Talk:Views (album)

Requested move 4 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved no need as both "from" and "From" exist and they're both redirects. Although from was a double-redirect. Fixed the double-redirect. As such, there is no need for this move. Rather, if anything, Views From the 6 should be deleted per the discussion below, in favor of Views from the 6 which also exists. HOWEVER that is also inappropriate since that contains necessary history as the content of BOTH "from" and "From" was merged into the redirect target of Drake (rapper). (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Views From the 6 → Views from the 6 – 'from' should not be capitalised. Unreal7 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CT: Prepositions with four or less letters should be lowercased. Darkday (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016

Hi, their called cubeatz, not cuebeatz :) Unreeel99 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Possible Tracks"

Please provide sources if you are going to post "possible tracks". Apart from "Summer Sixteen", the recently leaked tracks ("Controlla", "Faithful" and "Tell Me"), and the previously released"Can I" (purported to be from views); there is no indication that these tracks being posted in the possible tracks section exist. Various fake track lists exist on the internet, so please do not post these either unless they can be verified as real. 31.51.249.74 (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). — SSTflyer 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Views (album) → VIEWS (album) – The album cover name is all in capitals from his twitter announcement & all blogs have used the name 'VIEWS' in capitals. – ZupaaHD (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Current capitalisation appears to be correct by our house style, this will need further discussion before it goes through.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, this isn't an acronym, and really given the album by Pekka Pohjola this should be Views (Drake album) by WP:NCM. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization (MOS:CAPS). Avoid writing with all capitals, including small caps, when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to one of the other title cases or normal case, as appropriate (MOS:ALLCAPS). Instead of requesting a page move, I would recommend writing "Views (stylized as VIEWS) is the upcoming fourth studio album by Canadian rapper Drake." CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 22:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even sure "stylized as VIEWS" is needed until proven in print WP:RS. Reliable sources usually dispense with the SHOUTING of record company promo material. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I agree with your notion. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 14:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016

Track 14 (Child's Play) erroneously lists Metro Boomin as a producer.

Proof: https://www.instagram.com/p/BEw0F_YDQLM/ Efco1 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Already done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016

The artist "Kyla" linked within the article is not the artist "Kyla" whom is sampled by Drake on the album. This link should be changed/removed. Tawneymassive (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016

"Child's Play" contains samples of "Rode That D**k Like A Soldier" by Ha-Sizzle

Proof:

Child's Play (Sample at 2:02): https://itun.es/us/RYFfcb?i=1108737282
Rode That: https://play.spotify.com/track/06iJTb6BxQ48s8ySwyguPI

I'm unsure of the rules surrounding profanity, so I edited the sampled track title. Efco1 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016

Track 14-Childs Play, Sample featured is Gotti Boy Chris-She rode it like a soldier 159.153.146.63 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hotline Bling" as bonus track

Do any editors other than SmithN41V object to the labeling of "Hotline Bling" as a bonus track, as supported by Billboard, Forbes, Fuse, and the album packaging?

SmithN41V's rationale (per this edit) is that there is no version of the album without this song. I'm not exactly sure how that's relevant. If the artist (or record company) makes it a point to label a song as a bonus, there is no reason to withhold this information from readers. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging SNUGGUMS, IndianBio, SnapSnap, Livelikemusic, and Ilovechristianmusic for comment. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No objection at all, especially when Drake himself said it was a bonus track. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I don't even understand SmithN's rationale, its as clear as daylight. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chasewc91:, do you have the album? If so how does it show on the track list of the CD/cassette? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't own the album, but the back cover (visible here; also tweeted by Drake in a link posted earlier in this section) has "(bonus)" by the name of the song. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The back cover says it a bonus track along with reliable sources and with Drake himself saying that it's a bonus track. I don't have any issues with it being listed as a bonus track. ilovemusic ^{(Talk To Me!)} 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So its clear, please revert SmithN's edit back to how it was listed as bonus track. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be listed as a bonus track in the track listing, per the back cover and other reliable sources. For odd reasons, sometimes songs are labeled as bonus tracks even if that song is available on every edition of its parent album. snαp • snαp ^(talk) 23:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

