Talk:Strength & Loyalty

Man, I'm removing a lot of shit about the Strength & Loyalty tracklist. I dont know who wrote that Bone Thug Boyz will be on "S & L" but this is not true because the song is too old. Confirmed tracks are I Tried and Lil Love with Mariah Carey and Bow Wow

-Then start a "Rumored Tracks" area...because the "I Tried" vinyl came backed with "Bump In The Trunk" featuring Swizz Beatz

Ok,I'm going to do that

"The Future" has also been confirmed in XXL magazine.

"Ok here is how it is everybody, nobody knows what the offical tracklist is but for all we know it may be totally different than the information that has been provided to us"

I say someone here on wikipedia should give interscope/a&m records a call and see if they can get any true information on this album and shed some light on it.

Date

Stop changin the release date to April 17th because it's wrong. Go to BTNHBoard.com and you will read the same thing like on Amazon.com.

==Theghtgkh;lgkhl;gfhpkgfhkgfhkgfophop I'm tired of y'all messing this up after I correct it, so here it is for reference.

1. "FlowMotion II"
2. "Bumps In The Trunk" (featuring Swizz Beatz)
3. "Wind Blow"
4. "I Tried" (featuring Akon)
5. "Lil' L.O.V.E." (featuring Mariah Carey & Bow Wow)
6. "C-Town" (featuring Twista)
7. "Order My Steps (Dear Lord)" (featuring Yolanda Adams)
8. "Streets" (featuring The Game & Will.I.Am)
9. "9mm"
10. "Gun Blast"
11. "Candy Paint"
12. "So Good, So Right" (featuring Felicia)
13. "Sounds The Same"
14. "Never Forget Me" (featuring Akon)
15. "TBA" (bonus) (Probably So Crazy feat. Kelly Rowland)
16. "Just Vibe" (bonus)
17. "The Future" (featuring Flesh-N-Bone) (bonus)

the three bonus tracks depend on where the albums bought from. (Rishi B 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

The CD will not be sold with three different bonus tracks from which store you buy it from. The rumor of that is false. A&M Records/Interscope Said - "If we were to make the cds tracklist vary like that no one would get a complete version of Strength & Loyalty." There will be 3 different versions of the cd - Edited, Explicit & Explicit w/Bonus Tracks.

Aside from the incorrect capitalisation, what's the source? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The source as in where did i obtain this information? I obtained this information from a friend who works at Interscope actually A&M Records (no names mentioned). I called him up and he gave me part of the "Low Down" on there new album.

Our WP:CITE policy means that it can't be added, I'mm afraid, as it counts as original research, which isn't allowed. It needs averifiable soyurce — something that other people can look up, either printed or one the Internet. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The person who said there would not be bonus tracks depending on the store you bought it from is wrong. Check these links for confirmation. [1] [2](Rishi B 11:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Sources

Please refrain from reverting to older, innacurate pages because of a lack of sources. Those pages, too, lack sources for their information. All the information on this version of the page [3] is accurate as of April 8th. If you feel the need to change information about the tracklist, samples, or unused recordings, please cite YOUR sources instead of claiming that the current page lacks them. This isn't the wiki on Rocket Science. This information can be verified from various sources close to Full Surface/Interscope/Bone Thugs, and can be substantiated at www.btnhboard.com. For reference, all current information on the tracklist/samples is taken directly from the album's liner notes. All information about unused recordings is taken from various interviews in magazines and websites with Bone & Swizz. The bit about Just Vibe and So Crazy is a first hand account. Many people across the US and at btnhboard can verify that. Forgive me for my lack of citations, but it's all true. There's REAL vandals on wikipedia that you should be worrying about. Not someone who's trying to help. (Rishi B 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Furthermore, if you wish you challenge something, please do. I will try my best to provide the citation required. But most of this stuff is common knowledge, so please, don't just erase all of it. (Rishi B)

I'm not responsible for what was here before; new information should eb sourced, however. If there are no sources, please don't change the article. If there are sources, please give them. "It's common knowledge" is not a reasonable response; first-hand accounts are disallowed under WP:OR. Please also read WP:CITE. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not responsible for what was here before? That's interesting, because my version of the page was there BEFORE the one that you're reverting to. Someone erased the original information and put in false stuff - without citation. If you'd look at the history you'd see that. So why do you revert to that specific version instead of my correct one? If you have a valid reason, that's fine - but you're being incredibly inconsistent here. I understand that new information needs citation, but you're allowing incorrect, uncited misinformation to stay on wikipedia, without any real justification other than that you're relinquishing responsibility for it. If you're going to demand citation, you should need it for every piece of information on this page - it, too, was new information at one point. You seem to be accepting it, however, while disregarding the more accurate page published before. I'd like to hear your explanation for why this is so.

