Talk:Rihanna/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 76 external links on Rihanna. 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:

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) 19:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2017

Youtube information change https://www.youtube.com/c/https://www.youtube.com/RihannaVEVO to https://www.youtube.com/user/RihannaVEVO CharlieD (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Putting https://www.youtube.com/user/RihannaVEVO in "Channel_url" parameter links to a wrong page. I removed the url https://www.youtube.com/RihannaVEVO, but the "Channel" parameter has the direct link to her youtube page. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: per Dragon Booster. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

49.145.4.27 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

Change Barbadian to Bajan 206.205.117.10 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request: Loyalty

Please add a reference to "Loyalty" by Kendrick Lamar feat. Rihanna in the 2015-present stage. Thanks!--mikomango mwa! 03:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Philanthropy

It's amazing to me how the (former) President of the United States Barack Obama and the Prince of the United Kingdom Harry, Duke of Wales, went out of their way to publicly honor and thank Rihanna for being a "philanthropist"--their words--yet Wikipedia needs Rihanna to cure cancer in order to give her the title no matter how many sources have already done it. Angelina Jolie's article got it, George Clooney's got it, why not Rihanna? She's been consistently and publicly doing it for many years now, especially with regard to girls education.Trillfendi (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've started looking into it a few times, and my impression is that the press coverage is all public relations pieces. I may be misremembering, as it's been awhile since I last looked. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation Errors

Hi there, I am a student doing an assignment on finding errors on Wikipedia articles. I found some errors in your reference list. Number 367 of your citations is not properly cited with the date and name of the author. Number 368 of your citation is also not properly cited with the date and name of the author.--Nums01 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

368 has been updated. 367 is a press release, a format which does not generally include attribution. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Rihanna's worldwide Sales

It should be added that Rihanna is the eight best selling music artist of all time and the highest selling based on certified units only (190.80.50.137 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

Like most content in biographies, we need reliable independent sources. I don't expect they'd be hard to find. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


Here is the reliable source editor... ... I wish to request an update on Rihanna worldwide record sales ... Coz as of last year according to a billboard report she has garnered 60M albums and 215M tracks sold which accounts to 275M record sales ... I provide the link below to the article .. I wish u guys change that record sale...👉👉👉👉 https://www.billboardmusicawards.com/2016/05/rihanna-perform-2016-bbmas/amp/...


Plz consider CoColyn96 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rihanna. 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:

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) 04:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Socks

This article is the target of a longtime sock puppeteer MariaJaydHicky. She is obsessed with removing or downplaying "pop" as a genre and promoting R&B, often removing pop and adding R&B or, as here, moving pop dswn the list in favor of pop. She is currently editing here as Virgingirl and has previously edited here under the now indefed socks Addamchewy and Chevyoncé. There are likely others, including IPs. Feel free to revert any/all of her edits, without need for explanation, per WP:EVADE. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is the target of a longtime sock puppeteer Mrwallace05. S/he is obsessed with removing or downplaying "Hip hop/trip hop" as a genre and promoting pop, often removing hip hop/trip hop in favor of pop. S/he is currently editing here as RobFeatherszzz and has previously edited here under the now indefed socks Routron3000 and Repeattofade. There are likely others, including IPs. Feel free to revert any/all of her edits, without need for explanation, per WP:EVADE. 115.164.202.73 (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Definition of the word Legacy

Can someone explain to me why the term Legacy should be used for a person still alive and currently active in the industry?

Here's the definition of the word 'Legacy' from several different dictionaries. Please feel free to add one that says it refers to the impact that a person (still active in the industry) has on a particular field. LK (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Merriam Webster:
Definition of legacy
plural legacies
1 :a gift by will especially of money or other personal property :bequest She left us a legacy of a million dollars.
2 :something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past the legacy of the ancient philosophers The war left a legacy of pain and suffering.

Dictionary.com:
noun, plural legacies.
1. Law. a gift of property, especially personal property, as money, by will; a bequest.
2. anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor: the legacy of ancient Rome.

Cambridge Dictionary:
legacy
noun [ C ] UK ​ /ˈleɡ.ə.si/ US ​ /ˈleɡ.ə.si/

C2 money or property that you receive from someone after they die: An elderly cousin had left her a small legacy.

C2 something that is a part of your history or that remains from an earlier time: The Greeks have a rich legacy of literature.
The war has left a legacy of hatred.

Collins
Definition of 'legacy' legacy (legəsi ) Word forms: plural legacies

1. countable noun
A legacy is money or property which someone leaves to you when they die.
You could make a real difference to someone's life by leaving them a generous legacy.
Synonyms: bequest, inheritance, endowment, gift

2. countable noun [noun NOUN]
A legacy of an event or period of history is something which is a direct result of it and which continues to exist after it is over.
...the legacy of inequality and injustice created by Apartheid. [+ of]
The old system has left a mixed legacy.
Synonyms: repercussion, result, fruit, consequences

Wiktionary legacy (plural legacies)

1. (law) Money or property bequeathed to someone in a will.
2. Something inherited from a predecessor; a heritage.
John Muir left as his legacy an enduring spirit of respect for the environment.
3. (university and society admissions) The descendant of an alumnus.
Because she was a legacy, her mother's sorority rushed her.

thefreedictionary.com leg·a·cy (lĕg′ə-sē) n. pl. leg·a·cies

1. Money or property given to another by will.
2. Something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of religious freedom. See Synonyms at heritage.
3. An individual who is either an applicant to an educational institution or a matriculated student and is the child of an alumna or alumnus.
adj. Retained under an obsolescent or discarded system, chiefly for purposes of reference: legacy files in the old email system.


RfC

Title changed to Influence. Consensus that influence is a more appropriate title. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:20, 26 December 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.

