Talk:Cannibal (EP)

Should this be moved?

I think this should probably be moved to just Cannibal (EP) since there are no other EP's with this name. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 01:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I chose to put it under what it is now due to Cannibal Holocaust (EP) being so similar in name. I didnt want a stupid "this article is about the Kesha song. For the blah blah blah thing" - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, okay. Never heard of that EP before. Good idea then. I hate those too. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 01:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, shouldn't it be moved to Cannibal (EP) due to WP:PRECISION? Yves (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure why not, i dont really care. I dont know how to merge history, do you? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just move it since there's no article there? Otherwise, we'd need an administrator to delete the old page, eh? Yves (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not good to just do that, its better to get the history merged as well, ive asked User:Kww to do so. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But there's no article. So if we move it ourselves, the history is automatically going to move accordingly. For example, Just the Way You Are was moved to Just the Way You Are (Billy Joel song) not too long ago, and you can see by its revision history that all history has been moved, as well. Yves (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:Ending-start#Strip_Me. "Never create an article by cutting and pasting another one. It causes licensing problems". We should just wait :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I know; I'm big on telling users not to do that, but this wouldn't be copying and pasting. We can do it ourselves (by clicking the "Move" button beside the "Watch" button) since it's not moving over a redirect. I think I will rename it. Yves (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

=S my face is red, ive been here like 10 months an i never knew there was a "move" button bahahah, Kww i think is going to do it in a second anywho :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh haha that's alright. I just moved it, actually. :) Yves (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Recording artist?

I've noticed in a lot of articles that the intro says that the artist is a recording artist, such as this article here. The page on Wikipedia states: "A recording artist is a person who creates recorded music, such as CDs and MP3 files." I think it would be best to change it to be musician because of the fact that she Ke$ha does not just record music from other songs (which I believe best describes a recording artist,): "A musician is a person who writes, performs, or makes music." It may be broad, but I was going to suggest singer-songwriter, but that would be incorrect as she does not compose her own music. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, she co-writes all her songs. All the ones on Animal, anyway. (And she plays the accordion on "Stephen", and the whistle and cowbell on "D.I.N.O.$.A.U.R."). Yves (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

^That kinda made me LOL. And recording artist also means, the artist who is being recorded, which is Ke$ha. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that she writes all her own lyrics. I meant more as composing as like making the actual music. Recording artists seems more to me like Britney Spears, she records other people's songs, and on occasion writes her own. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare Britney Spears with Kesha. They're different. MacarangaChic (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

EP?

Just wondering, I know there was a whole argument about "The Fame Monster" being an EP or not, and it was finally resolved as ebing an EP (FINALLY!), BUT you need to realized that this might not be an EP according to EP rules. This contains 9 new tracks, not 8, and the remix is being listed as part of the album, not a bonus track. So giving the remix might be around 5 mins something long, that would push a 35 min length to about a 40 something minute length which is the approximate length of a standard album. Should we list this as an EP without any word of it being an EP separately AND no official source stating that it is such. Thoughts?--Apeaboutsims (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been confirmed as an extended play: Brown, August (October 13, 2010). "Ke$ha joins the quick-turnaround EP trend with 'Cannibal'". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Retrieved October 14, 2010. Yves (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

^^^Per above also "a nine-song "companion" [...] will be sold both as a standalone album and as part of a deluxe reissue." It's being marketed the same way as The Fame Monster is, as an EP and a deluxe re-issue. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

More reliable sources here if you like (Billboard says it's so, just like The Fame Mons†er, so there's pretty much no argument anymore):

