Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 7 July 2012 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 60d) to Talk:Rihanna/Archive 3.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rihanna received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Rihanna. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Rihanna at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rihanna Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rihanna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rihanna on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RihannaWikipedia:WikiProject RihannaTemplate:WikiProject RihannaRihanna Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Reggae Mid‑importance This article is part of the Reggae WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the coverage of articles relating to ska and reggae. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.ReggaeWikipedia:WikiProject ReggaeTemplate:WikiProject ReggaeReggae Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Caribbean: Barbados Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Barbados (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:WP1.0

unclear passage Rihanna page

I have included the following excerpt to illustrate some parts of this page that i find difficult to understand.

"...he felt "Pon de Replay" was too big for her, saying "when a song is that big, it's hard  to come back from. I don't sign songs, I sign artists". The audition resulted in Rihanna signing a six-album record deal with Def Jam Recordings in February 2005, on the same day of the audition, with Jay-Z saying "There's only two ways out. Out the door after you sign this deal. Or through this window ...", meaning that he was not going to let her leave with signing a record deal. After signing to Def Jam Recordings, Rihanna cancelled other meetings with record labels and relocated from Barbados to New York to live with Rogers' and his wife. Rihanna explained the concept behind the title of the album to Kidzworld, saying that the sun is representative of native Caribbean culture, as well as herself, and that the album consists of music from her heritage...."

This passage seems like a mish-mash of opinions and loose facts and some of it is not clear at all. The part where it starts with the Jay-Z quote, "There's only two ways out..." The author attemts to explain what they thought Jay-z was saying "meaning he was not going to let her leave with signing a record deal..." This explanation provided by the author does not clear things up and I wonder if this clarification should not be attempted at all because the quote seems to be self explanatory in that Jay-Z seems to be saying to Rihanna that the contract she has just signed with him is serious and she needs to deliver the six albums or jump out the window, figuritively.

the passage that starts "Rihanna explained the concept behind the title of the album to Kidzworld..." Not only does this sentence just hang out by itself, It needs to explain who or what "kidsworld" is and what album rihanna is speaking about.

Biography sub-section titles

Firstly "2010–11: Loud and Endorsements" - really? The "Other ventures" section claims that she has been signing endorsement deals since 2005 and 2006, so what makes the recent perfume and book so particularly notable? And "2011–present: Talk That Talk and film debut" - just no. As has been discussed , her first film was also in the mid-2000s. SplashScreen (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And "2007–08: Good Girl Gone Bad and new image" - "new image" is irrelevant when the girls has had more makeovers than I've had bowls of cereal. SplashScreen (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Article cleanup

