Talk:Black Panther (soundtrack)

Addition of writing and producer credits for the Kendrick album

ALL of this information needs to be sourced if it is wished to be added. Jimmio78 keeps attempting to add this info with the following sources: the track listing on iTunes, a Tidal link for All the Stars and a Tidal link for King's Dead. Not only are the Tidal links for only 2 of the tracks, there are no writing or producer credits anywhere on those links. Additionally, the iTunes link (which has since been included to source song times) also does not show writer or producer credits. Thus, all of these attempts still has not solved the issue at hand. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are not personally familiar with how we use TIDAL as a source for writing and production credits on articles for albums, but on the website you can click the additional information button and it will list out all the personnel involved. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

GodsPlaaaaan I do see that now. But it is very difficult to find that info and/or know where it is, as evident by my continued removal of it. If the info get's added, it needs to better sourced directly (ie specifically on the writers and producers). I will attempt to format this on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

See this edit for including the writing/producing credits for the three released songs. Order and naming formats pulled directly from how they appear on Tidal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire list of additional credits reeks of WP:INDISCRIMINATE details that are of no encyclopedic value to the lay reader. I can’t think of any of other project film or TV where we list the entire production credits.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree with this as well. I'm going to remove. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Personal talks about including this, but I don't know why you would, for the reasons you stated Triiiple. It doesn't make sense to me, as it goes against policy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't seem right. Perhaps we should invite WP:ALBUM here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems more like a project discussion, rather than a "Black Panther Album" discussion. I'll start a discussion over on their project talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the discussion at the talk of MOS:ALBUM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It is clear you are not familiar with album pages, as this is at the intersection of WP:ALBUM and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, this personnel section is the norm for albums of this kind, and must be included. It contains valuable information into the album, and even in a project with large sections like this, is still SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than a similar such list would be for a film production. Jimmio78 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The guideline states "only report musical and technical personnel who had some direct involvement in the creation of the recording or artwork itself", the previous list went well beyond that. I would be okay with reinstating the list if it were limited to this and did not repeat information already given in the table.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

this personnel section is the norm for albums of this kind, and must be included Nothing is ever a "must" with anything. Also, part of the point that Triiiple and I had with this is you would not have any type of list like this for a film production, listing all the crew who worked on the project. But per the discussion taking place at MOS:ALBUM talk, there seems to be some feeling to include SOME of this info: namely that that isn't already repeated in the track list table, and the info that is completely irrelevant to the average reader (ie the publicist). For this album, the liner notes are available online, so if a reader had this interest, they can follow the link to find the info themselves. Potentially the info as it was in this edit, with musicians, and maybe some notable people from the technical heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Score split

The following discussion 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.

---

I'm suggesting that this article, which is currently about two separate albums, to be split into two articles. The Kendrick Lamar/TDE album, Black Panther: The Album, stays under the article name Black Panther (soundtrack) (since it's the soundtrack album) and the Ludwig Göransson composed film score, Black Panther (Original Score), be split into a new article titled Black Panther (film score). The Black Panther soundtrack album has garnered a lot of attention beyond what usual soundtrack albums do because of the artists involved, with Billboard even calling it this year's second "event album" following Culture II. The infobox also clutters with the track list, not giving enough space for the article's content. There also seems to be a lot of editors who don't usually edit album articles trying to 'fix' the Kendrick Lamar section of the album, causing a lot of different revisions that aren't consistent with other album articles. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC) (Striked out on 1 March 2018, see below)

