Talk:The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2

Text and/or other creative content from this version of The 20/20 Experience – The Complete Experience was copied or moved into The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 with this edit on November 7, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Justin Timberlake (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Justin Timberlake, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Justin TimberlakeWikipedia:WikiProject Justin TimberlakeTemplate:WikiProject Justin TimberlakeJustin Timberlake articles

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Music Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Music portal This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 July 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that to promote his upcoming album The 20/20 Experience: 2 of 2 and its predecessor, Justin Timberlake announced his second world concert tour?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/July.

Wikipedia

Album title in tracklist headlines

As requested, I propose that the album title would be removed from tracklist headlines. In other words, the headline for the standard edition would be simply "Standard edition", and the headline for deluxe version – "Deluxe edition (bonus tracks)" or "Deluxe edition bonus tracks". I think that repeating the album title in the tracklist is redundant and pointless, and I haven't seen headlines like that in other articles (with the exception of another Timberlake's release, Justified (album)). Normally only the name of album edition or sides of the vinyl are included, like in many FA-class articles, eg. Thriller (Michael Jackson album), The Dark Side of the Moon, Control (Janet Jackson album), Californication (album), No Line on the Horizon, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, Supernature (Goldfrapp album), The Way I See It, Love. Angel. Music. Baby., In Rainbows, Intimacy (Bloc Party album), etc. I think that the title could be included if, for example, a bonus disc had it's own title, like with Right Thoughts, Right Words, Right Action, but that's not the case here. — Mayast (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Mayast's case here - completely unnecessary to repeat the album title, as it's obvious that we're referring to the album of which the article is about. — Petterhh (talk)

Agree with Mayast and Petterhh per my edit summary of September 26, 2013 doing so as it is "unnecessary to continually repeat the album title here as we are already on its page." —Iknow23 (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with above, why would we need to repeat the album's title over and over again in the tracklist. I think that is just Status' ownership issues with the article that makes him imagine that consensus exists for something, when there is zero discussion at all on the talk page about it. STATic message me! 02:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignoring another instance of Static hounding me – this time claiming I'm mentally incompetent, how delightful.) The style of the headlines originate from the Glassheart article, and are present in other articles as well. Just because something is different doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't believe there's any style guidelines for the "header" input for the track listing template. Quite silly to be so upset about such a little thing if you ask me. I would like a see a more wide consensus against using it, rather than just on one particular talk page. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to see a wider consensus FOR using it ;) Silly or not, I believe that 'our' way is clearer – you can identify a version of the album more quickly, instead of reading a long line of words ("The 20/20 Experience 2 of 2 Standard Edition"), just to get to the "Standard edition" part. And repeating the album title doesn't provide ANY new and useful information to the readers of the article. So why waste the readers' time? — Mayast (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Track listing we go. I don't care either way really, but to avoid things like this in the future, a set style should be discussed. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I'll try to read that discussion when I have some more free time :) — Mayast (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOS

I just found out a Sound on Sound article about these two albums was released, but online it requires a subscription to read the entire article. There seems to be lots of in-depth info that can be use here, and if anyone can read the article, please put the info here and cite the following article:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan14/articles/inside-track-0114.htm

Thank you. 和DITOR E tails 03:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should Pair of Wings be considered as a separate track from Not a Bad Thing, or not?

On the CD, Pair of Wings is on the same track as Pair of Wings, and the iTunes version has Pair of Wings in the same file. I would think that because of this, Pair of Wings should just be mentioned under Not a Bad Thing. Hooky-i-vanisher (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with The 20/20 Experience – The Complete Experience

The 20/20 Experience – The Complete Experience's two sections of non-lead prose are repeated from The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2. Because of this, and the fact that the compilation was released simultaneously with 2 of 2, it makes more sense to merge the compilation's track listing, chart positions, and release history into a brief section in the 2 of 2 article. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, a mock-up of what this would look like in the 2 of 2 article can be seen here. I made this demonstration in namespace in the event that someone wishes to quickly restore it once this discussion has ended, if consensus is in favor of merging. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding it correctly, then I would agree. It looks like someone essentially made an article for pretty much a "deluxe edition" of an double album, right? Seems more like something that should have a subsection in one (or both) of the other album articles. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards support, but then I'm wondering whether 2 of 2 is the best place to put this article. It struck me as a little odd (just a little bit), but I would agree it would be better for both articles because of the lack of additional content in The Complete Experience. Zamaster4536 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been open for over a year, with merger tags on both articles, and no opposition has been indicated. Additionally, two other editors have supported the merge. The content in the Complete Experience article is almost an exact repeat of the 2 of 2 article's content, and there's no reason its minimal unique content can't exist as a section in the main album article. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]