• Peoples, Glenn (October 14, 2010). "Business Matters: 'Trial of the Century' Set To Start Monday". Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
• "Jay-Z Preps Anthology, Ke$ha Returns!". Spin. Spin Media LLC. October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
  Yves (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just checking. :)--Apeaboutsims (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe Cannibal should be included in the studio album chronology on Wikipedia, not just the EP one. Israell (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Been discussed before, "Template:Infobox_album#Chronology "This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's albums. In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains. For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain, but care must be taken to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when album "A" points to "B" as the next album, "B" points back to "A" as the last (previous) album". EP's dont go with albums. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be included as well. Just recently, it was decided that The Fame Monster would be listed, and I think the same should be done here. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 23:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they're comparable. Cannibal hardly has the impact on Ke$ha's career that The Fame Monster did on Gaga's. Yves (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would slightly digress with both CK and Yves. The fact is that Cannibal is a major release by Kesha, albeit EP, hence it will have an impact on her career progressively. Now, as to whether Cannibal will have a huge impact on music as general ala TFM, that only time will tell. Hence, not going into recentism, this discussion of whether or not to include Cannibal in the main chronology of Kesha, should be revisited after a few months. By that time the Get Sleazy Tour will also start, and we will be in a better position to judge the impact of Cannibal. Happy are we? :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit

Somebody keeps reverting my edit being made on the page claiming "EP's don't go with Albums". Can someone please SHOW me the page on here that says that? - nickyp88 —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Template:Infobox_album#Chronology "This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's albums. In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains. For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain, but care must be taken to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when album "A" points to "B" as the next album, "B" points back to "A" as the last (previous) album" Now i suggest your start listening when someone explains in a revert, as done here - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album. Always read template documentation before using them. Yves (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Nickyp88 (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Yves (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain Surely since Ke$ha only has 1 album and 1 EP it makes more sense to put them in the same chain? Bigger artists like Usher who have many albums etc have both in the same chain (E.G "Raymond Vs Raymond" being next to the "Versus" EP... --Duphin (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Cannibal should be in the chronology. --Cprice1000talk2me 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains." no. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"For some artists it maybe appropraite to include more than one album type in the chronology." yes --Cprice1000talk2me 01:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it more appropriate in this case? I fail to see that, and it's only appropriate to be implemented once a consensus is reached to do so. Yves (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ke$ha has released little material. --Cprice1000talk2me 13:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As has Bruno Mars. What's your point? Yves (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an EP. If you have the physical CD and upload it to itunes or something, it comes up as Cannibal ep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.244.232 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We R Who We R

Hey, I was just looking on PlayMPE and I saw the add "We R Who We R", and unlike other Kesha Singles (Tik Tok - Take It Off) which are listed as "Singles" it's listed as only a "Promotional Single". Does that help at all? Thanks.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Try getting more information on that first before adding but it also helps a lot. MacarangaChic (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Per this. Its a single, not a promo. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Davej97, 17 October 2010

this is the cover for ke$has upcoming ep cannibal 

http://thecsperspective.com/2010/10/16/album-cover-keha-cannibal/

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unreliable source (blog). Yves (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rbrgr83, 17 October 2010

This is the cover for Cannibal that Sony is using for Pre-Orders.

http://www.sonymusicdigital.com/kesha/features/5697888%7Cnewspost%7Ccannibal&ocid=rca-smesite%7Cnewspost%7Ccannibal --Rbrgr83 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's still not the official cover. Nickyp88 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The cover says, "Not Official Album Cover". Yves (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Promo Singles

Should this be added? http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewRoom?fcId=400963750&id=15--59.101.156.113 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That website isn't accessible... Yves (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It opens in itunes. Its the countdown to kesha segment.--110.175.56.28 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be working for me. And not everyone has iTunes. Yves (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can get it to work... fine. iTunes has been used like this in the past for Black Eyed Peas and Katy Perry album countdowns. Either way it should probably be mentioned somewhere that Kesha released Sleazy on AUS iTunes. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere, actually; not only Australia. It's mentioned in one sentence in the article right before the track listing. Yves (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OH i didn't realise. Well that's fine, I imagine, for the time being. If it charts etc. we'll handle that later. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No because its not a single. Its countdown release exclusive to iTunes. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sleazy

