Talk:F.A.M.E. (Chris Brown album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

F.A.M.E. (album)

I believe that this article can be created seeing as the lead single has been released and has charted on the US Billboard Hot 100 and the Canadian Hot 100 at #33 and # 42. Also, this article has refferences of the Album's production and other articles related to the album, am i correct?

Album is now notable

Before someone redirects the article back to the main because they think it's not notable,
well check out these reliable sources that claim the album will be released in March 2011:

See here and here

Also, a tour in support of the album has been announced and will begin in Australia in April. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct abbreviation

Ok, I know that it was originally "Forgiving All My Enemies", but he stated later it would be "Fans Are My Everything." But in the background of the album cover, you see the words floating around "Forgiving All My Enemies" and not the latter. So should it just be mentioned he said "Fans Are My Everything" but only according to the album cover it is "Forgiving All My Enemies"? Candyo32 22:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I get you but then I don't get you LOL. Could you please add it? (: you are welcome to edit the article. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Add William Orbit to list of producers

According to William Orbit's official twitter, he is working with Chris Brown(William Orbit is most noted for producing Madonna's entire Ray of Light album).

Here is a link to his post on twitter http://twitter.com/WilliamOrbit/status/27195536201228288 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.239.231 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct Album Release Date

The release date of this album is March 22, 2011 NOT the 18th. The website you guys have that date going to is the release date for Australia NOT the U.S. Chris has said countless time on twitter what the date is. He has even said it today (2/23/11). Honestly, since when do we use the Australian release date for any American artist? Check it out, with the date and everything: http://twitter.com/chrisbrown/status/40288715930742784 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.26.215 (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the US release date is March 22, but the album's first release date has to be mentioned in the infobox and lead. March 18 is the album's first release date for Australia. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Second Disc

Whatever happened to the Second Disc called "Fortune" is that tracklisting not out yet or is the "Deluxe" supposed to be it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.26.215 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC) -

Guess these plans won't be happening, and the deluxe edition only has four additional tracks. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Writers And Producers

http://www.chrisbrownworld.com/us/news/fame-official-tracklist

The producers were posted on Chris's official website and needs to be added to the tracklisting. Wouldn't hurt to note that Chris co-wrote just about every song on this album.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.26.215 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Ozurbanmusic (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fortune

Chris Brown's rumored second disc called "Fortune" is still happening, it's just happening six months from now.

http://www.theboombox.com/2011/03/15/chris-brown-plans-2-albums-for-2011/

Song

Include the song called "All About You" on the digital Team Breezy deluxe edition of the album. Chris tweeted this link:

http://www.sonymusicdigital.com/chris-brown/f-a-m-e-team-breezy-deluxe-edition-explicit-/details/5818912

http://www.chrisbrownweb.com/2011/03/chris-brown-ramps-up-team-breezy-with-f-a-m-e-listening-parties/

Done. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Bonus Track?

There is a 18. Track called "Talk Ya Ear Off" on http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/3985946 The 19. Track is Champion. The Japanese Edition of F.A.M.E. has 19 Tracks as usually 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.61.248 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Album Review?

Here's another review from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/reviews/2011-03-22-listen22_ST_N.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.26.215 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

US Billboard

The album is number 1 on the US Billboard 200

http://thatgrapejuice.net/2011/03/sales-figures-chris-browns-fame-launches-1-spot/

http://cbreezy.com/2011/03/f-a-m-e-tops-us-album-chart/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.26.215 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Champion on the Itunes deluxe edition?

I checked the track list on itunes and Champion isn't part of the Deluxe edition--Supergamer345 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Its an international deluxe edition bonus track, track 18. See Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Ireland, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Its only track 19 on the Japan Deluxe Edition. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing by removal of aggregate reviews

An editor has been removing aggregate reviews from reliable sources. I have restored them twice, here and here.

To me, this comes across as whitewashing based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with the rationale that because the aggregations include a negative review from NoRipcord, the entire aggregate score should be thrown out. This makes no sense at all.

