Talk:Raymond v. Raymond

Genre

It fetures 3 rappers on the album so will hip-hop be valid?--Louis Taylor (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Title: Raymond v Raymond or Raymond vs Raymond

The cover art says Raymond v Raymond, as well as the iTunes store at http://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/raymond-v-raymond/id361405193 and the amazon.com canada link from the official Usher website http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B002RAREAK?ie=UTF8&tag=myp0df-20&linkCode=as2&camp=15121&creative=330641&creativeASIN=B002RAREAK

The official website of Usher http://usherworld.com/ has it mentioned as Raymond v Raymond as well. Thoughts? --Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant Raymond v. Raymond in the title. --Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.com US site has it with the period [1]. Dan56 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes its Raymond v. Raymond. Ill get on it right away :) thank you Texasmade2010 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Userworld.com uses both "Raymond v Raymond" and "Raymond v. Raymond". All the Hung Medien sites and Billboard list it as "Raymond v Raymond". I've given up trying to figure out which one is better: so long as there's a redirect at one pointing at the other, I won't object.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Album Reviews

Look everybody the album has enough reviews. So please don't add anymore. I believe usually there are only suppose to be 10 reviews. So I removed a few. Another thing don't show the full review. Cut it short and sweet because you can't just give a negative full album review and not a positive. The reviews are suppose to show both. The scale where it shows reviews had previously shown mostly the negative reviews so I just added three positive reviews to balance it out. The Chicago Tribune, Pop Matters, Rolling Stone, The Times and USA Today for the negative and mixed reviews. Then About.com, Now Magazine, Boston Herald, Entertainment Weekly, and the Los Angeles Times for the positive reviews. Don't edit it. As it said the album received mixed reviews. Not mostly negative. You need to show both the positive and the negative. To get the mixed. Thank you-MiamiFloridaBabii (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is only one negative review, Slant Magazine's, in the template. 2½ out of 4 star-ratings and the B- are lukewarm but generally positive. It is not necessary to show both attitudes/criticism, but to have the template reflect on most top critics' reception. Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Top critics? Please critics are critics. It is important to show both. To signify the mixed reviews. You committed vandalism and are not in charge of the page. So quit acting like you run the page. What makes them top critics? And you gave a full negative review which is not necessary and without a positive one. Your just showing the negative. It appears as if you dislike Usher and/or the album personally.MiamiFloridaBabii (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And do not change the chart performance as I said below I have good and reliable sources. Don't remove it. If you do that is vandalism.MiamiFloridaBabii (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There are four positive reviews in the template, rev2, 3, 4, and 9, there are four mixed, rev1, 5, 6, 8, and 10. And one negative, Slant Magazine. So chill. If the same publications in the template had acclaimed the album, u'd be having no issues with it. And thanks for removing the acharts.us.com citation(s) I added, replacing your references that are not stable and weeks past the album's chart debut. Next time, use WebCite to archive such sources. Dan56 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

First off no I would not let it go with acclaim if the album didn't receive it. It received mixed reviews. Once again you have to show both. And my sources are perfect. You changed my European album chart citation. When it was from Billboard.com and showed its debut. Your starting to piss me off. And I saw your talk page you've been blocked a couple times before. If you don't want that to happen again stop vandalizing the page. I'll tell them its the same thing you did to Rihannas Rated R article. So quit removing my sources. Or I will get administrators to block you.MiamiFloridaBabii (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It was ultimately decided in my favor, but I will not make the same mistake twice of reverting u. Ill just tell. Dan56 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In your favor? That's ridiculous. Don't vandalize and your okay. I got nothing against you personally. But vandalism will not be tolerated.MiamiFloridaBabii (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

U removed legitimate criticism from the article. It is so obvious you're a fan of this album. I think its a good album, but for the sake of encyclopedic knowledge/information, save the fancruft for the blogs and forums. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not even hear the album although I am fan of Usher. And I did not remove legitimate criticism. I simply shortened the reviews. And removed maybe a couple because there are too many reviews. And I didn't vandalize the page the way you did. You didn't see me showing a full positive review of the album did you? I did neither and simply showed the mixed reviews which the album received. Your pushing your luck.MiamiFloridaBabii (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Chart Performance

I listed the countries it debuted with-in the Top 10 and 20. They all have reliable sources. Check for yourself and stop removing it. That is vandalism.MiamiFloridaBabii (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

My edits keep being removed when my sources are perfect. They came from Billboard.com and the official sites for each chart. It doesn't get any more reliable. They are not from blogs so quit removing it. Continued vandalism will result in blockage from editing.MiamiFloridaBabii (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Raymond v. Raymond