Oppose The Guardians of the Galaxy: Awesome Mix Vol. 1 soundtrack got just as much press attention as Black Panther The Album and yet the Guardians of the Galaxy (soundtrack) article seems to be doing fine covering both the soundtrack and Tyler Bates' score. I don't see a need to split the Black Panther soundtrack article. - Richiekim (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Richiekim. Album articles do not need to be cookie-cutter across Wikipedia. They should adapt as each situation presents itself. In this case, in regards to the albums for MCU films, for films with both the concept album and score in one article has proven to be fine, and avoids two smaller article that most likely would need to be merged together eventually. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Support The two albums share no information except for their connection to Black Panther, and thus making them share a page creates a cluttered and confusing article. I also wholeheartedly agree that editors not experienced with album pages are causing a plethora of issues with their editing. However, I think the Kendrick Lamar album should be moved to Black Panther The Album Music from and Inspired By, with the score remaining on the current page, as per the titles of each release. - Jimmio78 (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The connection to the film is precisely why keeping them together is a good idea. Same as The Avengers (soundtrack), Guardians of the Galaxy (soundtrack) and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (soundtrack). The GotG Vol. 2 page is probably the best comparison to this article in what it currently is and will be, and there is not problem with that one. The film score too is not going to have nearly enough info as the Album does to warrant its own article, it would be nothing more than a stub. Also I also wholeheartedly agree that editors not experienced with album pages are causing a plethora of issues with their editing is a very WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT statement to say. We're all here trying to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. And frankly some of this thought of being rigid to a fault to what has worked for previous articles is a little concerning. Those can obviously be helpful guides to new articles along with the MOS, but they then don't have to be slave to that if another, more beneficial formatting can work better for the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"The two albums share no information except for their connection to Black Panther" - Except for the fact that Goransson worked closely with Lamar to ensure that his score meshed well together with the original songs. Also, to use a non MCU example, 8 Mile: Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture contains info on a second album, More Music from 8 Mile. You could make the same argument that the two albums share no connection except for the film and should be split. - Richiekim (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Richiekim. This functions just fine for existing articles such as the soundtracks to Iron Man 2 (2010) and The Avengers (2012). A split is unnecessary. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 10:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support, I absolutely loathe Wikipedia's obsession of having a few articles as possible for no conceivable good reason. This just leads to forcing two subjects into the same article for, common sense be damned. Claiminging something is "just fine" is not good enough.★Trekker (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Support, This article is disorganized with two separate albums on the same article, there needs to be a split. JE98 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support, this article is already basically two articles in one. There is enough information on this page for it to be split into two pages as Black Panther (soundtrack) and Black Panther (film score). Offthebridge (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There actually isn't. Take away the infoboxes, track lists and the "additional credits" for The Album, and the remaining info, for both albums, is stub article materials. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, based on the arguments made above and there is not enough material for the film score to have its own page. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2018 (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.

Notice

I have been working on a much expanded and re-organised version of this article in my sandbox. I am almost done with the work I am doing over there, and so will be looking to move the new version of the article here soon. I just thought I would leave a note about it first so that anybody watching the article isn't taken by surprise. Once the change has been made, I am of course happy to discuss any concerns that people have with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Glancing over your sandbox, I fully support the impending update. Good work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jimmio78: The reason I am against the changes you made, is that I don't think this should be an album article, so to speak. Perhaps there should be an actual album article for Black Panther: The Album, and that can be discussed (again) if you want to. But when dealing with music for a film I don't think it makes sense to look at it in terms of the album release. The creation of the music for the film is much more significant than the way it happened to be released independently for a niche market to enjoy. That is why I have structured this article to be about the music, not the albums, with the album releases mentioned in a release section. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I'm not TOO fussed about the structural changes. We could go back and forth on it all day but I don't see the point. However, the changes you have made to the infoboxes and track listing aren't really necessary, with information removed from both, as well as overlinking in the track listing. Also it doesn't really make sense to me for the track listings to be in the release section? I think you might be right that it could be a good idea to have a separate album for the soundtrack album. Jimmio78 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed all that content from the infobox because it was unsourced, and the track listing in the release section is because that is where the actual albums were discussed. I think this definitely makes sense for an article about a film score, because the track listing is only a selection from the score itself and can differ between different album releases. However, a more traditional album release works differently which is why combining the two here may not be the best approach. I will split the version in my sandbox into separate soundtrack and film score articles so we can see what that will look like. I'll link to it from here once I'm done. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a rough idea of what two separate articles might look like (just a quick split, so don't get too caught up on the details). Personally, I prefer the combined version since it is all part of the same soundtrack, but perhaps we should have another RFC? - adamstom97 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That looks like it could work. For now I'm going to restore the infobox and track listing to how it was (all this information is sourced from the digital booklet).Jimmio78 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jimmio78: You keep reverting parts of the page to the bad version from before I made my change. Saying you want to avoid edit warring and then trying your best to start an edit war really isn't helping. What we need is for more opinions on this, and the easiest thing is going to be having one version of the article that is my preferred version, one that is yours, and one that gives people an idea of a potential split. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Remix