The rationale falsely claims that the reviewer "doesn't review the album itself", when he clearly does; the reviewer clearly listened to the album and provides commentary about multiple tracks. Dismissing the review because the review chose to make a point about morality also doesn't make sense; the point of any album review is for the reviewer to air personal opinions about the album, and the reader is free to agree or not. Characterizing the source as "not reputable" imposes one editor's opinion on two reliable sources. Those sources included the review in their aggregation for a reason. It should not be for us to second-guess them, but report what those sources say. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It was a bold edit so I expected push-back. But I'm happy to engage in the BRD process. The reasoning provided by me was that while the aggregators are considered reputable sources by Wikipedia, individual aggregate scores can be called into question if they are based on non-reviews or rather nonsense (which is my interpretation of the No Ripcored review include in both aggregate scores). If the review is extremely biased to the point where the individual is not reviewing the album itself but rather writing a morality thinkpiece, it would make sense to throw out the entire aggregate. We can't rescore the aggregate based on the other reviews provided as that would be considered original research, so the only solution for dealing with this is to remove the aggregate. I also stated that No Ripcord is not a reputable source, irrespective of the reviewer or the contents of the review or why the aggregator used it in their scoring.

You state that the author clealry listened to the album and provides commentary about multiple tracks but the author himself included a disclimair that "At this point, you may be wondering what this article’s about, and thinking that you came here to read a review of the new Chris Brown record, rather than a character assassination." Additionally, the short to non-existent commentary about songs has the author using quotations to misquote lyrics, making offhand and borderline racists comments singling out out an African American collaborator as being a poor campaigner for womens rights, questioning management decisions of featured artists, making nonsensical connections of certain lyrics to a past conviction. The most worthwhile aspect of the review is the author correctly identifying that their are sexual songs of the album and they are not to his liking. The review also ends with an implication that the low score is given to emphasize the importance of feminism.

It seems what you are saying that we should leave in aggregate scores which include this review and we should also leave in an except in the critical reception about this nonsensical and borderline non-review because: 1) articles should not be whitewashed based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT or Cherrypicking in a positive or negative manner; 2) all reviews should be permitted and that readers should be allowed to agree or disagree; and 3) we should not remove questionable and/or biased reviews (whether negative or positive) from any source (whether reputable or not). If that is the logic we should use, then lets reinstate every other review and critical reception excerpt that was cherrypicked and removed on this article in the last several months based on justifications that they were biased or from a non-reputable source, as those editors would be in violation of the logic above. Lets also use that as justification to reinstate every other album review and critical reception excerpt that was cherrypicked and removed on every album article of this artist on justifications that tthey were biased or from a non-reputable source, as those editors would again be in violation of the logic above. I'm glad this edit inadvertently created the dicussion on cherrypicking and whitewashing that I've been wanting to have on album articles of this artist. Instantwatym (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User Aardwolf68 keeps inserting a non-existent star rating back into article. In addition to an interpretation in the review infobox.

User @Aardwolf68 keeps reinserting the following sentence into the critical reception section:

"Joe Caramanica of The New York Times gave the album 2 stars out of 5, saying that "Mr. Brown sings, with a modicum of angst [on "Up To You"]. But for much of this album—almost the whole second half, actually—Mr. Brown is chasing Usher with a ferocity out onto the dance floor, where no one will pay much mind to his words."

However the cited New York Times review does not give a star rating at all, let alone a star rating of 2 stars out of 5. The editor @Aardwolf68 has even acknowledges multiple times that a star rating does not exist in the cited review. Here [1] and here [2]. This in my opinion is blatant vandalism. The editor themselves acklowedges multiple time that no star rating is present and yet the continue to add a fabricated star rating into the article against the cited material.