There is some disagreement about whether the title for section 5 should be 'Influence' or 'Legacy'. Comments appreciated on which title is appropriate. LK (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment - Legacy typically implies the individual has passed away. I support naming the section Influence. Meatsgains (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Meatsgains, 'legacy' is post-career if not post-life. BUT at least the first para of the section doesn't appear to be either, simply accolades which might belong elsewhere or out. Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree, "Legacy" can also mean a person's overall influence on culture/media etc regardless of if they're dead or alive. Lots of other musicians have a "legacy" section and they have not passed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmytime (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Please link to these other articles of currently active singers with 'legacy' sections. I'll be happy to fix those too. LK (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment LK theres a huge list. But off the top of my head:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariah_Carey#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyonc%C3%A9#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(band)#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminem#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer)#Legacy

Legacy is what is left behind, after someone retires or dies. The fact that it may be wrongly used sometimes isn't a good reason for US to do so. Pincrete (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Same user (Simmytime) has changed this three times over the last 27 hours. Agreeing with the first two comments based on understanding. Thanks, Iggy (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Influence" would probably be better for someone who's still alive and professionally active, as others have pointed out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • An artist's 'legacy' does not only apply to dead people. As per the definitions, it is the impact they have "left behind" due to their high profile status. It fits within the definition listed: 'C2 something that is a part of your history or that remains from an earlier time'. Artists, politicians, organisations, cultures etc. build legacies as they go along. While one usage of the word refers explicitly to death, it is not always the case. This word is used regularly as a wikipedia wide subheading in BLP articles and correctly so. I have no idea why user:Pincrete links to a definition of the word "legacy" and then states it requires death when that is never mentioned in either of the definitions written in his link (only the examples).333cale (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you 333cale, glad someone agrees with me, "legacy" means so much more than just after death. Its the impact the person has made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmytime (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, none of those sources cited above say that legacy is "only" defined for dead people. The term has been widely used in Wikipedia, including in featured articles Janet Jackson, AC/DC, Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue, U2, Bob Dylan, Courtney Love, and the list goes on and on. They're all alive and still active career-wise. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Influence Just because other stuff exists is not a good argument for (mis)using the term "legacy". Jschnur (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid, and it's only an essay, not policy. So? There aren't any sources explicitly defining "legacy = dead" tho Bluesatellite (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems clear from the other comments that the general opinion is that we should use the common meaning of the word legacy, which is: "what is bequeathed by a person who has passed away". If no one has any objection except "hey, other articles about living singers also use the word 'legacy'" (which is not a policy based argument), then I believe we can view this RfC as having determined consensus, that we should use the common meaning of the word. LK (talk) 15:41, 18 December 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rihanna. 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:

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) 15:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rihanna. 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:

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) 18:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

Please change Rihanna's '8 Grammy awards wins to 9 wins' , the link is ' https://www.grammy.com/grammys/awards/60th-annual-grammy-awards ' .. 183.78.95.135 (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Philantrophy and bio

I think that it is worth adding that Rihanna has been named the Global Ambassador for Global Partnership for Education (GPE) in the Philantrophy section and furthermore add "humanitarian" to the Bio section, among singer, actress, model etc as she has been profoundly invested in improving lives all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.144.224 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

Please add to Rihanna's Occupation that she's also a Business Woman and Philanthropist (Humanitarian), she have her own business "Fenty Beauty" and "Savage Fenty". She also have "Clara Lionel Foundation", the links are " https://www.savagex.com/xtrasavage ", " https://www.fentybeauty.com/ " and " https://claralionelfoundation.org/ " .. 183.78.95.227 (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"Rihanna is hip hop and reggae"

According to the Infobox here. What this article says:

"Rihanna's music has encompassed a broad range of genres; including dancehall, reggae and soca, as well as pop, R&B, dubstep, hip hop and electronic dance music."

What the source cited says:

"..her music incorporates elements of pop, R&B, dubstep, hip-hop and electronic dance music."

Both should be removed from the Infobox. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Quickly skimming the edits and the article: Hip hop seems to be verified in the article. Reggae seems to be an influence, especially in her earliest work. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reggae and hip hop are sourced correctly only dance seems to be weak, if you listen to her music; reggae is a prominent genre, she only really dabbles in dance. --OntheJ.Lothisrebirth (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC) (OntheJ.Lothisrebirth has been blocked as yet another sock. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC))
@OntheJ.Lothisrebirth: Could you point out where is sourced correctly? Reading the source itself, it says her music incoporates -elements- of hip-hop; and her early work was -inspired- by reggae. It is not saying she's a hip-hop or reggae artist. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cornerstonepicker: You still need establish a consensus; and besides Music of the Sun and A Girl like Me were reggae; she began her career doing reggae too; how can you deny that when it is mentioned in the article and on Good Girl Bad? --OntheJ.Lothisrebirth (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC) (OntheJ.Lothisrebirth has been blocked as yet another sock. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC))
The WP:ONUS for inclusion rests on those arguing for it, moreso in BLPs.
The sources provided so far do not support it. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Music of the Sun is her debut album, A Girl like Me (Rihanna album) is her second. This article states reggae was one of her early influences, which is what I referred to. Is that enough to include "reggae" in the infobox when she has six subsequent albums in the decade since? I'm not sure, and without proper sourcing it should probably remain out. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"Inspired" or "influenced" doesn't mean it's the main genre. For example, I understand she makes Reggae-inspired Pop music; R&B with hip hop elements. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Well yeah, look at Pink's article in 2000, she released Can't Take Me Home which was R&B and then moved to pop and rock but she still has R&B in her info box and also in the article they mention Rihanna's reggae and dancehall roots so yeah in a way it should stay. --OntheJ.Lothisrebirth (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC) (OntheJ.Lothisrebirth has been blocked as yet another sock. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC))
Thank you for rejoining the discussion.
look at Pink's article This article is about Rihanna, and sources are needed if there's going to be any consensus to include it, or any other related content like this which removes the emphasis from the source and replaces it with information that fails verification. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice that this article has had SOCK problems on this specific topic: Talk:Rihanna#Socks. Feel free to investigate. I might take a look at some point. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking for better sources:

  • billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/6820746/rihanna-songs-best-hits-list
    Mentioned in the previous discussion on this topic: Talk:Rihanna#Genres --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Patricia Garcia (January 28, 2016). "Rihanna's Anti Album Is Anti-Pop—And That's Not a Bad Thing". Vogue. Retrieved July 29, 2017.
    I see nothing wrong with this source and will be restoring it if no evidence is given for it being unreliable or otherwise inappropriate to use. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/rihanna/biography http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/20-best-pop-albums-of-2016-w455459/rihanna-anti-w455467 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/20-best-pop-albums-of-2016-w455459/rihanna-anti-w455467
    These Rolling Stone pieces don't add anything, but I'd doubt anyone will dispute their reliability. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'd prefer if we could find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If no sources were found after almost 1 year... it should be removed. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Change Rihanna's Occupation by adding that she's also a Business Woman and Philanthropist (Humanitarian), she have her own business such as a Lingerie line and Beauty products, She also have her own philanthropy Foundation, the links are " https://www.vogue.com/article/rihanna-savage-x-fenty-lingerie-launch-details " , " https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2017/09/13/the-executive-director-of-rhiannas-the-clara-lionel-foundation-on-the-power-of-public-service/#4d55c26b4603 " . Also, add her lingerie line "SavageXFenty" under her business endeavors section please .. 183.78.95.92 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: As to the infobox, the occupation section is intended to be what she's known for, not every single thing she's done. As to the Business Endeavors section, please make a specific request with the text you would like added to the article, including reliable sources as necessary. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