Anyway, I might just have to wait until the album comes out to put all the information (which is correct, anyway) back, seeing as how I'll just be able to cite amazon or another retailer. I would appreciate some help in how to cite magazine articles and radio interviews, however, as that could prove useful for injecting some truth back into this article. (Rishi B 11:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

If you had the courtesy to explain your edits in edit summaries, you might find that other editors were more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. Also, many of your edits are wrong independently of sources; you've introduced non-MoS formattin, and added unencyclopædic material.

When you do use edit summaries, make sure that you follow WP:CIVIL; incivility on summaries is treated even more seriously than incivility on Web pages. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we seriously back at this? We had the info before about there being a bonus track from Best Buy, Target, and Hastings. Now you're removing the info when I have a source, too? Geez. What more do you want? It's not like any other site would say anything about the "I Tried Remix". It's exclusive to Hastings. Please leave the info there, its a reputable source and everything. (Rishi B 06:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

By the by, what is all this stuff I keep seeing about the "non-standard format"? I know you're referring to when people make the columns and stuff to put info in, but I see that format all the time, especially on articles on new CDs. Should they be changed to this format? And how would we add information about who produced what track and other stuff using this format? Furthermore, how would I cite that, since most of it is either "common sense" (which isn't citable) or in the cd booklet, which isn't in the citation page on wikipedia. (Rishi B)

The standards are set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums; note, for example, how the producers are presented. That other articles are also wrongly formatted isn't relevant. "It's common sense" doesn't count; if something's in the CD booklet, then that's an adequate source; as this article is supposed to be about an album that hasn't yet been released, I take it that that doesn't in fact apply here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the booklet has been scanned and is freely available if you know where to look for it. That aside, you haven't explained why the bonus track is being removed. "Misrepresented?" I mean, it honestly looks as if you don't care about the facts, when information that can be verified through sources is still being removed. (Rishi B 23:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

1. "If you know where to look for it". Very useful.
2. Stating that something is a bonus track, with no other qualification, makes it look as though anyone buying the album gets it; the link shows that in fact one retailer is claiming to include this track exclusively. That means that the article is misrepresenting the facts. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm saying, the booklet is out there and accessible.
2. Then instead of just deleting the information, why not clarify the exclusivity? You seemed more concerned with maintaining the page as it appeals to you, rather than representing the real facts. This is wikipedia. If you see something wrong with what is added, don't just delete it and revert back to other false information. Correct it so it accurately represents the truth. (Rishi B 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

1. Where? Accessible to whom?
2. That's not how it works; you don't just throw messy, poorly sourced or unsourced material into an article without explanation, and say "there it is, I can't be bothered to do it properly — do the necessary work yourself". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Felicia/Felecia

In the track listing her name is written as "Felicia", but then in the second paragraph her name is written as "Felecia". Which one is it? --- Efil4tselaer 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I changed it to "Felicia". --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it Felecia? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No... I do not think so... She is a singer, not a porn star. --- Efiltselaer 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)~

Is there that much of a difference in many cases? More seriously, following a link from that page, I found Felecia Lindsey-Howse, which I assume is the right person. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Nice one. And yes, that is the person. --- Efil4tselaer 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Release

I thought it would be helpful to write that a pre-release has been released containing the tracks:

1. "Into The Future" (ft. Flesh-N-Bone) (4:40)
2. "Lead Me, Guide Me" (3:54)(AKA "Order My Steps" w/out Y. Adams)
3. "Never Forget Me" (ft. Akon) (4:42)
4. "You Got My Back" (ft. Jodeci) (3:41)
5. "Bone Thug Boys" (3:19)
6. "When The Thugs Come Out" (4:25)
7. "Come With Me" (3:04)

Sounds unmastered but good none-the-less. Also an advanced version of the album containing 14 songs has been leaked (none of the bonus tracks).

Yes it has been leaked as of April 18th. However the songs do sound unfinished so y'all betta buy the full album.

Leak

The album has leaked already why do u not mention this in the article.

Bonus Track Issue

I don't think that The Future ft. Flesh-n-Bone is a bonus track. I look everywhere for it at best Buy and can't find a single thing about it. It might be a bonus for somehwhere else.

No Nottz

Stop putting Nottz as a producer he did not produce anything on this album go buy the album and read the production credits where do you see Nottz anywhere?

Title of this Page

The title of this page "Strength and Loyalty" should be Strength & Loyalty, this is demonstrated on the cover, iTunes version, store versions, and versions from websites. Just to let you know, because the only way I know how to change it, would probably have you guys, messaging me, tellin me you shouldn't do it like that. Thanks. Dislecksik 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cover

Hey, i found a better quality version of the cover. I'm not sure if we can use it but it is beter then the one currently being used. it can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000O58ZQW/ref=dp_image_0/002-5103396-7128064?ie=UTF8&n=5174&s=music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.72.19 (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Strength and Loyalty.jpg

Image:Strength and Loyalty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)