Talk:Nothing Was the Same

Confirmed Tracks

There should be "Girls Love Beyonce" on the list because it is a single from the album. I put it on there and some person erased it

• Its been confirmed that that song is not on the album at all, let alone a single.--Giants27(T|C) 21:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This song is not on the album. Neither are the freestyles 5am In Toronto and Jodeci. The Motion however will be present on this album as it is in a sequence with songs from all of his previous albums "The Resistance" "The Ride" and so on. Most likely be found near the end of the album if not the last track. You must be very disconnected from the Hip Hop culture to be repeatedly adding these songs to the Confirmed Tracks list and going so far as to skip over The Motion. Someone this disconnected should not be editing a page such as this one.

Please stop adding Original research to the article. If you have a real reliable source that says the song will be on the album then go ahead and add it back. However 5AM in Toronto is sourced to a reliable source and you must not know what a "freestyle" is. STATic message me! 17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Be back soon when The Motion is on the tracklist and 5am in Toronto isn't so you wake up for next time.

Is there a source for Moments In Time? The only time I've heard of that song was when it was on a proven to be fake tracklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.189.52 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. The song has now been removed due to it being unsourced. STATic message me! 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why the Complex Mag article was sourced for 5AM In Toronto when it basically proves that it won't be on the album. The only confirmed songs are Tuscan Leather and Started From The Bottom. Drake has not confirmed 5AM In Toronto, therefore it is unwise and misleading to others to post it under confirmed tracks. Julius Blake (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Originally the Complex article said that both "STFB" and "5 AM in Toronto" were on the album, however I see it was updated to just include "SFTB" so I removed "5AM" from the article. STATic message me! 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent information came today that confirms a sequel track called Paris Morton II. The interview isn't out for it but it'll be in Rolling Stone's September 12 issue. Julius Blake (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Another song by the name of "Heat of the Moment" is on the album. Confirmed by Drake here. It features his father in some capacity but for now, I guess it could be left off. Julius Blake (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

References

It is already mentioned in the section. STATic message me! 23:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't till after I made that post. Julius Blake (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

New song "Pound Cake (Feat. Jay-Z) confirmed here. Julius Blake (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

References

This is a tweet from a producer who produced a Drake song that was thought to be a free giveaway but is actually an iTunes bonus song. He confirms the song will be on the album here. Title is Jodeci Freestyle. Julius Blake (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Seems pretty unlikely to me, and the Twitter is not verified so we could not use it in any case, not to mention he did not even @ to Drake's account. If it does happen we can always just add it to the tracklist, it comes out in less than three weeks anyways. Thanks for coming to the talk page though, rather than thrusting the information into the article. STATic message me! 05:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

full tracklist actually out now Julius Blake (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Confirmed Tracks 2

"5AM In Toronto" should not be on the list as it is not on the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princexhermes (talk • contribs) 06:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

According to what source? It is sourced by a reliable source that it is on the album. STATic message me! 06:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the general facts (it was released for free, it wasn't released as a single, the lyrics 'this shit could go on a tape') seem to outweigh one magazine describing it as a 'Nothing Was The Same transmission'. The overwhelming odds are that it will not be on the album, sources aren't everything.

Per WP:V and WP:RS, yes reliable sources are everything on Wikipedia. Citing lyrics as a reason that it won't be on the album is WP:OR and plain ridiculous. Just read the title of the reliable source "DRAKE DROPS SECOND NOTHING WAS THE SAME TRACK, ’5AM IN TORONTO’". It clearly says it right there and it is not the only source. STATic message me! 14:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh fine keep it that way. Just saying it'll get round to September and there's like 80% chance we'll be right and you'll be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.9.14 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want with your irrelevant made up percentages. Why would he bother to film and release a music video if he did not have bigger plans for the song. STATic message me! 21:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The music video is just him smoking and miming the words it's not exactly elaborate. And of course it's a made up percentage, I'm just saying the likelihood is it won't be on the album. Anyway here's a fairly equal source saying it probably won't be on the album if it even bothers you - http://www.mobo.com/news-blogs/drake-5am-toronto. Unfortunately I imagine as a wikipedia user you'll probably just dismiss any opinions other than your own. Fact is was released for free so I don't think more will be planned, anyway have a nice life this is the last attempt I'll make to convince you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.9.14 (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the IP is correct (I remember hearing the song is not on the album), but I can't find a source for it. However, it doesn't really matter much since a lot of the time, the tracks listed in the "confirmed tracks" section of these articles wind up not being on the album after all.--Giants27(T|C) 15:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if you have a reliable source saying otherwise I would be glad to see it and remove the information right away. I mean I would say about 60-75% end up on the album, but if a reliable source reports on it, it is the best place to list the information. STATic message me! 22:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First official single