... 183.78.95.78 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

... 183.78.95.128 (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

V4 (cote d'voire

V4 is a comapny village located in the western african country of Ivory coast. as of 2008, the village had a total population 3,ooo individuals. V4 is the place of birth of Liberian rapper secret hinneh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretofficial (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2018

Please update about Rihanna's new ninth studio Album, it's officially published in Rolling Stone magazine. The link is, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/inside-rihannas-upcoming-dancehall-album-700930/ 183.78.95.230 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

... 183.78.95.198 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

Are you all dumb? I asked to add an important thing about Rihanna's new 9th studio album and you all don't understand? You all add an unrelevant thing about her new album but can't add an important one? There's an official news about her new album published by Rolling Stone magazine! I provided the link and all but you all still being stubborn, are you all Rihanna's haters? The link is, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/inside-rihannas-upcoming-dancehall-album-700930/ Everything about her new album is provided in this article such as she's doing a Reggae album and 500 songs offered to her for this album, she's only choosing 10. She's working with many producers and artists from Jamaica. Please update it 183.78.95.47 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: As the edit request template says, edit requests are for specific requests, in the form of Change "X" to "Y". If you want something added to the article via this method, you need to write up the language that you would like to see included in the article. Putting an edit request on the talk page just asking that the album be added will be declined, as it already has been. Please read WP:Edit requests#General considerations, particularly the part about the request being Specific.
In addition, you need to read Wikipedia:Civility. Calling other editors dumb and stubborn would be considered a personal attack. Please try to remember to focus on the content, not on the contributors. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2018

... 183.78.95.154 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MBlaze Lightning talk 03:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018

Surajkulkarni12345 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

net worth-260 million (insider 2018)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Hhkohh (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I personally don't consider {{Infobox officeholder}} appropriate since Rihanna is better known as an entertainer rather than a politician. I recommend using {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox musician}} instead. Any comment on this? — HĐ (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019


In the top paragraph where it saids 2000s century, century should say decade because the 2000s was a decade not a century.144.178.7.20 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 01:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Rihanna's ninth studio album?

There appears to be artwork, a track list, a title, and even actual digital downloads. Why is there no information on this album, titled "BOOM.", here or on any official sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaOkami (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Ana jerie (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Chris Brown discusses abuse of Rihanna: 'I felt like a monster'

R&B star Chris Brown has talked about his past abuse of ex-girlfriend Rihanna, who was left bruised and bleeding after Brown attacked her in February 2009. Brown was arrested following the incident, and was sentenced to community service and domestic violence counselling, plus a restraining order. In a new film documentary, Chris Brown: Welcome to My Life, he goes into detail about the abusive relationship, saying he “felt like a fucking monster”. He said that he had intended to marry Rihanna, but that he lost her trust after he lied about a sexual encounter with someone who worked with him, that happened prior to their relationship. “She hated me after that. I tried everything, she didn’t care. She just didn’t trust me after that,” he said. “From there, it just went downhill because there were too many verbal fights, physical fights as well. Mutual sides... We would fight each other. She would hit me, I would hit her and it never was OK. “There was always a point where we’d talk about it like, ‘What the fuck are we doing?’” he continued. “Like, ‘I don’t like you slapping me.’ If I go on stage I got a scratch on my face and I gotta explain it like, ‘Oh, no I fell.’ If you got a scar or a bruise you gotta put makeup on. I’m not ever trying to put my hands on any female.”

Discussing the specific incident he was arrested over, he said it came about after Rihanna became suspicious of texts he had received from another woman. “She’s fighting me, and I’m like: I’m telling you the truth, I swear to God, stop it. She hits me a couple more times, and it doesn’t go from translation: sit down, I’m trying to tell you the truth. It goes to: now I’m finna be me, and be evil... She tried to kick me... and I really hit her, with a closed fist, I punched her. When I saw it, I was in shock, I was like, fuck, why did I hit her. She spit blood in my face – and it raised me even more ... She grabbed my nuts, and I bit her arm.” Referring to the picture of her injuries that circulated the media afterwards, he said: “I look back at that picture and I’m just like: that’s not me. I hate it to this day – that’s going to haunt me forever.

In a 2009 interview following the attack, Rihanna said she “fended him off with my feet”. She added that Brown allegedly threatened to kill her, “to scare me”, and that “all I kept thinking was, ‘When is it going to stop?’” She characterised their relationship as “dangerous”: “The more in love we became, the more dangerous we became for each other, equally as dangerous.”

He should feel like one Ana jerie (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019

In first paragraph, change Jay-Z as a hip hop producer to rapper first. I would like that part to be edited. Aeuro23 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Aeuro23 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok Ana jerie (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should {{Infobox officeholder}} be used?

There is a clear consensus that {{Infobox officeholder}} should not be used in the Rihanna article. There is a consensus to use {{Infobox person}} instead. There is no consensus owing to lack of discussion from most participants about whether to embed the ambassador position submodule in {{Infobox person}}, so there is no prejudice against discussing this further.

Cunard (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2019 (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.