Why is this being consistently removed from the article? It's a valid digital single. Just because "We R Who We R" wasn't released on CD and "Sleazy" isn't going to be put on the radio does not mean that it should not be mentioned in the damn infobox.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its now been added correctly. I Suggest you stop edit warring BTW. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I added it correctly yesterday, but then someone removed it. So I put it back with his thoughts in mind, and then you reverted me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you didnt add it correctly. Its not a "Single" its a "Digital" and then when u added it last time u called We R and Sleazy Digital singles which is incorrect. I reverted it because i didnt feel like going back and correcting it, i was going to but you beat me to it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I first added it as a single. Then that was reverted because "Sleazy" hasn't gotten airplay. Then I added it as a digital single, but that was reverted because "We R Who We R" was distributed digitally. So added it back but changed the whole thing to have both as digital singles. But then you reverted that because "We R Who We R" has had airplay. That's why I'm bringing it up here. Because you two editors (L-l-CLK-l-l and Lil-unique1) cannot make up your damn minds on what is and what is not allowable content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont think for a second i wont report you to AIV for not being civil, your already becoming a pain for not discussing something before re-adding it and i don't like your tone. Now, Sleazy is a Digital Single and We R Who We R is a Single. Got it? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot report people to WP:AIV for incivility. That's why it's called "Administrator intervention against vandalism". I'm well aware that "Sleazy" is a digital single and "We R Who We R" is a regular single, even if it had been released digitally. The mixed signals I've been getting from you and the other editor is why I'm being so blunt with you right now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So what the hell should be done here, considering both are digital singles. Are you editors here just not going to bother stating that "Sleazy" is a single as much as "We R Who We R" is, just because the former isn't getting any sort of critical press?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What ever, WP:AN. And if your well aware its a digital single why did you add it as a single; once with revert tag "removing digitial singles from infobox. We R Who We R was digital (no CD release)", twice adding them as both digital, i reverted writing "Sleazy is a digital single. We R Who We R is an actual single". The you added correctly "here with a rude edit summary "Leave "Sleazy" in the god damn infobox" then someone else reverted, and i added back. I sugget you start reading History and edit summaries.

Heres what we do, We R = Single. Sleazy = Digital - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I added it as a single because both are digital singles. The "Digital singles" template is for albums that have regular singles (things released on CD/as digital remix EPs) and digital singles (promotional digital releases). "We R" and "Sleazy" are both digital releases with no accompanying B-side remixes. Therefore, they should both be included under {{singles}} or {{digital singles}}, not a mix of both. But to qualm you and Lil-unique1, there are both templates in use now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How its written now on the article is correct. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't. Either both are singles or both are digital singles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No there not. What are you not comprehending? Single = Radio add and single release. Digital single = Many options, Digital only release, and countdown "Itunes song/single". Both being digital singles or singles implies that they were either both sent to radio or both released as a digital single. This is not the case. Please see Speak Now, or GA's (which is what this and all Kesha articles will become) My World (EP) and My World 2.0 ect ect..... - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So the mere fact that "Sleazy" has not been played on a radio yet means that we should use two separate templates, even though neither are CD releases?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, because its not a SINGLE, saying its a single is false information. Not being released as a CD is no longer valid as there are no such things as US CD singles anymore, there extremely rare. Sleazy is a promo itunes single/song, not an actual single. Okay? this is becoming a redundant tedious argument. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For better reference, Sleazy is the same thing as Love Me (Justin Bieber song), Speak Now (song) and Never Let You Go (Justin Bieber song). They are itunes "singles" which are promos/countdown singles to the album. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So why haven't you bothered making an article at Sleazy (Kesha song) yet?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The article title does not need that much disambiguation per WP:NCM. Also, the songs fails WP:NSONGS. If an when it passes WP:NSONGS, it will be created at "Sleazy". Yves (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ive already created/wrote the song at Sleazy. But it will not be created until it passes WP:NSONG. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be at Sleazy (Kesha song) (where I've moved your redirect) because there's a Sleazy (Expatriate song) already. So Yves, you are incorrect about the placement of the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Users need to stop removing it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No they don't need to stop removing it. "Sleazy" and "We R Who We R" are both released digitally so there isn't any again to calling "Sleazy" a digital single. It is merely a song released as part of Kesha's iTunes countdown to the album. Nothing more nothing less. Ryulong's understanding of what a single is has flaws. Any song released for purchase doesn't necessarily constitute a single release. You have too look at context and the fact that "Sleazy" hasnt been pushed as a single by RCA Records or been referred to one is evidence of this. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's verifiable and reliably sourced. It does not hurt the page to keep it there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is because its not a single. its a promotional release. Simply making a song available to download doesn't make it a single. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a song from this album released digitally but not given radio time. It's a "digital single".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Digital is a release format not a type of release. A type of release is Single, Album, EP etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because the method by which this particular song has been provided for sale to the general public is digital does not mean it should not be considered a release.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, therefor, anything related to this article, should be mentioned. Period.Antonellicollege (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned, "'Sleazy' was made available on October 29, 2010 as part of an iTunes exclusive countdown to the release of Cannibal." It is improper for us to call it a 'standard single' as this is just a thing that iTunes does in 'pre-releasing' songs from an upcoming album.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