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Raymond v. Raymond's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Billboard":

• From T.I.: Katie Hasty (October 8, 2008). T.I. Debuts Big Atop Billboard 200, Hot 100 Billboard. Retrieved October 8, 2008.
• From My World 2.0: [2]
• From B.o.B Presents: The Adventures of Bobby Ray: "Atlanta Rapper B.o.B To Top Hot 100". Billboard.biz. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
• From Yeah! (Usher song): "Usher: Billboard Singles Chart". Allmusic. Macrovision Company. Retrieved 2008-03-02.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Omg

Omg samples Boom boom pow, don't have any sources maybe because it's almost unnoticeable. it's at around 00:10 of the song. YZJay (callme) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Royalplaid1234, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change Michael Makowskiv- assistant to.... Michael Makowski-assistant ..My last name doesn't have a "v" on the end. I worked on Ushers album @ Chung King Studios in NYC with engineers Ian Cross and Brian Stanley and also Mark Pitts, executive A&R..Thanks for your valuable time.

Royalplaid1234 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

On the link to where it says Raymond v. Raymond is certified Gold in Australia has been updated and Raymond v. Raymond is now platinum. Please change it from Gold to Platinum.Vanessa Aragon NY (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Rayman95 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, there is no consensus to move the article ~~ GB fan ~~ 10:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Raymond v. Raymond → Raymond v Raymond — Observe this page. http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/raymond-v-raymond/id361405193 The title has NO DOT on it. It must be Raymond v Raymond and NOT Raymond v. Raymond. Look at this also. http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/kissin-u-ep/id378268369 The title must be Kissin U WITHOUT AN APOSTROPHE AND NOT Kissin' U WITH AN APOSTROPHE. Please observe how does it stylize. TAKE NOTE OF THE DOT AND THE APOSTROPHE. Thank you. ~~yeah~~ 09:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion for the same issue. Dan56 (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; Official web site uses the period. Powers ^T 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About.com Review

The site is included on various articles. It is a positive review and I guess that's why Dan56(a user notorious for adding negative reviews) insists on not including it. Despite it be used frequently on other articles.Vanessa Aragon NY (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I let u know before that the proper talk page for this issue, involving a site's status as a professional review site, is here. And pray tell amateur, what negative reviews? Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Amateur? I've seen you engage in article disputes with various other users. A lot of them were adding positive reviews for articles and you did not want to allow it.Vanessa Aragon NY (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seen? Dan56 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding to Lead.

I vote to add to the extremely short lead considering it has become a big commercial success.John Stewart 9087 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree also considering the fact this isn't a good article yet so there is obvious room for improvement to the article.Lilian Diane Moore (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As on the Confessions talk page I agree. The fact this isn't a good article yet is more reason to add on to the lead and continue to edit the page for improvement.HookemHorns12345 (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess it's agreed but there is always room for more opinion.Lilian Diane Moore (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead is fine per the WP:LEAD standards. Wikipedia is not for fancruft. And don't use I Am...Sasha Fierce as an example. It is not a high quality article and is not a GA. Use GA examples such as The Fame or Goodies (Ciara album). Candyo32 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the three users Lilian Diane Moore, John Stewart 9087, and HookemHorns12345 were all blocked on 15 October as sockpuppets of User:Tony254trill. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

American Music Awards

You should add him winning two American music awards. Soul/ Rhythm & Blues Music - Favorite Male Artist and Soul/ Rhythm & Blues Music - Favorite Album are the awards he won. Add please and too the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.88.169 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Soul Train Music Awards

Usher won the Soul Train Music Awards for Album of the year and best R&B Soul Artist Male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.39.76 (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammy Nominations.

The album earned Usher two Grammy Award nominations for Best R&B Vocal Performance (for There Goes My Baby) and Best R&B Contemporary Album. Be sure to add to lead and commercial performance. You should probably take all the award wins and nominations and make it one section called "impact", under commercial performance as on Confessions. (Good Article)25 To Life Homiez (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammy Award Nominations