Should {{Infobox officeholder}} be used in the Rihanna article, which claims that she is the incumbent Barbadian Ambassador-at-Large? — Newslinger talk 00:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment from HĐ

I disagree with the usage of {{Infobox officeholder}} at this point. Rihanna has been globally regarded as a high-profile entertainer (say, singer to be more precise) who always appears on the upper positions of the US charts for the majority of singles released since her 2005 debut. Meanwhile the title "Ambassador-at-Large" has been newly created by the Barbadian Government in September 2018, and it feels like an honorary title to recognise Rihanna's effort in popularising Barbadian identity rather than holding an official political position. That said, I suggest using {{Infobox musician}} or {{Infobox person}} instead. I also look forward to hearing others' comments, especially from the user(s) who brought forward the template Infobox Officeholder in the first place. — HĐ (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • No per HĐ. This is an honorary title, and not an actual political office. There are no reliable sources covering Rihanna's actions as ambassador while describing those actions as official duties. Additionally, the wrong title is used. The source cited in the article calls the title "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary" which is distinct from Ambassador-at-Large, according to the Ambassador article. — Newslinger talk 05:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No this is clearly not a public office, and should be in text, but not infobox. Apart from the full title being wrong, as pointed out by Newslinger above, the shortform (Her Excellency Rihanna), is WP:OR, as 'Excellency' is not automatic, and is a frankly silly mix of formal and informal. "Who is now described as Ambassador Fenty by the Barbados government". So no one it seems actually uses that title, except perhaps in jest and us. Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No. I disagree with comments above that this is not a public office - it is (and it would seem to merit the honorific if she were in a diplomatic party or reception). However, this is insignificant fluff in relation to her rather significant singing career - by presenting this in the infobox (and lede) - were are giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minor aspect of this individual (for an individual with less significant accomplishments, then this ambassador at large thing might merit an infobox - but for Rihanna - it detracts and defocuses from what she is notable for).Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, as a submodule. First, let's get a sense of how such a thing has been sorted out with articles about people in a similar situation.
Let's just start with whether or not this is the kind of ambassadorship for which the officeholder infobox would apply based on other examples and reasonable criteria. HĐ asks, is this an official political position or just an honorary title? That sounds very reasonable to me. Even though this kind of test may be a bit arbitrary, it's a good way to go in keeping with the spirit of this site as far as being consistent and having good reason why you're doing something.
Well, this article from the Barbados Government Information Service says "Government[sic] has appointed international pop icon, Robyn “Rihanna” Fenty, as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, with specific responsibility for promoting education, tourism and investment for the island."
Later on it says "Rihanna was appointed as one of Barbados’ Cultural Ambassadors in 2008, undertaking promotional work on behalf of the ministry with responsibility for tourism. However, this expanded role takes into consideration her multidimensional achievements and global influence across a much broader range of areas."
This sounds official enough to me in that the government of Barbados is appointing Rihanna a specific title and ambassador role. In fact, it sounds like she was promoted from what may have been a less official capacity to what appears to be a more official one. And so fine, yes. Rihanna is an official ambassador of Barbados.
And so what might be her title? Officially, apparently, it is "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary", whatever the heck that means. Can we find examples of other similar Ambassadors of Barbados? The Order of Barbados is not much help because most links on that page are dead. And if you finally get to the Orders, Decorations and Medals of Barbados page, you'll find that still most links are either dead or fortunately Internet Archived. And there is even a link back to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Barbados. And so... I guess it's really up to us?
Wikipedia also has a Ambassadors of Barbados page. What might we find there? Apparently, a small but sure list of normal boring ambassadors. What are the titles by which they are referred? Well, we have the very well-unknown Sir Lionel Alfren Luckhoo. He doesn't even deserve an officeholder infobox, or anything to acknowledge whatever the heck he was knighted for. At least Elton John has a person infobox, as indeed he is merely some person who happened to make a catchy tune here and there.
What about the definitely-not-infamous Edward Evelyn Greaves? "High Commissioner of Barbados to Canada ( from July 2008)[sic]"? Maybe they did not call him ambassador on paper, but clearly he made the list. Also, he is worthy of the officeholder template. But note that there is no honorific suffix or prefix. What? There he is working officially on behalf of representing Barbados and no one is calling him His Excellency? What a total rip-off...
And so, excellent though Rihanna may be, "Her Excellency" may be a bit... inappropriate. For this site, anyway. Unless anyone who I anticipate will be so zealously attempting to restore her "title" on this page expresses any similar interest towards other de-throned ambassadors of Barbados, such as James Cameron Tudor, the founder of the country's Democratic Labour Party, the man who made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George mind you—you see where I'm going with this. I doubt there is anyone insisting on calling Rihanna "Her Excellency" who also gives a darn about any of the people who have actually represented/created Barbados being memorialized with such titles. And so, I say to treat her like the other ambasssadors of Barbados on this site, unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise.
Just for one last comparison, consider our dear late friend Shirley Temple Black, who was indeed a famous actor for much of her young life. In fact, most everyone only knows Shirley Temple as an actor, if not a non-alcoholic beverage. However, she was indeed officially appointed as an ambassador by not one, not two, but three presidents (see slide 9 of 17). And so, she definitely gets the officeholder infobox because it appears she switch careers later in life.
Rihanna, in contrast, is still a famous musician, entrepenuer, etc. No one really associates her with politics. Still, I do not agree that this should be used as criteria for whether or not that infobox is appropriate. Just like Elton John is much more notable as a famous musician than a typical boring person, but the person infobox is still appropriate for his article. A more simple and less biased criteria would involve determining just whether or not the infobox can apply to the subject.
And so... whew... in conclusion, I am convinced there is no good reason to doubt that her ambassadorship is official, so the officeholder infobox is fine, although it should probably be a submodle within a parent person Infobox. I advocate the removal of the honorific prefix and suffixes unless someone can find someone of similar ambassador office in Barbados who is referred to as such. From my research, I've been lead to believe that Barbados ambassadors do not tend to get such titles, so there is no reason for Wikipedia to officiate her as such.
It would be very appropriate for the title of Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary to be attributed to her on this page, since that is what the government has officially titled her. That would be the appropriate value for the office attribute for the infobox. However, I am not opposed to Barbados Ambassador-at-large, because among the other ambassadors listed there, even though most have the 'at-large' in their official title, some have their country's 'extraodinary' title, and so I am willing to count what some counties call an "extraordinary" ambassador as one in the same 'at-large' category. Ender and Peter 17:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No she is primarily known as a musician and the infobox should reflect that. A minor (almost honorary) title created for her doesn't change that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: What is the benefit of requiring a specific parent infobox? Why is it not enough for the main infobox to simply be relevant? Other infoboxes can be imported into the parent one, as the musical artist one is here, so that you can use any that happens to be relevant. They are only to help organize relevant info about the article subject. They in no way are declaring what the subject's primary or main existence is. A person can have a variety of interests and pursuits, and be well-known for a handful of things. Again, isn't Shirley Temple mainly well-known as an actress? How many people even know that she was an ambassador? And again, aren't Elton John and Paul McCartney more than just persons? Bruce Springsteen's page is another example. Note how the parent Infobox is the person one. Again, this is entirely appropriate, just as a parent infobox of person, musician, or officeholder would be here. Ender and Peter 06:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No. This issue can be resolved under a simple WP:WEIGHT analysis, where such a test renders the inclusion of the infobox inadvisable in two distinct ways: 1) as has been noted at length by others above, using this infobox (which indeed is not even the proper infobox for her formal designation in regard to this position) is massively out of step with the main thrust of the subject's sources of notability, and 2) It would seem to misrepresent the nature of the position itself; while we must be careful not to engage in WP:Original research as to the exact nature of her position in terms of what we do say, there is sufficient sourced information here to make it clear that this ambassadorship is not truly about formal diplomatic activities and rather more about promotion--I hesitate to use the term P.R., because that sounds more dismissive of the role than I would intend, but her function seems to very clearly by about tourism and image, not communication, diplomacy, and coordination between state entities. While I would not advocate for adding that analysis expressly into the article, it is a clear enough conclusion (particularly when combined with the other weight issues) to make the use of this particular infobox inappropriate for this subject at this time. Snow let's rap 05:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: It does not seem like WP:WEIGHT applies to this issue, because that policy talks about what kind of weight to give to minority viewpoints. It sounds like you're talking more about the article subject's notability. In this case, there's no good reason to dispute the announcement of Rihanna's ambassadorship. Now, it's true that it looks like this role is very different than the kind of Barbadian ambassadors that are designated to specific countries. It is hard to say what exactly her duties are or if she has to report to anyone, etc. I am not sure if it matters all that much in regards to acknowledging her official role, because it is significant that there is a source directly from the country's government that was acknowledged by other news sources as legitimate. I don't see how it is up to us to decide how official her role/title is, other than accurately portraying what that particular government does. The most neutral thing would probably be to use the person infobox like other musicians up here, but I'm okay with any parent infobox that is relevant. I do agree that the previous title that the page had was unfounded. Maybe even "Ambassador-at-large" could be replaced by the actual title she was given just to avoid confusion, although again I'm alright with what is currently there because there are other ambassadors in the list for that article that have a title similar to Rihanna's. Ender and Peter 06:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps there's been some confusion as to the meaning of my comment. I'm not opposed to mentioning her ambassadorship in its entirety--I take it as a given that it is relevant to the article. I'd even go so far as to say that I think it definitely needs to be mentioned in the lead; whether or not the position ultimately is more symbolic and not really at all predicated in formal statecraft, it's still a position of some remarkable note. I was merely addressing the much more narrow issue presented by the RfC: whether to use that specific infobox (and I guess implicitly, there is a question of whether to mention the position in any variation of an infobox, but I hadn't thought to speak to that before). On that matter, while you are correct that the question interfaces with issues of notability, WP:WEIGHT certainly is the single most relevant policy and test, as any element of an article has the potential to misrepresent what the most salient details of a subject are, especially if said element has is placed so prominently as an infobox; the policy is not merely about comparing competing views on a given topic--though that is, as you identify, another major implication. WP:Notability, by comparison, is much more concerned with whether we cover a topic and, if so, in what type of format (i.e. independent article or not). But it is a confusing area for editorial nomenclature, because the type of weight we are talking about is often described in terms of "the source of the subject's notability". Anyway, if you are inquiring of me whether I think we could work the title into another infobox without it unbalancing the article's coverage, I would have to give that some more thought. My initial thoughts merely reflect support for the emerging consensus that the particular infobox the RfC inquires about it not particularly appropriate in these circumstances. Snow let's rap 07:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I really appreciate your response. Ah, so you're interpreting "due and undue weight" in the sense of whether certain information should be made more prominent or not, or how it should be explained/featured, after accepting that it is true. It's just that the examples in WP:WEIGHT all to speak to the veracity/verifiability of a claim, whether or not we should accept something is verifiable enough to talk about here before even debating how it relates to the subject's notability, and whether minority viewpoints should be considered on equal footing with more popular ones. However, I think I understand your point in regards to whether or not the information is relevant to the article. Well, at any rate I would say that that topic and WP:Notability are under discussion here for sure.
Anyway, regarding which infobox should be the parent one, the one "placed so prominently" as you say. Would you agree that it would be a good idea to just make it person in accordance with other popular musician articles as shown above? That seems to be the most neutral and consistent solution. Just like other popular musician articles up here, the main one can be that and we can embed any other relevant infoboxes. So again, using Elton John as an example, the parent would be person and we would embed musical artist and officeholder, which could just be at the bottom if there is concern about it being more near the top. If it's alright to mention this in the lead, why not that box? It's already mentioned in the article text under an appropriate section. But if anyone was scanning Wikipedia for Barbadian ambassadors, of varying official capacity, this info in such metadata is very useful.
Tell me though, what is your view of the infobox on Shirley Temple's page? Indeed, she had a true day job as a US ambassador, but does anyone even know that? Do you consider it appropriate for the officeholder infobox to be the parent one on that page? Does a certain amount of time as an ambassador warrant such a parent infobox even if the subject is most well-known as an actor or should another one be used? Ender and Peter 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No because she's obviously known as a singer, As others have mentioned there's nothing in reliable sources to confirm this but even if there was I still don't see the need for the infobox. –Davey2010Talk 16:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: It would make for a much more productive conversation if you and others could more directly address my points. Again, what do you say about other articles on this site where the subject is well-known as a musician but the musical artist infobox is not the parent? It would help if you would speak more to the use of the person infobox in accordance with other similar articles. Also, others have not claimed that there are no reliable sources to confirm that Rihanna is an ambassador of the type claimed by the articles. No one has refuted that. The discussion has been more about whether or not this information is notable enough to mention here, as there was dispute of how "official" this is. There is not particularly strong dispute regarding this because no one has refuted what I've claimed and there seems to now just be a conversation about how this information should be mentioned. I maintain the infobox structure I've articulated, and I'm very curious to know if you or anyone else can explain why this page's infoboxes should not be structured like Elton John, Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, etc., which once again involves a parent person infobox with other embedded relevant infoboxes, especially musical artist and also officeholder in this case. Ender and Peter 05:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Enderandpeter Please stop badgering everyone as you've so far badgered everyone who's !voted after you, Not to be rude but I'm not going to spend 1-20 minutes of my life reading through your walls of text, You !voted Yay and I !voted Nay so instead of badgering everyone you should allow consensus to build. Please don't ping be again, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 12:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me sir, but this is a community, not a democracy where everyone throws up a yes or no vote and that's the end of it. It is a place of discussion and where consensus is reached. That requires conversation and directly engaging each other so we actually understand our positions. The pinging feature is simply a way for someone to see a notification of a reply. Your ping of me just now was not at all obtrusive. By the way, why would you ping me and then say I should not ping anyone? Ender and Peter 15:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, if you took some time to read the text above, you'd realize that there is very little substantial disagreement and that you have mischaracterized the dispute. I urge you to take a moment to understand the arguments so that we can have a productive discussion. Ender and Peter 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on possible consensus

