster, called The Fame (Super Deluxe Edition). Jowkoul {talk} 18:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Fame Monster is indeed an EP, it is just not noted on the page because obsessive fans refused to allow it due to Gaga referring to it as an "album" once. Candyo32 14:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm against the merge. Look how much is already is on this page, it will have to be condensed hugely if merged. Plus, Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster is an EP, but it has it's on page. I strongly advise to leave this page as it is. It will looked messy and confusing if merged as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not to, because Versus has its OWN standalone release, not like what was originally going to happen on The Fame Monster which would not be a standalone release.Brownchild1995 (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like a lot of other people have said: if it can be standalone bought, then it should have its own page. Since it has been included into a deluxe re-release of Raymond v. Raymond, rather than merging the pages, there should simply be a note on the original album page metioning the album re-release/subsequent standalone release of the EP (which there already is). I also agree with Calvin999 - there is already a vast amount of information about Versus, and merging the two articles together to a single article would either be overly messy and long, or would require extreme information condensing. SunsetFlare (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


OPPOSE MERGE. I'm against it because it had it's own history and conception which is completely separate to R vs R. It has it's own different track list. It's basically the same as Gaga's The Fame and The Fame Monster yet they weren't merged. Just leave it as it is because if it is merged, it will cut out too much important information and the R vs R page will be too cramped. If it was just a release of R vs R (like Leona did with Spirit), I'd say merge, but it's a completely separate project. OPPOSE MERGE. calvin999 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it! Lady Gaga the Fame monster is not an EP!!!!!!! it's a standalone album! Versus is a EP! just like Rihanna's Good Girl Gone Bad EP! It' should be merged because it's apart of Raymond v Raymond! bluemagic7 3:04, 24 September 2010

Oppose this amateurish puffery. Support SunsetFlare's previous comment. It was catalogued, released, and received (sales, reviews) as an individual album/EP, and there is enough information in its article to warrant a seperate article for it. Dan56 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As aforementioned, it is a independent record. It has it's own tracklisting and does not contain any of the tracks of raymond v. raymond, nor is it released together with it (as a re-release). It is a stand-alone record that is not affiliated with his latest lp in any ways. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reviews[edit]

Reviews are general and it does not need to say some "this" or some "that". It received mostly positive reviews and should say just that. Please discuss. Very few reviews were negative for the pop songs. Added material is not needed.Harmony and Faith (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just say "reviews were positive." It's appropriate to point out what critics said, and one thing many critics pointed out were their disappointment with some of the pop efforts. NOTE: this does not mean that they disapproved of all of them. But we have to use WP:NPOV and go by what they said, not what we want them to say. Candyo32 23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the GA article, Ready (Trey Songz album) received positive reviews, but the lead notes that some critics said it was inconsistent. Candyo32 23:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting article[edit]

With the amount of poor edits done by unregistered users, I think that the article should be protected to prevent further harm, anyone with me? Rayman95 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already requested it. Candyo32 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thenRayman95 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Versus (EP)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Info box[edit]

  • No issues.

Lead[edit]

  • No need for three paragraphs here. Two will suffice.  Done
  • Instead of citing that it is his first extended play in the lead, also write it and then cite it instead in the Background and composition section.  Done
  • Link "Lay You Down" in the second paragraph.  Done

Background and composition[edit]

Release and promotion[edit]

  • No issues.

Release and promotion - Singles[edit]

  • Songs, writers and featured artists should not be linked a second time, as they have already been linked in the two previous sections.  Done

Release and promotion - Tour[edit]

  • No issues.

Reception[edit]

  • No issues across any of the three sub sections.

Track listing[edit]

  • No issues.

Credits and personnel[edit]

  • No issues.

Charts[edit]

  • I've done a slight c/e of this section. Thanks!

Release history[edit]

  • You need to add a last column for the record label for that country that Usher is signed to.  Done

References[edit]

  • There is overlinking. Only the work and parameter, for example Billboard, in the first citation in the article. All proceeding that first one should not be linked.  Done

Summary[edit]

Good job, on hold for 7 days.

Thanks for the review, I think all the issues have been addressed.
Passing :-) Aaron • You Da One 10:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Versus (EP). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Versus_(EP)&oldid=1211553454"