^^^^Exactly - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example, scroll down to 'Other songs'.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So why shouldn't it be mentioned in the infobox as a "Digital single" (which is what it is)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note at the example that none of the iTunes 'pre-released songs' are listed in the infobox. And as noted above 'digital single' is a release format the same meaning as Digital download of a single. It does not mean that it is a 'promotional single/song'. Thus "Digital Single" template needs to be deleted. If consensus is reached to create an infobox parameter correctly titled indicating these as 'promotional songs', I would not dispute that.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Album, Not EP

According to Billboard "Cannibal" (when sold by itself) is officially an "Album". That is more reliable than random sites claiming its an EP because Lady Gaga's was.--61.68.170.254 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Those sites are not "random". Billboard also calls it an EP. Some people don't realize an EP is also an album. Yves (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an EP. More back up here. Mmmonsterrr2010 (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what it charts on the Billboard 200 as. If it says "Cannibal (EP)" that will be the answer. --Cprice1000talk2me 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No it doesnt, sources left and right say its an EP, including Billboard as shown above. End of story. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tha fact that it has a single released from it will mean it will definately be treated as an EP-Album (short-length album) by Billboard. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of full-length albums released on vinyl are shorter than this. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Get Sleazy Tour

Shouldn't it be merged with the EP until there's more information about it? Xwomanizerx (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it would mess up the page as there are too many tour dates for it to be included in this article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 139.222.234.95, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} UK Release date needs to be changed to 31st January 2011, cited from <http://www.keshasparty.com/uk/music/animal-cannibal-deluxe-edition>

139.222.234.95 (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Mhiji (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Release Date?

Hi, I was just wondering who found out that it's being released so late in the UK compared to the rest of the world, I mean they started playing We R Who We R on the radio but no mention of it on iTunes I really wanna know where the source is for that, it's such a disappointment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Wonda (talk • contribs) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just getting released in the UK I think. 31 January. Fixer23 (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this, it was already released on the 28th. http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/animal-cannibal-deluxe-edition/id414046459 haha, with no fanfare at all. Fixer23 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I knows its a little WP:ORy but albums generally get released on Sunday digitally and on Mondays via CD. I am more inclined to believe this or this otherwise it would have certainly made its chart debut this week on the album's chart. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

itunes commonly gets dates wrong. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it can be listed in the table I guess. :) Fixer23 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe edition release date

Should the release dates table be on this page or on the Animal page? Currently most of the dates are on the Animal page which is why I removed them from this page. What makes sense? (Since the former implies that charting information of the deluxe should be removed as well) Fixer23 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Promo songs