Please check out my light-blue-highlighted comments above. I was hoping to have a further discussion on that possible solution for this issue. This section is just to make a little more room for that particular conversation and other related ones. I'm hoping that HĐ, Newslinger and anyone else more invested in this issue will expand more on their arguments.

The issue with the section above is that there are a lot of people leaving a vote and then leaving comments, which is a good start, but no one is trying to defend their position. Snow Rise is the only person who has provided a useful response in getting anywhere close to a consensus, which is a word that is a synonym with "agreement", in that he mentioned being open to talking more about incorporating the officeholder template. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like we have all too much disagreement on dealing with this issue. To be very clear: The point of these discussions is to come to an agreement.

We may not even be entirely convinced of each others' position, but the goal is to decide on an approach that makes sense for this articles and others like it.

In the following section, it would be very helpful to post bulleted topics that pertain to a specific proposed solution. For instance, if you think the officeholder template should be replaced, please say what it should be replaced with and why. Try to summarize your proposed solution in a single sentence for the heading but feel free to provide as much description/extrapolation as necessary. Also, most importantly, you should only post in this section if you would like to follow up on others' responses and would like them to follow up on yours:

Proposed Solutions

  • A "person" parent infobox with other relevant infoboxes embedded (musical artist, officeholder, etc)
I've already laid out my position, so I look forward to responses regarding this possible solution. Do you still think that her ambassador position should not be mentioned at all on this page? Or that it should be mentioned in another way? Should "musical artist" be the parent infobox or would "person" be appropriate? Please address any refutations of my points above in this section. Ender and Peter 16:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Her ambassador position should be retained; it's part of her work albeit of smaller significance compared to her reputation as an entertainer. I suggest using {{Infobox person}} as the parent infobox with details regarding her music career/ambassadorship included in the module. I am against using {{Infobox officeholder}} as the parent infobox because it emphasises Rihanna's Ambassador title, which is completely unnecessary and out of context to her reputation. — HĐ (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No. It's a relatively minor role, of somewhat confusing status. There is no need to clutter the infobox with it, even if we do include it for individuals whose role as an ambassador is a larger part of their activities or notability. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@NoCOBOL: You know, I can't help but to indeed agree somewhat regarding the confusion on the status and role. I think it is difficult to dispute the notability of this particular status, whatever it is exactly, especially if the Barbadian government made such an announcement. I think I also agree that maybe it is resulting in too much clutter, because if you look at other regular Barbadian ambassador pages, they don't have these kinds of details. I'm really not sure what kind of standard the person who added that info was working on. And so, I can't help but to advocate removing the monarch, predecessor, and primeminister attributes, but for the sake of compromise, and since it is information worth mentioning for the subject's relationship to that country, it would be wise to keep at least the office and term_start info. Such information deserves to be prominent because it is quite a significant achievement when your country of origin bestows this kind of honor to you, and to them it appears to have true merit. The article is certainly improved and not diminished with such information, but you are right that there is no need for all that detail, until there seems to be good reason to add more info (someone else is appointed, the role is expanded, etc.) Ender and Peter 18:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Infobox person. This seems to have been the infobox in use before the ambassadorial box was substituted and it serves perfectly well. As to whether to include her ambassadorial position in the infobox through an embedded module, my first inclination is that it is not strictly necessary and possibly would overemphasize the role in relation to her overall notability. That said, I don't think either scenario is going to break the article, whether the embedded box is included or omitted in the parent infobox. If it does appear in the infobox, I think it would help in keeping the information balanced to include it following all of the information relating to the subject's musical career (that being without question the major and vastly most significant nexus of coverage of her both in reliable sources and by this article). I'd suggest to Enderandpeter, as the main proponent for inclusion of the module, that suggesting this order of elements as a part of the middleground solution might help improve the chances of endorsement by consensus. My own !vote here can be considered a weak support--for the sake of moving things towards consensus--if the ambassadorship element is placed towards the tail end of the infobox. Snow let's rap 21:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Notes on the implemented solution

So, I was recently so bold as to basically do what is described above, in that the person Infobox is restored with an embedded officeholder with less info in line with what we can verify and without inadvertently setting a precedent for labeling Barbadian ambassadors that is not in use on other pages on this site. It was very clear that person was the original infobox because whoever replaced it with officeholder simply swapped the template name and added attributes for it without accounting for the unrelated person infobox attributes. And so, you will notice that some infobox data is listed in a different order than before. This is because the person infobox arranges the attribute data in a specific order, whereas the officeholder infobox was just showing the unsupported person data in the order it was given.

The officeholder info is at the bottom instead of the top. You'll notice that it says Infobox ambassador because the template docs suggest using a supported alternate name for the template that is most relevant to the position.

I also removed "diplomat" from the "Occupation" list because the official nature of this role is in dispute, so it seems wise to just explicitly say what this role is, and that it started on a date. The "Incumbent" label is added automatically by the officeholder template.

And so... man, did I learn about Infoboxes today. I can't help but to think that this puts the article in a good state. This ambassador role, however official, is worth noting in metadata. Since no one is rushing to add her name to Wikipedia's list of Barbadian ambassadors, I guess no one really cares all that much anyway.

For anything I've asserted, I am happy to be shown counterexamples or proven otherwise. I would hope that those who voted "No" (if we ever hear from them again) are at least satisfied that a more appropriate parent infobox has been restored. I don't see how the presence of the ambassador metadata lowers the quality of this article. It only improves it. I suspect it was more of the unnecessary flourishing of additional info, especially those questionable honorifics, that made people think that such labeling was wholly inappropriate, but I I hope that this is a good compromise.