If we do note that it's a bonus track, shouldn't we also note that all versions of the album contain the song (I believe this to be the case, anyway). Otherwise, people might assume only certain versions of the album contain the song. Calidum ¤ 23:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one, honestly. It appears that the physical edition of the album includes "Bonus" as its title but, on the iTunes Store it does not label it as a bonus. Maybe label it in a hidden note as a "Bonus track", or something? Because it's not like it's an exclusive bonus for selected territories, etc. livelikemusic talk! 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hidden notes are only for editors, not readers. It will have the same effect as excluding the information from the article. Also, iTunes generally lacks many features such as producer credits, hidden track notes (since it's virtually impossible to "hide" a track on iTunes), etc. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You're mis-understand my choice of words, hidden note was probably not the right term I was speaking of; I was speaking of a note like where it's noted of the additional producers, etc. A ref note. livelikemusic talk! 14:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Calidum: What if the note by the track said "bonus track on all versions of the album" or something similar? Chase (talk | contributions) 01:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Something along those lines would work. Calidum ¤ 02:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Calidum's compromise, you could say bonus track but add a note about the track underneath? -- contributions)16:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You could also state that "Hotline Bling" is a bonus track on all versions of the album under the notes section in the track listing. ilovemusic ^{(Talk To Me!)} 17:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2016

"Controlla" will impact US rhythmic contemporary radio on June 7, 2016, as the fourth single in North America. 99.57.170.190 (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted your change GentleCollapse16. There are also at least four sources who've described the reception as being "lukewarm": XXL, Noisey, Star Pulse, and most significantly MTV, whose article is cited in Views (album)#Critical reception and is a fairly fleshed out critique of the criticism toward the album, making it the better source on this particular topic. IMO, "lukewarm" can be reconciled with Metacritic's score (and "generally favorable reviews" calculation) more so than "mixed" can. Dan56 (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, that revision had been made multiple times by an editor who also vandalized all the review scores to look falsely positive, so I just reverted it, didn't realize there was another person reasoning that change. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception

Why "lukewarm reviews", isn't Metacritic the main source for this one, specially being a recent album? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lots of songs charted... are any others notable?

I see on Drake's discography page that many songs from the album charted in several nations. I realize not all songs that chart are inherently notable, but are there others on this album that editors think meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see the notability criteria modified. We have way too much wasted space on WP on songs and albums that should not be here. Think about it - there is a Hot 200 chart, do 200 songs really articles? And there are countless amounts of charts created by every organization in the industry. There are even hundreds of awards organization.

So, if you ask me, NO, there are not any other songs (as of today) from this album that need their own article. Kellymoat (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but some of the songs have charted in nearly 10 nations, if not more (the discography only displays charting for 10 countries). I would just think some of these songs may have enough press coverage, too, but I won't press on creating new articles unless there is some buy-in from other editors. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Track listing

What exactly is the difference between the CD and the digital download version? They both seem identical, with minor song length differences. Is it really that different and worth making a separate section? Personally I have not heard the CD version, so can anyone verify this? -- 129.78.56.199 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: You added the CD version in the first place, care to explain why it's there? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Several song lengths are different and the total length is over a minute shorter. The CD and digital versions are not the same length so the differences should be pointed out.