@Favre1fan93: the reason I did not put the remix album where you have moved it is that its production is not covered in the main part of the body, so it doesn't make sense to me to put it in the release section for the actual soundtrack. Also, it is not actually part of the film's soundtrack it is just inspired by it. The reason it belongs here at all is because it is obviously based on the score, but I don't think that is enough of a connection to justify putting it there. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I see what you mean. I've moved it back to where it was, but adjusted how you had the headings etc. to simply it. I'm also curious if it would be better to place the Remixed album cover in the score infobox with the {{Extra album cover}} template. Even as I type this, I'm thinking not, because it should be more with the section, than all the way at the top of the article where there isn't any info about it until the very end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am leaning towards no as well, mostly because it is not a full album and is not a release of the actual soundtrack or score. I think it works well being down in the section as it is at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This should absolutely be two articles

I read the previous debate about splitting this into two separate entries, and this article has been expanded since then. I can't think of any reason this should be one article. It's two very different collections of music; I do not want the score if I'm looking for the soundtrack. I also don't know very much about wikipedia's mechanics (as far as templates and markup) so I'm just leaving a comment here in the hopes someone else will see this. 130.45.43.153 (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I would support a split proposal if it were brought up again. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I passed this at GA, with the thought it could be two articles in mind but without commenting this, because reading it all intensely shows a cohesive connection between the two developmentally and thematically. I would probably still support a split on the searchability and separate albums and release grounds, but I don't feel it needs to be split and that the article is truly good containing both sets of information, which are related well. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Kingsif, and for the GA review as well. These are my thoughts on the article as well -- I can see clear benefits from making the split, but I also believe the content works really well as one article currently. Because of this, I don't think I will support a split unless there is a clear appetite for one from the community. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unofficial remix

An unofficial mixtape titled "Wakanda ForeverEver" by J.Period was included on the article. It cites two sources, from Vibe and DJBooth. Though it exists, I don't think it has enough notability to merit inclusion. I believe it should be removed per WP:UNDUE. The track list on the article also has stylizations not consistent with other album articles. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who added the information in the first place, I believe that the soundtrack being unofficial is irrelevant if it is otherwise noteworthy, which I also believe is the case here given there is enough production and reception information to make up a decent sized section. The remix also features one of the actors from the film (providing new material), which is pretty noteworthy. The track list is copied from the sources provided. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: You have removed established content from the article without consensus, ignored my reply to this discussion that you reluctantly started, and now you are edit warring over the content. Please be reasonable. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The onus is on your to reach consensus for inclusion. Consensus isn't between just us. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, this was established content in the article. The onus is on you to gain consensus for your WP:BOLD removal of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Where was there consensus to include this content? Also, I was quoting WP:ONUS. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If sourced, well written content is accepted in an article for months and then one editor decides they don't like it, there is inherent consensus that should not just be ignored. Yes, there may be consensus to remove it at the end of this discussion, but there is not yet. And I am not "seeking to include disputed content", I am defending existing content from an editor who boldly seeks to remove it without discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

How is it "without discussion" if I started this talk page discussion? Yes, being unofficial is irrelevant to inclusion, I agree. But I don't think having one of the actors makes it noteworthy. I'd support maybe including it without the cover art and track listing. Maybe instead just a paragraph or two under a subsection? I would agree though, it would be wrong for me to make a bold removal after the content was in the article for months. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with pretty much everything N4W says above. Adamstom should not be edit-warring this content back in without consensus, and especially egregious is the comment You have removed established content from the article without consensus, which turns WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS upside-down. Yes, I know the exact wording of BURDEN says it's about "unsourced" content, and not having checked the sources I can't say for certain that that is the case here, but the spirit of the policy is that the burden is always on the party wishing to include the content, and cannot be shifted onto the party seeking to remove the content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ludwig Göransson 2019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sound on Sound

To add later: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/inside-track-kendrick-lamar-black-panther-all-stars --Dignitee (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)