If I accidentally changed or removed anything, please correct it. And of course, please share your thoughts. Ender and Peter 20:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that I could have read the Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary article section originally shared by Newslinger (whom I also thank) which would have given me a better understanding of that title's history and use. I'm glad to understand now, though. If "plenipotentiary" means "full authority to represent the government", then that sounds like real governmental authority. Ender and Peter 15:34, 2 February 2019 (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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Early Life

Rihanna was born to Monica Braithwaite an Afro-Guyanese, retired accountant and Ronald Fenty an Irish, warehouse supervisor. Zeké Nel (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

Under the 2015-2018 section, please change where it says The Weeknd supported Rihanna on her Anti World Tour as he cancelled, so only Big Sean supported the tour in Europe. Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/the-weeknd-drops-out-of-rihannas-anti-world-tour-a6948306.html 31.205.252.219 (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Roadguy2 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Change the infobox photo as newer ones are available which represent her better. The photo is too similar to the one used on her discography. The page needs to look more refreshing to read, rather than a dark picture. 2A02:C7F:B655:E400:85BB:D978:CDA9:2FE4 (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Danski454 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Could someone change the infobox to a more recent photo please as these are available. Unitedfenty (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Photos have to have the approved license and be appropriate for the article. So for now, the one from 2014 has that. Trillfendi (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Danski454 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Rihanna now resides in St John’s Wood, London, please research to make information more accurate as parts of the article are outdated. Unitedfenty (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Could someone delete parts of the “See Also” section as some of the links are now dead and makes the page look messy or less serious because they are red. Unitedfenty (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I don’t know why people put uncreated articles there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone has edited this page so the section in question had these dead links although she is in these articles. The text 'number-one' should remain in links otherwise they may be broken when an edit like this happens again. Iggy (Swan) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Useful source

My edits with the lead

Apparently my cleaning up/trimming the lead has led to several editors disagreeing over what content should be included. I received some comments that it should be four-paragraph long since Rihanna has had a monster career. To justify my edits, here are my explanations (feel free to reply here, instead of triggering an edit war):

  • My mantra of Wikipedia editing: everything serves the reader of all backgrounds, not just fond admirers of Rihanna or experts on a specific field; therefore a Wikipedia article should include essential information instead of an A-Z academic paper. This is also what I have done with most articles I've contributed to, and what I did with the article's lead
  • For the very first paragraph, which is very short by now, I included only overall information of Rihanna (what she is known for, what occupations she holds). This provides readers with a glimpse of Rihanna's career and influence.
  • I removed Rihanna's process of gaining a contract with Def Jam (the Jay-Z/Rogers) bit. Too specific for the lead; I changed to simply this: "She moved to the US in 2005 to sign with Def Jam to pursue a music career".
  • I shortened the previous revision instead of elaborating on respective albums from 2005–2012. My wording may not be the best, but it is better than explaining specific genres of each album (Loud was a collision of hip hop, rock, soul, reggae, not just pop; Talk That Talk and Unapologetic are essentially pop/R&B/dance). This sheds light on readers that Rihanna's music is primarily pop/R&B/dance (per AllMusic).
  • Achievements: I disagree with the inclusion of "of the 21st century" or "of all time"; these are subject to gradual change, and the achievements should be of longevity/fixed quota only (nine Grammys, 12 BBMAs or similar matter).
  • The rest of the lead is of essentially similar content.

— HĐ (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Unitedfenty: — HĐ (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Unitedfenty: Okay, so you reverted my edit but on different grounds. Your revision's flow is not linear at all (born in Barbados → signed with Def Jam → recognized as a pop icon → successful albums (?)). I wish to talk here, but you keep reverting my edits without constructive discussions. Please feel free to reply this time, HĐ (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is PERFECT now, it doesn’t have too little or too less information or false information like it did before such as ‘she moved to the US in 2005’, which is irrelevant as her birth place hadn’t even been mentioned yet, as for the image it makes it look more professional, rather than a screenshot from some promotional shoot. It DOESN’T need any more editing but I know someone will because ya’ll petty (not just you but other users as well), AND it doesn’t mention anything about the 21st century. If we are going to compromise on this, at least keep the process of the contract bit and merge paragraphs together as at the moment the page looks a little messy. Also, I keep trying to reply but everytime I do, you have to create an edit conflict, same with when editing and I add an explanation. Pinging @HĐ: Unitedfenty (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Unitedfenty: What do you mean by "irrelevant"? I clearly included that she was born in Barbados before moving to the US to pursue a music career; this can be found in the body. As explained above, the contract bit is too specific for the lead (Do you think readers are interested in how did Rihanna gain her first contract? Or they're more interested in a glimpse of it?). If you re-read your revision I believe you'll find it confusing to read as well because it does not follow a linear consequence. Regarding the photo, I have no concern at all (how is the current photo not "professional"?). — HĐ (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Change Date Format, Most Caribbean Countries Have the DMY

Most states in the Caribbean have the DMY format but sometimes have the MDY layout. Ever since article inception, the former should've been used instead of the latter.

Yet another pop songbird from the Caribbean namely Camila Cabello who's Cuban should been in that layout ever since her article existence. I had done this to her page but no one had responded in a while.

And their dates of birth rather be written like this: 20 February 1988 and 3 March 1997 not February 20, 1988 and March 3, 1997.

Please don't let this edit requesting get denied.

 Note: Per MOS:DATETIES the USA date format of MDY is more appropriate on BOTH articles mentioned above. While the artists may have been born in their respective countries, the overwhelming majority of their fame and notoriety occurred in the USA. PureRED | talk to me | 01:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

She’s been an expatriate in America for over 15 years.... Trillfendi (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. Review MOS:DATETIES PureRED | talk to me | 18:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

In the infobox, change the order of occupations so 'songwriter' is placed before 'actress'. Although she hasn't written all her songs, Rihanna is better known as a singer and songwriter than she is actress, shown by over 80 songwriting credits compared to less than 10 lead/support acting credits.

Source: http://repertoire.bmi.com/Catalog.aspx?detail=writerid&keyid=982825&subid=2&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25 92.236.39.157 (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done It’s really not all that important, but ok. Trillfendi (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Request has been implemented. Closing. NiciVampireHeart 22:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