According to Link rot and WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This is the issue here, its true, im the one who wrote all the pages but it can no longer be verified as the links went dead, its small 4-5 sentence paragraph about songs that were released then removed, is it detrimental to someones understanding of the topic? No. It should be removed. Unless a source is provided stating these songs were released as countdown singles they should once again be removed. Ive done a google search and turned up nothing reliable. Share your thoughts. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Against everything in WP:OR and V, I have to disagree. Really, I just want iTunes to stop leaving behind no trace of their countdown singles for us to clean up later. However, you cannot deny that they did exist. I have experienced these problems so many times before. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Id rather them stay as well but if this gets brought up in an FA/GA nom it will be failed because this is no longer able to be verified. You must argue based on rules not personal opinions. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But it takes away information from the article, just because iTunes decided to remove their singles (WP:IAR). GA isn't everything. It's just a pretty icon, really. Look at some of the recent Beyonce's GAs and see how they are on the same level as those that are B class. Just an icon and I don't think information should be taken out for it. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop dropping IAR in ever discussion, this will get everyone no where and allow people to do whatever they please, we have rules for a reason, we are building an encyclopedia here and should write articles to the best of our ability, hence why we have GA and FA. It doesnt take away from the article when its 5 sentences, in 10 years will you really care three songs were released for a month on a store? No. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There are rules, but if they get in the way of making Wikipedia better, they're to be ignored. And there are in fact no rules being broken here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay whatever im done with this discussion. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You are too caught up in rules and don't use enough commen sense. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

what difference does it make? Countdown singles are not that important because they're only released to itunes and have a limited life span. Technically they're not even singles (despite most receiving cover music). They're just album tracks made available prior to an album's release and removed after an album's release. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 201.67.97.124, 11 June 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}
Since Cannibal (Kesha song) has been merged to this article, I think all links (inn Composition, Promotion and Track listing sections) to that article should be taken off, as they would redirect back to this article. 187.5.84.243 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Chronology

Seeing as several other contemporary artists have also made releases of a long studio album (hereby after referred to as an LP) and a shorter studio album (EP), it would make sense to follow the tenet of Template:Infobox album which states the following and apply it to this page and Animal (Kesha album):

For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain...

Seeing as Kesha has only released Animal and Cannibal (and I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album) it would probably be useful to apply that suggestion of use for the template rather than only following the previous suggestion that LPs should only be listed together and that EPs should only be listed together, because Kesha only has 1 LP and 1 EP. There does not seem to be an issue in applying this to the pages on Lady Gaga's The Fame and The Fame Monster, so I see no reason (other than the flimsy suggestions late last year) as to why this should not be the case for Kesha's discography.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As per above i oppose this. Template:Infobox_album#Chronology states "In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains.". It may also state it can follow the less preferable "For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain". Who get to decide that the latter is what we follow when the first is telling us this is how it should be? I further oppose this because they are not the same thing; EP's are EP's, Albums are Albums ect ect.. We do not link non-singles with non-singles in a chain, its the same concept, hence i oppose following a personal opinion rather than a guideline. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a guideline. It's a set of formatting suggestions the people who worked on the template came up with. One is not less preferable over the other unless the people at WP:ALBUMS decided that one is better than the other which they should not have decided for the whole project. We are providing more information to the reader by giving the two (or three) albums in Kesha's discography by using the chronology parameters of {{infobox album}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you dont like the policy"formatting suggestions" then change it there, not here. Why should this one particular article not follow how how consensus is set up? I believe its not adding more information to the reader i think its making it more confusing from jumping from album to ep to complication to album when we have a clear, neat, chain for each. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus that exists on {{infobox album}} allows for having something other than studio–album-only chronologies on articles about studio albums, so why not follow that when Kesha has barely anything in her discography to begin with? In the future it may be useful to leave Cannibal out of the chronology between Animal and whatever her 2nd full length LP is going to be when she has more albums for a chain, but at this stage it works to have a similar set up to The Fame and The Fame Monster in treating the smaller number of studio releases.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not follow what the policy wants? Which is each to have its own chain, It allows different chains but is not the preferred choice, who decides amount of work determines which chain to follow?. Look, you and i are getting no where as we obviously share a different view, lets both stop commenting and allow others to weigh in as i doubt either of us are going to change our minds. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy on the matter. It's a suggestion on a template documentation page. And there is nothing to chain other than Animal and Cannibal. And no one else is bothering to weigh in because you and I are the only people who seem to have an opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually (and technically) an EP is a format because both singles and albums can be released as EPs. There are album and single charts but not EP charts. Cannibal is an EP album (it spawned its own singles) whereas Animal was an LP album. Thus on this occassion I would side with Ryulong. As Kesha has yet to release a second album but has had several different releases and a handful of singles it does make sense to include Animal and Cannibal in the same chain. Furthermore they were released together as a package in some markets. Thus Cannibal IMO should be included in the same album chain as CannibalAnimal. In the future this might need to change. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean same album chain as Animal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks i've corrected :) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I can explain how the decision to include it in The Fame article came about. Basically it stemmed from the fact that The Fame Monster EP is actually spawned from the main inspirations of The Fame, and thematically they focus on teh same content of celebrity and fame killing. Hence it was decided to have them in the main chronology and also, because since The Fame Monster was treated like its her second era, with a full-scaled tour to support it, including it in the chronology seemed like a fair choice to indicate teh main progress of the artist. If that is the main case here, then Animal and Cannibal can be included in the same chronology. Actually there are mainstream act like Madonna and MC, who do have a single chronology. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone cares, there was a half-consensus at Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 6#Chronology to change the documentation to disregard album types. I implemented it but self-reverted due to complaints on my talk page. Anyway, I think that the idea should be thought about per artist, not a Wikipedia-wide format. As for this case, IMHO Animal and Cannibal and IATDC... should all be in the same chronology. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've implimented the chronologies on Animal, Cannibal, and also Dance Commander, but now (CK)Lakeshade has an issue with including Dance Commander in the chronology when there is at least a clear agreement that all of the albums should be kept in a chain here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how I Am Dance Commander in the same chain is of any help. Animal and Cannibal is fine since they stem from the same perspective, but there;s no point in adding a half-assed remix album in the chronology. Ry, wait a little longer, I don't think the editors here wanted the remix album also in the chronology. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