Additionally in the absence of a star rating in the review, the editor @Aardwolf68 adds the word mixed to the infobox in place of a rating. Here [3] and here [4]. However nowhere in the cited review are there any concluding remarks of the review being mixed. Nor is it explicity mentioned anywhere in the cited review. So this is the interpretation and a violation of WP:NOR. It's one thing to adds excerpts from the cited review into the critical reception, but it's another for an editor to give their own conclusion on a review and present it as the conclusion of the cited reviewer.

So one hand they are adding a fabricated star rating into the critical reception, which they themselves acknowledge is not present in the cited source. And on the other hand, there are adding their own conclusion into the review infobox in the absence of a star rating, as well in the absence of their own fabricated star rating which they use in the critical reception section.

One should assume good faith, but this editor has a similar pattern of nonsensical vandlism on several other articles' concerning this artist. It's quite tedious to correct someone who can't even make sense of their own edits and ends up contradicting themselves. Instantwatym (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The first time that anyone added that NYT review into the article in March 2011 by Teflon Peter Christ. He wrote,

Jon Caramanica of The New York Times wrote unfavorably of Brown's performance and stated "Mostly, he has a really charmless way with a lyric".

The review listing had no stars but asserted a "mixed" result. I think we should return to that sort of assessment. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to night blatantly misrepresent my points in order to get your Chris Brown bias across I'd appreciate that. Only AFTER did I realize that there was no star rating did I revert the edit and fixed it to add "mixed" into the infobox, as Metacritic lists it as a mixed review, and the New York Times is a reliable source. You wanting to remove a source entirely because you found a single problem with my editing that I later acknowledged and apologized for is nothing short of misrepresented what actually happened.

I do not have a pattern of vandalism. YOU have a pattern of vandalism. Anybody who's not one of that Italian dude's socks or another Chris Brown superfan can see that clear as day. All you've been doing is making Chris Brown's album reception seem more positive than it actually is, and as you can see, these articles have a blatant bias towards the reception section and I've been fixing them. Many reputable editors have supported my changes but have warned me to be a little careful around vandals like you because they'll make me look bad. Good luck though, maybe one person will see through your facade. Aardwolf68 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No star ratings are present. This is something you acknowledged multiple times as pointed out above. Yet you keep adding a star adding of 2 out of 5 with the excerpt highlighted in bold above in the critical reception reception. This is not my doing. These are your edits and its blatant vandlism and you keep doing it. Just because you and the Italian editor, who uses sockpuppet accounts, have some kind personal vandetta against eachother, doesn't mean you have to misrepresent material in articles. I also recall you replacing a critic rating in another album article with a lower user rating and presenting it as the critic rating and refusing to correct that vandal edit as well, even after acknowlging your vandalism there but defending it as negligence. Your excuses for vandalism, edit warring, 3RR violations and defending vandal edits by saying they are approved by admins aren't admins are ridiculous. But I refrained from creating an ANI notice to keep building a list of examples to support one. And you certainly don't help yourself in that regard. Instantwatym (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with adding excerpts from the Mr. Caramanica review to the critical reception section. So long as the excerpts are direct quotes and provide a good synopsis of the review. Other non-vandal editors can weigh on the language that should be used to represent this particular review in critical recetion. The infbox label however is giving an interpreted conclusion. Whether that conclusion is "mixed" or "unfavorable". This is something not stated by the reviewer himself. For example user @Teflon Peter Christ concluded unfavorable. Then there was a new conclusion of "mixed". The discrepancy exists because the conclusion is not coming from the reviewer but rather editors. Instantwatym (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

there's NO rating. The template is FOR ratings lol. Insane that this has gotten such intense traction. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 22:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:Music ratings literally says, "It cannot capture the general sense of a review that does not include any kind of scale, so do not include language like 'Very favorable' or '(mixed)' in the template, as this would be original research." Does anyone bother to ever check the rules, read up on what they're actually doing?? 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 22:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit is ridiculous. First there is a fabricated rating which keeps being added to critical reception with the editor acknowlding no such rating is present in the actual review. Then there is a label of mixed being added to a template designed for star ratings. No rating nor a label is present in the review. Instantwatym (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References