There's been quite a commotion regarding the infobox image. Seriously I don't see any problem with File:Rihanna Fenty 2018.png but you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Rihanna's very well known for Fenty Beauty for heaven's sake; this image is perfectly proportionate with the infobox (vertical) and shows her face clearly. HĐ (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Having noticed the edit war lately my take on it is the current image does look odd however quality wise it's much better than the 2019 images so imho it should continue to remain atleast untill it can be replaced with something of better quality. –Davey2010Talk 03:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. This is not Instagram. While the picture may look “odd” to the uneducated, she was at the Met Gala. The biggest fashion event in the world and she was the only one who even followed the theme—the fashion icon she is. Trillfendi (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, Trillfendi, your comment is kinda bizarre. So what if the image is part of a promotion she did? She looks cute there, her face is completely visible and the quality is amazing. That said... it's the perfect infobox image. The Met Gala one is not bad, but the quality, honestly, is very average. Plus is a shot of her whole body and the form is weird for an infobox. So I am definitely leaning towards the Fenty Beauty vertical one and sharing the same opinion as HĐ and Davey. — Tom(T2ME) 09:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, this is an encyclopedia. She’s not here to look "cute" (which I even admitted myself before someone decided to make an edit conflict so I just abandoned the comment completely). That’s what her social media is for. All I said was she was at the Met Gala which is an important cultural event that she’s the co-chair of. It’s called trivia. If it was fully up to me y’all would’ve stopped changing the Concert for Valor photo which may be almost 5 years old yet it was perfect. But opinions are like assholes. Trillfendi (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
So Trillfendi's only reason for the Met Gala image is that it shows Rihanna's "fashion icon" status? Honestly that's a terrible reason to be included in the infobox, if you don't take quality and visibility into account. HĐ (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not the reason, simpleton. Trillfendi (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Then what's the reason? Promoting Rihanna's products? LOL. If that's it we can just caption it Rihanna in 2018, and done. It's a fact that the image is better looking and of better quality than both, Met Gala and Concert for Valor. According to your logic, why won't we make a screenshot of "Umbrella" being a main image, because that's when she became a global superstar? Non-sense. And also be careful with your comments, remain civil please, because at the end of the day you don't own Wikipedia or the Rihanna article. — Tom(T2ME) 15:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It only made sense to change the picture completely because you and Unitedfenty were going to keep petulantly going back and forth about it like wack-a-moles. Edit warring on a photo is unacceptable—having 34,000+ edits you’re “experienced” enough to know that. And I’m not going to “be careful with my comments” because you don’t control what I say. Nothing I said was “uncivil” just because you want to get sensitive. Trillfendi (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No, if a consensus is reached then if some users keep reverting the photo, they will have to present compelling reasons to do so, or else they would be subject to penalty. And instead of getting aggressive you can chill; no one can control your comments, but personal attacking is unacceptable here. HĐ (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What HĐ said. I don't control what you say, but you should. Chill, it's a Wikipedia photo we are discussing, not a life decision. — Tom(T2ME) 10:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I never “personally attacked” anyone, I said the back and forth with a sock puppet who was a single purpose editor was petulant. Which it was. If you think petulant is an insult then grow up. Trillfendi (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
And nobody said I “own” this Wikipedia article, quite frankly I could care less as I’ve only made less than 20 edits to it. While I’d love to see it become a good article one day, I don’t have the emotional investment in it that you do. I simply said we all have opinions—and we all have the right to our opinion. I just acted on it. Trillfendi (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Rihanna

I think Rihanna's autobiography could be enhanced by adding more details into her early life. Rihanna was born in Barbados and went through an abusive father...so I think that is also a big thing in her life that has affected her.

I think there are also some unnecessary details- as in her small tattoos on her body. I do understand why it would be in there but don't really think it's necessary unless there is more of an explanation on them. And why she got every single tattoo.

The positive part of this Wiki site is that there is a good amount of content telling her story of getting signed. There is also a really good amount of details in pretty much every section. Like explaining her jobs, awards, and details in what she really does.

Negatively, the organization of Rihanna's profile is kind of everywhere. Even throughout the details, it can be spread apart a lot better. Or broken down into paragraphs at least.

Yes sure Ana jerie (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

When did you get to know you will be active like this in the Industry 

Kim ntombini (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2019

Could somebody please add new details about her fashion maison with LVMH called Fenty. The page needs to be updated more frequently as Rihanna is becoming more creativity fast-pacing. “Fenty” is too big of a deal to not be included on her page. If possible, “Fenty” needs it’s own page. Thank you FentyUnited (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC) FentyUnited (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest such changes here on this talk page (citing reliable sources) and re-open this request – Þjarkur (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019

Add Savage X Fenty and Fenty (maison) to organisations in the infobox.

Sources: www.savagex.com and www.fenty.com 147.188.254.236 (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They don’t even have respective pages, so there’s no point. Trillfendi (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Genre

@PrincessofGrime: If that's a rule, then where is the link?

P.S. I'm not falling for your your lies about being anonymous for years. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Date format

As a Barbadian what is the rationale for use in the article of the date format MM/DD/YY ? This is an unusual format, and not standard in Barbados (as reference see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country) Please could someone with access rights change to the appropriate DD/MM/YY format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:25B9:C7B4:284B:82E6 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Occupation For Rihanna

Rihanna rapped on a song called "Lemon" by N.E.R.D. Do you think anyone here can add "rapper" to Rihanna's occupation list please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.37.196 (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Absolutely not. Rapping (if you could even call it that) on one song 2 years ago does not make her a rapper. Trillfendi (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019

Add article to "Category:Mezzo-sopranos". 15lucea (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – see WP:DEFINING. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

She is also the highest paid female entertainer in the world. Surajkulkarnigadasalli (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 04:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Surajkulkarnigadasalli (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)As of 2019, Rihanna is the richest female musician in the world, with a net worth of 600 million. Surajkulkarnigadasalli (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 10:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Culture

Rihanna is a Barbados born songstress.Her mother is Afro-Guyanese,from South America,her father is Irish, born in Barbados with a Barbadian great grandfather. Zeké Nel (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

Info-box ‘organizations’ to be organised The organizations should be listed (br/>) for each one rather than all clumped together. Look at Beyoncé or Jay-Z’a page for what I mean. I know it’s only something really tiny but makes the infobox look a little messy. I would do it myself but don’t want the hassle of making an account. Thank you! ..... on a side note, should ‘Fenty’ actually have its own section like it does now and does it need information about her new book released last year as it has information about the one in 2010 or am I now being a perfectionist?? No worries I just might ask whilst here 94.0.46.65 (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Green tickY Uh ok I’ll do it. (Fenty is now a big part of her career so it has it’s down section. The picture book could be mentioned I guess in a sentence but it’s release wasn’t that important to her career. It was like a special edition thing.) ⌚️ (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

disambiguation

Rihanna should have a hatnote for Rihanna (disambiguation) in addition to the current link to Rhianna (disambiguation) (which includes Rihanna (disambiguation) but is an unnecessary detour to get there from here). IP addresses can't edit this article, though. 96.244.220.178 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rihanna/Archive_5&oldid=1137158553"