Talk:Flockaveli

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.

What about Fuck This Industry?

It's not added to the single's list. ~~Cooveli

It was not released as a single. Unless you have a source saying it was. STATic message me! 22:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre warring

I am having a dispute with some IP (figures) over their erroneous, OR-filled changes to the infobox's genre parameter (figures). I explained their error in length at their talk page, but the editor does not seem to notice that they have a talk page and insist on me giving them "contact info" in their edit summaries ([1]). They seem to have fished for any website that mentions "trap" and the album title in the same context to support their genre warring, and has come up with garbage like this, citing either insignificant hip hop group blogs or indirect mentions of "trap music". To my knowledge, there is only one professional music source that refers to this album in the context of: this is "a [genre] album". And that is the PopMatters review, whose sentence calling this a "crunk album" is directly cited, but the IP has continued removing it. This is another in a long line of IPs who have been vandalizing the infobox genre in the past month. The editor who denied my request for page protection overlooked that and instead focused on this guy's verbose edit summaries to conclude that it is a content dispute. Since this now has to be done the long and hard way, please help establish "consensus" and offer comments. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a notice to the code on the main page, giving a direct link and a wikilink to this talk page. Hopefully the editor sees this and follows it here. If not you dont have much choice other than perhaps administrative action... though you could re-propose protection and show attempts were made to contact the editor. Hope you guys can sort something out. :) (and as always remember to keep arguments policy-based!) -- Nbound (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the editor wont be going by their IP address anymore, LOL Dan56 (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I created an account well before your absurd warning. I've only had one ip address throughout this issue. The fact of the matter is that a number of reviews refer to the album as a trap album - which it is. I know it is also Crunk. It's why you might call Metallica 'heavy metal' but also 'rock and roll'. Crunk influenced the genre, and Flockaveli is widely regarded (see references, and google if you'd like more - it's not really a disputed thing) as a seminal trap album.City559 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we're drawing on point of views and personal opinions on genres and their derivatives? I thought we were supposed to research the most reliable sources on the topic and not come to our own conclusions. Dan56 (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not Dan. It is an undisputed bit of information. Reviews support it, much as the one that claims it as crunk. If you'd like to disgree with my resources, you can remove Crunk as a label IN ADDITION to trap. My resources are no more or less reputable than the Crunk reference, so take them both or get rid of them both. Crunk is less accurate than trap, but it makes more sense to simply call it gangsta rap from an overall validity standpoint.City559 (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be disputing your edit. This is what is comes down to. If you don't cite a professional critique (that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) that explicitly calls Flockaveli "a trap album", your edit is challengeable and will be reverted to the revision that actually cites a source that explicitly calls it a "crunk album", the review by PopMatters. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I am disputing the state of the page. Either Crunk and Trap stay or neither stay. The existing reference is as valid as those I have provided. The two I have provided refer to it as a trap album, and the one existing reference refers to it as a crunk album. There is nothing to discuss here. References have been provided for both.

Either you decide that reviews are insufficiently concrete to support a genre addition (in which case you remove both) or you agree that a review citing an album as belonging to a genre is valid and keep them both. Anything else is illogical. City559 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ur ultimatum rings hallow, bro. "...Flockaveli, the best complete crunk album...", David Amidon, PopMatters. Quote one of your review sources, none of which have the notability to warrant a Wikipedia article on them. "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." (WP:SUBJECTIVE) And self-published sources are not considered reliable. TheWellVersed.com is a blog (see copyright at the bottom of their site and the reverse chronological order of their posts [2]). As is your other "reputed" source uproxx.com (see page 2 of their media kit ("bloggers")) Dan56 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, sis.

In one sentence, the album is pure, unfiltered gangsta trap music.

There's another more long winded explanation of the album's status as trap music in the other reference. The fundamental point being, PopMatters is no more or less reputable. It's just yet another review site that states the album falls under a genre.

I'm not here to argue about whether you think the smoking section is a legitimate source of reviews. They are both sites that provide reviews. Either you decide reviews aren't a reliable source, or you decide they are. Both, or none.City559 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should, the credibility of your sources is being questioned. Wikipedia doesn't use questionable sources. It's not an accepted source for reviews. WP:SUBJECTIVE: "citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation"]. A blogger for an obscure website doesn't meet that criteria; not self-published sources claiming to be an expert on the topic (WP:SPS). What are you basing your "fundamental point" on? The notability of a review source clearly matters (MOS:ALBUM) Dan56 (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PopMatters is no more reputable. They are both sites presenting reviews. Neither author has any formal qualification that makes his review more right. Stop trolling. It's also easy for larger review sites to give more generic labels to music, overlooking accuracy in the name of identifiable labels. The album is trap, and crunk. It's also gangsta rap, but decide - all three, or just gangsta rap. Either reviews work, or they don't. This is really not complicated Dan.City559 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's not complicated: You're simply displaying symptoms of a genre warrior--you "believe that reliable sources are wrong and professional music journalists know nothing about music compared to them", "enjoy the music of a particular group but would feel (choose one: ashamed, emasculated, belittled) to have the music—and by extension, themselves—categorized in an undesirable genre", "stick to editing the infobox, rarely digging into the meaty text of the article", "prefer monolithic labels rather than subtlety. It is possible that such Warriors are attracted to the bright colors of the infobox itself. Large quantities of text might be confusing or intimidating to some Warriors." Dan56 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PopMatters is reputable ([3]), whereas the petty sites you found are not. The reviews aren't a matter of right or wrong, since genres are subjective descriptions (hint hint), so we cite the subjectivity of notable critics or publications (WP:SUBJECTIVE) Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. What exactly did you research, apart from typing "trap" with "Flockaveli" in Google? Dan56 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ on the cross, dude - genre warrior? This isn't some obscure genre classification. The album is well regarded as a seminal trap album. It's what the damn thing is KNOWN for. The label isn't as commonly used (neither is crunk), since most people just call it rap and call it a day.

PopMatters is a magazine. One magazine that called it crunk. I never called that a misclassification. So you can mostly shove the genre warrior thing in a variety of places. I agree it's crunk. I just know that you'd be better off calling it gangsta rap only, than calling it crunk without noting it as trap - the genre that as I've noted descended from crunk music. Flockaveli is crunk as much as Linkin Park is rap. Linkin Park is also rock. Really, it fits more under nu metal - or at least deserves the additional mention. Notice their page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Theory Same concept.

The reviews I've cited, for the purposes of establishing the genre of an album, are completely acceptable. Reputable reviews can come from a music blog - a lot of music blogs are extremely high traffic entities that also serve as tastemakers. They are valid sources for this purpose. My research was having a knowledge of these in the first place, so I provided examples that demonstrated the point I was making. I realize you have a problem with these review sites I've provided, but that's mostly your own personal issue with them - not a fundamental matter of the right and wrong content addition on wikipedia.

I realize you troll this site rather frequently, and I was merely trying to contribute a useful tidbit of info. I was also hoping to contribute more to the mixtape portion of Waka's page. However, it seems pretty apparent with people like you around to shit on contributions with your disagreements over fundamentally subjective criteria (the validity of the reviews) it's mostly a process of pulling teeth. If you will lose sleep by being consistent, then do feel free to leave the inaccurate labeling. Enjoy Dan56.City559 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not acceptable, "as I've noted...", "well regarded as a seminal trap album...", "inaccurate labeling..." (drawing on own knowledge rather than reliable sources). Dan56 (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]