Talk:Sex with Me

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect?[edit]

Extended content

Instead of going back and forth with redirecting and reverting, can we have a discussion about whether or not this article should be redirected? I believe there is enough coverage to justify a standalone article. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With three reviews, this is not notable.There is not enough for it to standalone at all. You say it has received several mixes, a lot of songs do, and there's nothing here about these remixes. "Consideration" is notable because there is a lot of third party coverage and it has been the subject of attention due to a live performance, hence the third party content. "Sex with Me", currently, has next to no third party content (the booklet and chart info isn't enough source wise).  — Calvin999 09:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: You redirected the article immediately after User:Sullysully11 added an "under construction" tag. We should be encouraging editors to add content, not interfering with efforts to expand and improve Wikipedia. Please give users a chance to work on this article and then we can discuss notability. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer I didn't see an under construction tag, I just saw the restoration of the article with no edit summary or reason provided for restoration. Also, I redirected 9 hours after Sully editing the page is not "immediately" as you put it and Sully posted no further edits in that 9 hour window, if you look at the revision history, so I don't see an issue there. This article is no different to the comment you posted above on 27 September and when I redirected it and there hasn't been any problems in that time frame.  — Calvin999 01:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. You are right about the time difference; my apologies. I just saw the redirect diff in my watchlist and noticed the previous diff, which included an 'under construction' tag. I pinged User:Sullysully11 above, hoping they would return and edit the article. Maybe we can give a few days for Sullysully11 and other editors to work on the article before redirecting again? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the article being improved, but there hasn't been any attempts, and until there is then I don't think it should be public. If someone wants to improve it, they should just do it, not restore it and include an UC banner and then not do anything.  — Calvin999 01:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single?[edit]

Due to "Sex with Me" charting on the R&B airplay and Rhythmic charts, I get the feeling that this may have been released as a radio single. Before making any drastic changes to the article, I would like to discuss it here. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Any song can get airplay, it's a component chart as well.  — Calvin999 10:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remix EP track listing[edit]

Resolved

Should the EP's track listing be added? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  — Calvin999 10:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop?[edit]

Is an appearance on the Dance Club Songs chart enough to justify the "Pop songs" category and "Pop music" WikiProject banner? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer I'd say no, because no genre is actually sourced in the article's present form. Hopefully I will find one.  — Calvin999 17:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll mark this section as unresolved for now, since you're currently working on the article and to serve as a reminder to address later. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the pop category and WikiProject until the genre is mentioned and sourced appropriately in the article's prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe reviews[edit]

 — Calvin999 18:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel images[edit]

I added a couple images to the credits section, but feel free to revert. Just seemed arbitrary to picture one co-writer, but not any of the others, and the multiple columns of names didn't seem necessary since the list isn't very long. Also, I think names should be linked in the credits section even if they are linked in the article's prose above, right? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre (re: Hip hop)[edit]

@Ss112: In response to this diff, what's wrong with including hip hop and R&B? I understand the words "hip hop" not appearing in the article's prose, but isn't Billboard including the song on their hip hop chart(s) acknowledging the song's genre? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to clarify, yes this would mean adding Category:Rhythm and blues songs, but Category:Rihanna songs is already a subcategory of Category:Contemporary R&B songs, so there is no need for the parent article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I really don't want to get into a big discussion about it. It's an overall R&B and hip hop chart; subgenres are included on there too. Do we categorise songs based on what chart Billboard has decided to include them on? Hip hop songs sometimes chart on pop radio (Mainstream Top 40), so what do we do then? I'm not saying it's not hip hop or R&B, I just think sourced genres should be what we categorise based on, and not Billboard's at times arbitrary, unspecified (to the public) categorisation. Ss112 00:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, I'm self-reverting and not getting into genre warring. I've invoked WP:BRD on the page, so I'm respecting that here now too, so long as WP:BRD is also respected with regard to the article having developed with things like the original date format and a pretty consistent variety of English intact, per Rihanna's other articles, etc. Ss112 00:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: I only reverted once so I could ask the question in the edit summary. I'm not looking to edit war either, especially over something as minor as a genre. I'm satisfied with the 'hip hop' category considering the song charted on Billboard's weekly and year-end Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs charts, as well as the weekly R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart, but if you think a source specifically calling the song "hip hop" is needed, that's fine, too. Thanks for discussing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard doesn't choose to include songs on charts. It just includes the songs which rank enough to be on the chart in their respective positions because of sales etc. We Found Love is an EDM song but chart on the R&B charts (lowly) because it was such a massive song that it started to cross over between genres. Doesn't make it an R&B song. Lol. We categorise genres based on what a critic calls it. If no critic calls it a genre, no genre is included. You adding Hip hop is original research.  — Calvin999 09:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Uh, I didn't add hip hop. I removed it first, then was reverted by Another Believer, then self-reverted because I didn't want to get into it, which restored it. The category was in the article originally. Ss112 09:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You actually did the right thing by removing it. 09:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries, then we can remove the category and WikiProject on this talk page, too. Thanks for adding your $0.02. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art[edit]

@BlaccCrab and Tomica: Can you two please discuss the cover art here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. She uploaded it on her official instagram account (which I included for the source in my original upload). It doesn't matter how tacky and fanmade it looks, she chose this to represent the official cover when she was informed of the song reaching #1 on the dance charts and decided to address it to the fans. BlaccCrab (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where does she say "Official cover art" for the single in the post? I don't see that. I only see celebrating it reaching #1 on the Billboard Dance Chart. Additionally, if it is the official single cover, why doesn't iTunes uses for the remixes and instead it uses the ANTI cover? — Tom(T2ME) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see both sides here. No, iTunes doesn't it use, but yes, RIhanna did Instagram it (and it has the parental advisory on it, making it somewhat official?)  — Calvin999 22:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should use the cover art if no secondary sourcing can be found using the same cover art. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Calvin999, I can create a fake artwork and put the Parental advisory sign. That's pretty easy to do it. I don't know, for me that cover doesn't seem official. — Tom(T2ME) 08:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why I'm inclined to say let it stay, at least for the time being, is because Rihanna posted it on her official Instagram, it's authentic. It has come directly from her. Furthermore, this isn't a single, it's not well known, so the coverage won't be a lot. It's just a non-single album cut which got some remixes and charted on a DJ spin chart. That's why iTunes is using the Anti album cover, because it was released as a Remix EP two months ago, way before Rihanna posted the song cover, and also because it's not a single. Rihanna clearly had it commissioned as a result of it's success.  — Calvin999 09:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlaccCrab, Tomica, and Another Believer: Did we reach a conclusion on this?  — Calvin999 21:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think secondary coverage is needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually need coverage to include a cover, only if there is a deluxe or alternate cover.  — Calvin999 08:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case we definitely need it. She never recognized it as an official cover or it was the cover of a digital download purchase or streaming (iTunes, Tidal or Spotify). Posting it on her Instagram to celebrate the song hitting #1 on the Dance Club Songs IMO is not enough to consider it an official artwork. — Tom(T2ME) 09:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But she did post it to her Instagram? I think it is, she did so because it was number-one.  — Calvin999 09:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Tomica. The cover is made by a German fanboy calling himself "SheXLuke" from Berlin. You can even see his initials on the fanmade. She just posted a random picture refering to the song and its success. Nothing more or less. It is no single cover. --Ilikeriri (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_with_Me&oldid=1208303809"