Def Pen Radio confirmed here that the first official single from the album is called "Hold On We're Going Home" and that it will be released August 6. This both renders "Started From the Bottom" a promotional single and "All Me" a promotional track, not a single.Muthafuckaup (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, look up the definition of a promotional single. Second, "Started from the Bottom" is definitely the first single. Third, "Def Pen Radio" is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. STATic message me! 05:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cover

The cover for the album is up as the background on Drake's Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.212.46 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Kadir Nelson's name should be linked to his Wikipedia page Gordonson (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Vinyl pressing

Anyone know if this will be pressed on vinyl? I see Take Care was pressed – not sure if that was planned from the get-go, though. Thanks. Charger2 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I would believe so, when Drake performed on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Fallon advertised a vinyl of the album. I am not sure where we would include this in the article though. STATic message me! 20:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it's not necessary in the article – I just want to know where I can buy it if it exists. The Cash Money website links right to iTunes. Most discography entries list out the formats and Drake's does this. It indicates an LP release however no source was given. Charger2 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2013 (Last name Spelling)

Please change the spelling of Greg Woffett, in the Personel Section to Greg Moffett. Because my last name is Moffett and I would like the correct spelling on my credits. Thank you!

Please Update album=Nothing Was The Same (Deluxe Ver.) top score 56 chart week by GAON date=2013-10-05 accessdate=October 19, 2013 (Korea chart) Thank you! Gmoff (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The name is spelled "Woffett" in the source, in this case Allmusic. It is quite possible that this is a typo on Allmusic's part. Can you provide us a source with the name spelled as "Moffett"? You may also want to get in touch with Allmusic and have it changed at their end. Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nothing Was the Same. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130814070635/http://itunes.apple.com:80/us/album/hold-on-were-going-home-feat./id684530426 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/hold-on-were-going-home-feat./id684530426
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/playlist/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160222054752/http://www.yourmusicfix.com/drake-nothing-was-the-same-digital-booklet-production-credits/photos/2013 to http://www.yourmusicfix.com/drake-nothing-was-the-same-digital-booklet-production-credits/photos/2013

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nothing Was the Same. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/urban/future-releases

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should metacritic be listed in both the review scores box and the critical reception article?

There is a clear consensus to list the Metacritic score in both the {{Album ratings}} box and the critical reception prose. There is also a consensus to remove the Metacritic score from the lead.

Jennica, SubSeven, Binksternet, TheAmazingPeanuts, Sergecross73, NinjaRobotPirate, and FoCuSandLeArN supported listing the Metacritic score in both the {{Album ratings}} box and the critical reception prose. They noted that it is helpful to include both. NinjaRobotPirate wrote: "information in infoboxes is often replicated in prose. For one thing, an infobox can't tell you how many reviews were catalogued, which is useful information."

Dan56 opposed listing the Metacritic score in both the {{Album ratings}} box and the critical reception prose. He said listing both would be undue weight, writing, "regurgitating a point of view from a particular source when it's given enough prominence in the first few sentences of the section is not in the spirit of WP:DUE or WP:CRIT".

Cunard (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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 need to know if it's okay to include the metacritic score in both the Review Scores box and in the critical reception box? I am told it's gratutitous but I feel it fares better for an "at a glance" point of view. It's hurting nothing --Jennica^Talk 03:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the article has changed since this request, but I don't know where these two boxes are. I see one box that seems applicable to this question, it has the header 'Professional Ratings'.