^Agreed, and re-read, only one editor suggested that "I Am" should be included, i oppose it. Also, stop reverting a revert this is not acceptable behavior, please do not edit war. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What is this "same perspective" nonsense? Animal comes before Cannibal which comes before Dance Commander. It should be as simple as that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No I agree with the others here, I Am... is a different type of release. It didn't spawn any singles either. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What about The Sleazy Remix?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

-facepalm- No, not a single. No radio add, no music video, no CD single, ect ect. Itunes release does not mean its a single. I can give countless sources stating "We R" and "Blow" are the only singles and that "Blow" is her sixth consecutive top ten, meaning Sleazy is not a single. Were not here to discuss this anyways. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The definition of a single is really picky for you guys who regularly edit these pages. In fact, Lakeshade, you are the only person to have had an issue about making that classification.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, as you notice most top 40 artist articles are all GA's following strict policies and consensus as to what makes a song a single. But again, this isnt up for discussion we are talking about the chronology here. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good lord, link Animal and Cannibal together, and leave every other release, until her second studio album, OUT of it. Can we not complicate this simple matter? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Shots On The Hood Of My Car

Thats a title belonging to a Ke$ha song that recently leaked onto the internet, with many sources stating it as released to radio. Can someone explain why it redirects here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.105.66 (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Most likely because it was a song recorded for the EP which didn't make the final cut. But I'm not 100% certain. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cannibal (EP). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215123427/http://thephoenix.com:80/Boston/music/112394-kesha-cannibal/ to http://thephoenix.com/boston/music/112394-kesha-cannibal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130915103138/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Ke$ha&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2010&sort=Artist&perPage=25 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Ke$ha&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2010&sort=Artist&perPage=25
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en-ca.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsen/en_ca/documents/pdf/newsletters/billboard_canadian-update/Nielsen%20Music%20Canadian%20Update.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en-ca.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsen/en_ca/documents/pdf/newsletters/billboard_canadian-update/Nielsen%20Music%20Canadian%20Update.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en-ca.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsen/en_ca/documents/pdf/newsletters/billboard_canadian-update/Nielsen%20Music%20Canadian%20Update.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)