Talk:CunninLynguists

Facts only, remove superlatives

Let's stick to the facts here, fellas. Here are some lines that have gotta go (i have highlighted the NPOV stuff):

• Backed with quality beats and rhymes, gritty sounds, witty lyrics, an occasional curse word and low ends that jump out the trunk like Rae Carruth, the 'Lynguists recapture the soul in southern hip-hop
• Since the release of Southernunderground, CunninLynguists have received tremendous press in various outlets...
• His beats have been blessed by the likes of KRS-One, Masta Ace...

The rest of it really does read like a press release. We don't need to know who did the production on each album and how successful they are getting with each album. I would say remove all the praise from all the other sources (papers as well as other artists). Those can be saved as links in the "see also" section. Leaving those in as part of the description makes it look like a commercial for the group, which is not Wikipedia's intent.Bill shannon 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how I'm meant to comment here so I'll just edit it. This reads like a press release because it is, directly. It is the blurb from the front page of the CunninLynguists website in the months building up the new album's release.

I guess my point is, it shouldn't be a press release. Wikipedia is not intended to advertise or give good press to a topic, but rather go over facts. It's okay to mention positive reviews in passing in the article, or add links to positive reviews at the end. But the article itself should not be an exhortation of the group. Are you affiliated with the group? Bill shannon 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

i don't know though, cause on the real i'm just not feelin that

Yeah but on the real, you should just stick to facts. This isn't the right format for editorializing and giving opinions. Maybe a group's history. This article makes it sound like you really like this group (I've never heard them). But you need to approach them as if you don't have an opinion on them one way or the other. Bill shannon 05:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence was stolen from Hip Hop Galaxy Bill shannon 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The guy said he took the article directly from the CunninLynguists website; of course that line's going to pop up somewhere else. You've made your point sufficiently clear -- it'd be a lot more productive to actually do something about it.

Problem is, I don't know anything about this group, so it will be hard for me to add any kind of information on them. But I'll give it a go for formatting. Bill shannon 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to delete only the superlatives, without having to delete all the information. The article did not work without the superlatives, so, what appears of this date is simply the removal. HexInfinity 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Image use in discographies

The images in the discography of this band have been commented out under the guidelines at #1 of "unaccepable images". Please see also WP:Albums#Discography. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy Seconds Volume One

Why isn't it added to the article? Mixtape? Unreleased? Can someone tell me why, im sitting right now lissing to it. --Divine time (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The play on words

It's pointless to throw in the "But also Cunning and Linguistics too". Because it's already implied. It's saying the same thing twice, and I suggest that the latter part is removed. -76.168.204.61 (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

agree on simplifying the structure, but removing one of the senses in which their names plays with language makes it appear as if CunninLynguists is only a play on the word cunnilingus, which is incorrect.Mathesoneon (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

CunninLynguists discography is not so long that it needs its own article. It should be merged into this article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Assuming that the baffling AFD currently under way results in this article being kept.--Michig (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think people on Wikipedia are smart enough to get the wordplay for themselves, why spell it out for them like a bunch of Asberger nerds. It's awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.18.4 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does E-40 get a pic yet these guys don't?

think about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.246.7 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)