OK you're asking whether the Metacritic score should be in the prose, and in the box. Yes, I don't see why not. Certainly being in the prose should not exclude it from being included in the box, as anything in boxes such as these should be a summary of information that's in the article. --SubSeven (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, include Metacritic in the review box and in the prose review section. I would remove it from the lead section, though. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: @Binksternet: I think adding Metacritic both in the review box and in the prose section wouldn't hurt the article at all. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: thanks for your answer. Unfortunately, every time I do this to certain pages it gets reverted by a user who thinks it's incorrect.--Jennica^Talk 05:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: I know what user you talking about, well I do sometimes agreed with most his opinions but sometimes I don't. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's generally acceptable for the review table and reception prose, though not usually the lead. Sergecross73 msg me 11:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: If you were referring to this, I've have removed it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I mostly mentioned it because Binksternet mentioned it in his stance above. Just trying to show he wasn't the only one with that stance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referred here by Serge. No, to the question of the RfC. I don't believe citing the score more than once improves the section. I've argued about this before, both at WP:ALBUMS and my talk page (here too), and I have very little involvement with this article, so I don't care about it. As such, I'll keep it brief: regurgitating a point of view from a particular source when it's given enough prominence in the first few sentences of the section is not in the spirit of WP:DUE or WP:CRIT. It is an optional parameter that makes sense to be used when articles lack a section of prose (as many will do because this ratings template was designed originally to facilitate the move of review scores that were once in the infobox out of there), but this article's section is plashed out as can be. I don't subscribe to the notion that the general reader will scroll down and expect a ratings template that will tell them all they need to know about how the album was received; that seems like something spoken from the point of view of a Wikipedian who edits the articles and would be far more familiar with what's present in many of these album articles. The general reader's intentions would most likely be to read the section if they decide to click on it in the table of contents should it pique their interest. Dan56 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd say it's OK. It's obviously redundant to list the Metacritic score twice, but information in infoboxes is often replicated in prose. For one thing, an infobox can't tell you how many reviews were catalogued, which is useful information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Could someone provide diffs to what's being asked here? It's tough for people being summoned to spend time researching every piece of article history. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs) it's just a matter of if the metacritic score should both be in the reviews box and in the "critical reception" prose. --Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• In that case I don't see why it should be changed from what is now present. The review box is just that, a summary box of reviews, while the critical reception section can expand on those reviews in detail. Insofar as Metacritic is explained and its score presented, being an average of reviews means it is in itself a useful criterion for inclusion in articles such as these, and I believe readers have grown accustomed to see such information in music articles; in the latter sense removing the score from the section would set a damaging precedent. Those are my thoughts as an outsider. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:18, 17 November 2016 (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.

RfC: Add "R&B" to the genre list

The consensus is to exclude R&B from the genre list. Editors said that R&B could be included if a reliable source was found to verify that R&B is one of the genres. Editors did not consider the sidebar of http://www.allmusic.com/album/nothing-was-the-same-mw0002572983 to be a sufficient source.

There is no prejudice against discussing this again if editors find more sources.

Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

This album clearly has R&B elements to it. Ish Ya Boy (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ish Ya Boy: Well that's depends if it is supported by reliable sources, not because you think it's R&B. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: AllMusic lists contemporary R&B. http://www.allmusic.com/album/nothing-was-the-same-mw0002572983 Ish Ya Boy (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ish Ya Boy: AllMusic's sidebar is not reliable for genres, if that's what you mean. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This may be true but cannot be updated until it can be confirmed in a reliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: @Meatsgains: The Take Care article uses AllMusic as a source for an R&B listing. Ish Ya Boy (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

AllMusic isn't the only source there - Rolling Stone is also referenced. Meatsgains (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ish Ya Boy: What Meatsgains mean is, the genre need to be based on the review itself, not on tags. The AllMusic review of Take Care mentions R&B, while the AllMusic review for this album only mentions R&B for one song, not the album itself. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2017 (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.

Release dates

There is a long table of release dates in various, sourced to iTunes. While the dates may be accurate, if no independent source mentions these dates, they are likely important only to those closely connected to the artist. Just because something is true doesn't mean it is of sufficient interest to be in an encyclopedia article. If the dates have some particular significance, music critics, journalists or other authors will have written about them.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetization

If "The" is part of the title of a magazine or outlet, then we should alphabetize it properly rather than ignoring the word altogether. We should be wary of this when alphabetizing the critic scores. --Bobtinin (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bobtinin: "The" don't count as part of the name of the newspaper or webzine. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)