Why in the world is the grammy award nomination in the Critical Response section? No One will even see it and something like that is suppose o be added to the lead as well.25 To Life Homiez (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:Lead, the lead "serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects". This is neither, but a sub-section may be created for content regarding awards/nominations. However, a sub-section requires a necessity, i.e. more content than just one sentence/nomination. For now, this placement of the nomination statement will suffice, till more accolade info is available. Dan56 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I guarantee you every album that has been nominated for a Grammy Award for Best R&B Contemporary album has it mentioned in the lead section like on Trey Songz Ready and Ushers Confessions album. THEY ALL HAVE IT IN THE LEAD.25 To Life Homiez (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Also the album has won and been nominated for American Music Awards, Soul Train Music Awards, and Grammy Awards. Among others. A sub section should be added. The article needs major improvement. From its over bloated commercial performance section to its lack of order and neatness. As on Alicia Keys Element of Freedom and Eminems Recovery the commercial performance is suppose to list the first few sales weeks. Then give an up to date amount of how much the album has sold and tell how the album performed and charted in other countries. With chart listings and certifications. Not to mention some sources for the last few sales weeks do not show the cited information and/or are POORLY SOURCED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 25 To Life Homiez (talk • contribs) 02:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

Since when is winning an American Music Award not notable? I thinking you sipping on some haterrade bruh. I was gonna remove but felt better just to discuss on talk page. Its not a bi deal and considering the article needs major improvement as I said its all good.25 To Life Homiez (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:Lead. I meant notable with respect to adding it to the lead, a general summation of the article's most important parts. The article's body needs to be improved first before a lead can be more properly modelled after the body. Dan56 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

World Sales

Worldwide sales: 1.7 million

Please add that!

SOurce--79.216.153.186 (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No; not a reliable source. Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ambivalent"/"Divided"

The piece about the album's critical reception is sufficient, but editor Rose Marie Aragon sees "divided" as a more accurate term. But most critics expressed either a mixed or negative response towards the songwriting and themes. Most. Who or what critic was positive towards the songwriting/themes ? Dan56 (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Song writing

I hardly see how it was viewed that bad. The song writing and the albums themes were hardly pointed out consistently enough to put such a rash statement. It is a bold assumption. Its almost as if one is hating on the commercial success of the album by putting that for the critical response. It is not supported by anything. The album itself along with everything else received a mixed response. That is a fact, not an opinion, and/or assumption. That's just adding something cause you feel like it. Which does not help the article. Its clear the article needs improvement or it would be listed as a Good Article instead of middle class.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That infers the fact that you want your personal opinion in there. The critics review is final, like it or not. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 09:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rose Marie, Do you have anything to refute that statement? What you replaced instead is supported by anything? "The album itself along with everything else received a mixed response. That is a fact". Sounds like your opinion. The lead serves as a summary of the article, and as such, is supported by the article's contents. The reception section sufficiently supports that most critics were ambivalent (expressed a mixed response), not that they were divided. That's the wrong term; it means there was a split, like 50/50 between positive and negative. That's not accurate. Dan56 (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. What were the critics' reviews divided by? Mixed and negative reviews? Mixed and positive reviews? Positive and negative reviews? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not voice my opinion on anything. It was a mixed response. I do not see how you get negative. It got a 57 score so I would say its 57-43. No but being being serious what I said is true and supported. That statement is not supported by anything. Metacritic supports my mixed response theory if that's what you'd like to call it. But hey its two to one. I'm fine with leaving the comment. Consensus has been reached.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. Patience, please. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 11:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You live to annoy me. And all other women in this world I'm sure monkey boy.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You know what you just did then? WP:NPA... Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 12:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My edits

Hello my name is Angela before any possible reverts of my edits it should be discussed on the talk page as to why it should be reverted. I helped improve the article but its almost always hard to come to a consensus on a pages lead. I try to follow the same standard on every article w/o including how I generally feel. So feel free to talk about my edits. Love-Lil Miss Angelic (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. Citing other Wikipedia articles is not a valid argument; Wikipedia's guidelines support internal consistency, not external, so one article's content may be layed out differently than in another article, whatever works best for it. But so much prose about single shouldn't be in this article's lead. Leads should reflect the article body's most important content, and your addition is undue weight, borderline fancruft. All those singles have their respective articles, which is where such content should be. This has also been referred to previously on this talk page here. You also added a sales figure without citing a source, along with charting info. Unexplained/unsourced changes to chart positions were also reverted. Dan56 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raymond v. Raymond. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/32736680/review/32906730/raymond_v_raymond

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} 13:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Raymond v. Raymond. 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/20170207200650/http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691 to http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uOMOaDIM?url=http://www.digitalspy.com/music/singlereviews/ to http://www.digitalspy.com/music/singlereviews/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_urban.asp?chart=1Q40RB&chart2=1R40RB
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204053516/http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard2.aspx to http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard2.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:She Don't Know (Jade Eagleson song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)