Talk:Dreams Worth More Than Money

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I Like It ft. Mac Miller

Not confirmed to be on the album. It was leaked by Betrayl, who's known to leak old Meek Mill songs and post them as if they were new. Confirmed leaked by Betrayl because the SoundCloud it was uploaded to also premiered a new Wale song where Betrayl yells out his name in the beginning. The Wale song was later removed, probably because it was too obvious. Distortiondude (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced "lead singles"

Yes, Mill released two singles six months ago. This does not mean they will be on this album. Adding a hidden note stating they are "lead singles" does not mean they will be on this album. Reliable sources, however, will verifiably show that the songs will be on the album. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When an artist releases singles and says specifically that they're on the album, you can't just delete them because some time has passed. Is it possible that they won't be on the album? Of course, literally anything can happen when Meek is released from prison. But there have been zero reports that the singles will no longer be on the album. You can't just delete them because you have a hunch, the last time the two songs has been mentioned they were still on the album. Until Meek or a representative from MMG says themselves that they've been cut, you can't just delete them. You can't just alter something because you THINK something might happen, nobody can predict the future. The purpose of Wikipedia is to post sourced and confirmed information, not opinionated guesses. No hard feelings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 02:47, November 26, 2014‎

When an artist says specifically they're on the album and someone asks for a source stating that they are on the album, cite the source where he says they are on the album. Without digging through the various sources cited in this article, readers cannot check that the information comes from a reliable source. When editors come to this article and see unsourced tracks listed, they have little reason not to add the various tracks they heard somewhere from someone who might have read somewhere else that the tracks might be on the album.

I removed all unsourced tracks. You restored them. I asked for sources. You removed the request for sources, making unsourced statements that you seem to feel are universally known, incontrovertible facts. I am restoring the request for cites from a reliable source stating that these songs will be on the album. If you wish to remove the requests for citations, feel free to replace them with citations that support the material. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, the "lead singles" that were obviously on the album[1] are not on the album.[2] - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of sourced release date

Now that we have a release date with a cited source, why are you removing it, Funkatastic? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot

Funkatastic: I have restored the link rot tag. This article uses bare URLs for citations, which may be threatened by link rot. That I moved a ref to a bare URL to another location does not mean link rot is not a problem for this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015?

More fun with the release date. In addition to all of the previous dates confirmed in the article (and various unsourced guesses along the way), we now have an editor adding an unsourced claim for June 20, 2015 and another editor removing June 2015 without explanation.

If you have a source for a change from the nebulous "June 2015", provide a source. Otherwise, any change you make will be reverted. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have competition to add four different unsourced dates. Two things: 1) If one of the dates is right, most of the dates are wrong. 2) We will not have an unsourced date here. Dates added without a source will continue to be removed. Edit protection is another option.

We also have an on-going competition to guess the title of a song we know next to nothing about. Again, without a source, it will be removed. Edit protection is an option here as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's enough. Page protection it is. If anyone had reliable sources for the release date, song titles, production, neighborhood, etc., feel free to add it (if you an auto-confirmed editor) or discuss it here (if you aren't). - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A song titled "All Eyes On You", featuring Nicki Minaj and Chris Brown, has been confirmed by Minaj's official website ([x]) 98.193.217.73 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Funkatastic Altamel (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April? June?

"It was later rescheduled for an April 2015 release."[3] Billboard is a reliable source. You are entitled to believe Billboard is wrong. If you were a reliable, published source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, we would have reason to discuss this. As that is not the case, we have a reliable source that says, "And earlier this year, he revealed it would drop in mid-April. It didn’t."

"As of June 8, 2015, it was scheduled for release sometime in June 2015." Why don't we say "It is scheduled..."? Because we don't know that. What we know is that a reliable source said it was scheduled for some time in June as of June 8, 2015. This is similar to why we should not have listed it as a 2014 release several months ago and list it as having been released in 2015 a couple of months ago. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's two problems with saying "As of June 8, 2015, it was scheduled for release sometime in June 2015." One, the "As of June 8, 2015" is inaccurate because he's reiterated June release date multiple times beyond June 8th. And "it was scheduled for release sometime in June 2015." is past tense, it's still scheduled for release by the end of June.

As for the whole Billboard debacle. Billboard is very much a reliable source, but they're referencing a hoax release date, therefore it shouldn't be included on this page. If you need proof that it's a hoax, check the bottom of this article.^[1] Funkatastic (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We know what is reliably sourced in the article. As of June 8, it was scheduled for sometime in June. If we cite a source from June 23, we will know that as of June 23 it was scheduled for a June release. Barring any magical powers, we do not know that it "is" scheduled for sometime in June, only that a reliable source said it was. If you have a source and would like to say "_______ announced a June 2015 release on June __, 2015", that would be accurate and would seem to me to be a reasonable compromise.

Yes, a blog reported an April 14 release date based on a tweet and Mill apparently said it wasn't coming out then. This does not indicate April 14 was a "hoax", it indicates the blog reported a date based on a tweet and Mill apparently said it wasn't coming out then. Two months later, Billboard (the oldest trade magazine in the world whose charts and reporting are taken as gospel in the music industry) reported that Mill announced a "mid-April" release. They did not cite a tweet, say April 14, say "reportedly", etc. You are combining multiple assumptions to say that Billboard is a reliable source only for statements that you specifically accept. That is simply not how Wikipedia works. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments. The article currently gives one delay in the release. Reliable sources clearly state otherwise. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.musictimes.com/articles/34956/20150409/meek-mill-dreams-worth-more-than-money-release-date-maybach-music-rick-ross.htm

RICO

Quentin Miller is listed as a writer on this site but not in the official credits (^[1])

I know he wrote it but if he's not credited he should be there, that's why he's a ghostwriter

References

^ http://www11.pic-upload.de/27.07.15/ydges4bax4jn.jpg

Sockpuppetry

Several accounts editing this article, including HipHopVisionary, Ilovemexico99 and several others, have been indefinitely blocked for "massive" sockpuppetry. The known accounts are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HipHopVisionary. Additional socks would not be surprising. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.musictimes.com/articles/34956/20150409/meek-mill-dreams-worth-more-than-money-release-date-maybach-music-rick-ross.htm

[2] ttp://www11.pic-upload.de/27.07.15/ydges4bax4jn.jpg

[1]

[1]