I originally tried to list the CD & digital lengths in the main track listing template but some editor chose to remove it. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: If you wandering who removed the CD & digital lengths from the main track listing template, it was me. I removed it back in March, I didn't know it was you who added those lengths in. I reason was I thought those extra lengths was unnecessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to keep information out of the article that conveys additional information to the reader... Chase (talk | contributions) 05:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: Most editors don't generally add extra lengths in the track listing template that way, that's why I removed it. Most editors usually add another track listing template, like you did the last time here, in which in my opinion, think it was much better. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't really answers the original poster's question/concern. I think they meant if anyone actually know the difference? Like are they different mixes, etc... Also, where did the source for the song lengths (for the CD version) come from? On the source listed, it does not states the song lengths. 2001:8003:210E:B700:75E5:4239:1B36:6C81 (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Cornerstonepicker:, @Jennica: and @Ss112: in this discussion concerning about the track listing lengths. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The way is it right now is ok. this version is not consistent with other articles. I believe this is the first case of two different lenghts. IMO in this case we should prioritize the digital version, as this album has been mostly consumed via streaming services and digital. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Model it like Damn (album). Digital and CD in the infobox. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree both should be in the infobox, while the digital version should be the first presented in the Track listing section, like the current version. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: @Cornerstonepicker: Agreed with both of you. Both the digital and CD versions should be in the infobox. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere how the digital download and the CD versions differ? 2001:8003:210E:B700:79FC:3716:3E66:E0C8 (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not if that information is not discussed in reliable sources. If nobody talks about it, then it's not important enough to tell our readers. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet: If "nobody talks about it", "it's not important enough", and the source is not reliable, shouldn't it just be removed completely? 2001:8003:210E:B700:C807:5B50:AB84:76CB (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I would remove one of the two track lists, if other editors are okay with that. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I okay with it, that's up to Chasewc91, because he added that track list in the first place. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: What makes you say that? How is it up to Chasewc91? Just because (s)he added it, doesn't mean they get any priority in it. The source appear to be unreliable and it also appears to be irrelevant. If majority of the users agree, it should be removed. 2001:8003:210E:B700:5523:984C:171D:8BFB (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Jennica: and @Cornerstonepicker: again, do the extra track listing lengths should be removed? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The CD tracklist is linked to Amazon.com, it counts as reliable source. Btw, no music publication cared enough to talk about the difference, so it shouldn't be in prose. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Amazon may be reliable, but in this case, I think not. The main problem is that the source (Amazon) does not cite the length of the songs, which the whole point of this removal, or keep is. 2001:8003:210E:B700:5C0F:9277:85B8:E423 (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Replaced with AllMusic. The difference between CD & digital versions is that the lengths of several songs are cut to fit on the CD, while "One Dance" has an outro not present on digital versions. Chase (talk | contributions) 13:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Not enough consensus or evidence to to declare this album the primary topic of this word. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Views (album) → Views – This is the only article with this title. This album has won several awards, and was nominated for even more. The album topped over 10 charts, and broke the record for most songs on the Billboard Hot 100, simultaneously. Suffice to say, this is the primary topic. Tree Critter (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• oppose In no way is this the primary topic—blindlynx 10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Why not? Could you please explain your reasoning? Tree Critter (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• It is a common word with a number of different frequently used meanings, therefor it is highly unlikely that readers looking for 'veiws' meet the much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined of WP:PTOPIC—blindlynx 18:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. WP:PLURALPT provides a thorough discussion of the issues at play here. Within that guideline, I think the most pertinent passage is: if there is not an article at the singular form [of a word], it is more likely that a plural form can establish a separate primary topic. View is a disambiguation page rather than an article, suggesting that there's a strong case to move the album to the bare title of Views. Additionally, as the nominator notes, the album's article is currently the only article to have the plural title "Views", so WP:SMALLDETAILS favors this move as well. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:blindlynx above. "Views" is indeed quite "a common word with a number of different frequently used meanings", and I agree that readers searching for "views" might not be looking for the album "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" as stated by WP:PTOPIC. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose multiple topics at view (disambiguation) are much more likely than this album -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  None of them are named Views! This has nothing to do with the singular version of the word. Tree Critter (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's your personal opinion. On the face of it, the album would be an WP:ASTONISHing destination, considering the choices. If the term can be pluralized, the choice in using singular or plural is merely the convention of the encyclopedia, and not a specific indication that the plural form is not used or not common. Look at the naming standards for categories on Wikipedia, which by default use plural forms. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The common plural form "views" should simply go to the same place as "view", just like doors goes to door, etc. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose there is View (Buddhism) as least with the same title but some of the others are probably known as "view(s)" though the album gets the most views(!)[[1]] Pageview is called "view(s)" as we are discussing it now!. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PLURALPT and WP:NOTADICTIONARY. View itself is a dab page, and not much more than a dictdef. This article is a plural form, and thus can make its own primarytopic - here, this article is the only encyclopedic use of "views" on WP. Put the two together, and you have an excellent primarytopic argument. Dohn joe (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  View is indeed a DAB because it doesn't have a primary topic and while the likes of Opinion may be a DICDEF entry View (Buddhism) is qualified and Pageview is commonly called "view(s)" as we're discussing here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This common word should obviously continue to redirect to View. How many people would seriously primarily associate this word with the album? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.