As is evident, I've started to cleanup the article by making it more concise and focused. Thus far, this has included polishing the "Biography" section, including integration with "Other ventures". I shall next look at the Philanthropy section to see how this can be improved. Per WP:BLP (particularly WP:WELLKNOWN) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it is important that this page doesn't just become a list of rambling facts about Rihanna's life and career. It is really relevant that she once played a charity gig and raised a few hundred dollars? Not necessarily. Is it worth discussing all of the particular (and often obscure) records that she's broken when these feats are already mentioned in the respective album and single articles? Perhaps not. SplashScreen (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't just start to "polish" the article and removing 50kb of it without notifying single thing of what are you planning to do with Calvin and me (the biggest contributors to the project). The article was built for like 7 years. Some of the information that you removed because of your POV has to be present there. And for the singles successes soon it will be built legacy section cause she really needs one. So what If you can find information on their respective pages? That information shouldn't be available elsewhere. You are taking Misplaced Pages too POV, a fact. — Tomica (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not need to personally inform you or other Misplaced Pages users of my edits before I make them because you, or any other users, do not WP:OWN this article. I did, however, inform the article talk page before I made the bulk of the changes and explained my reasons for doing so, quoting relevant examples of the content that I disagreed with. Instead of just claiming that I show WP:POV, would you like to illustrate specific examples here and make selective changes instead of irrationally reverting? SplashScreen (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to personally inform me, but at least talk to the project I guess. How can you just come over the article and remove 50kb and just saying you start to "polish" it and adding some random comments. You could just point more specifically what needs to be changed so that can people (together with you) be aware on what should be worked. I agree that a loads of the article should be cut, but not in a way of removing more than 50kb in 13 edits. — Tomica (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Such drastic removal of content should be discussed between users prior to it being done. Leaving a message about what you've done and why isn't a discussion. Statυs (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, WikiProjects are an irrelevance per WP:OWN and WP:CONLIMITED. I have every right to make these edits. Regarding the extent of the changes, you're getting too caught up in the numbers. Yes, 50kb has been removed, but what has been "lost"? "Rihanna sang at x Charity concert in 2006" and "Here's a bunch of obscure records that single X broke in the Austrian charts". All content that I removed was either irrelevant and inconsequential or (already) belongs elsewhere. SplashScreen (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So, I ask again. Which specific changes have you objected to and do you have a policy-lead or consensual reason for them to be upheld? SplashScreen (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? WikiProjects are irrelevant? So why are they created on Misplaced Pages? I guess for people to work together on a specific topic of articles? I really think you are reading too many rules that you don't know how to release them in real-Wiki life (not obscuring you of course). Look, I can't say that between edits you made some that were good, but still removing such a kb from an article... that's pretty annoying. For example you removed a REFERENCED sentence where Rihanna claimed that Madonna is her biggest influence and changed the pic with one of Bob Marley saying that he influenced on her. Not right edit. He influenced on her, but wasn't her biggest one. — Tomica (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand; Wikiprojects are irrelevant in the sense that they are not a gatekeeper or be-all-and-end-all to progressive editing. I'm "reading too many rules" - er, OK. And "that's pretty annoying" is not a case for reverting my edits; again, you do not WP:OWN the article. "He influenced on her, but wasn't her biggest one" - that seems pretty WP:POV to me. You have made no case for all of my edits to be reverted. SplashScreen (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Tomica, he doesn't have to notify you or Calvin to edit the article. That's rude and signs of WP:OWN. Similarly SplashScreen, such a drastic change should generally be discussed first to reach consensus. What happened becuase of this was an edit war which both of you could be blocked for. Till I Go Home 02:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Mostly concur. Although, I disagree that you generally should discuss major changes. It is polite, but there is nothing wrong with being bold. However, once reverted you should discuss. I don't see much in the way of valid discussion from Tomica or Status as to why the edits should be reverted. The edits look acceptable to me (they are definitely not vandalism) and you need better reasons than it has to be present here. I would suggest that editors who disagree with the changes state there case here now. AIRcorn (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree, but look what happened from not discussing before making the changes. He is qualified for being blocked becuase of the 3 revert rule! That's why it's better to discuss the changes first, not a necessity or requirement, but better. Till I Go Home 03:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I think we are on the same page, sorry if the previous comment came across a bit strong. The main reason I mentioned my disagreement is that one of the tenets on here is supposed to be that anyone can edit the encyclopaedia and I didn't want the editor to go away thinking that they should not be bold in the future. There was nothing wrong with the first batch of edits, it was the re-reverting that may get them in trouble. AIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My general comment here is that most of the Rihanna articles are in serious need of major editing. One of the problems we have with the most popular artists is that fans seems intent on adding material and all attempts to remove it get rebuffed. SplashScreen made 13 separate edits, and was greeted with one revert. No one has yet identified a single actual problem with the edits made. Go for it, though: find text that you can make a logical argument needs to be restored and argue for its restoration. That's how editing is supposed to happen, not by constantly adding material without end.—Kww(talk) 06:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think SplashScreen's edits were needed, the ones I've looked at. Just because material is sourced, doesn't mean it absolutely needs to be in the article. Removing clutter is a good thing. Especially if, like some of the removed content, it already exists in other, more specific articles, like for albums and singles. Just remember not to a) blindly revert and b) edit war. Bunnies! Leave a message 10:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The clean up of the article has not worked well for instance the removal of philanthropy is unnecessary as is the integration of other ventures.

Tomica's re-addition of content

I note that User:Tomica has reinstated the "Philanthropy" section of the article. This section is now unnecessary; its important parts, such as the forming of her fundraising foundation and her being honored with her own 'day' in Barbados (which isn't even philanthropic) have already been merged into the biography section. The rest, such as "Rihanna performed on January 20, 2009, at the Recording Industry Association of America's Presidential Inauguration Charity Ball to raise money for the world largest anti-hunger organization" and " On April 2, 2009, Rihanna visited the NYU Medical Center to help look for another bone marrow donor for a young girl named Jasmina Anema" are frivolous and inconsequential and violate WP:NOT#TABLOID and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The fact that such undue weight is being placed on the subject's philanthropy breaks WP:POV (especially WP:UNDUE) and even the WP:WELLKNOWN clause of WP:BLP. Unlike other famous figures (like Bill Gates), Rihanna has not been notably acclaimed by numerous reliable, third-party sources for her philanthropy; what we have here is an excessive list of non-notable charity appearances that are fairly run-of-the-mill for a figure of Rihanna's stature. The intense focus on Ms. Anema, her friend Isabelle Huurman and her mother Karen Detrick also violates WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME. Therefore, we have an article where important information is listed twice whilst irrelevant and trivial content is exaggerated out of proportion to create an unverified view of the subject. I have invited Tomica to this discussion to argue why this section, in its entirety, should be reinstated. SplashScreen (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Added under construction banner. Will see what it could be left from this section. I don't think that all the information should be cut. Btw a legacy section should also be created. — Tomica (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not understanding WP:OWN. This is not a decision for you to "see" because you "don't think that all the information should be cut". We are here to have a collective discussion about what should or should not be included. As a side note, a Misplaced Pages article is not a random list of available information on a given subject; it needs to be information that is notable, verifiable and so on. To move this discussion forward, I'd appreciate it if you respond directly to the points I made in my opening statement. SplashScreen (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand what Misplaced Pages is. I was and I am still collaborating with people here. Obviously that you are making WP:OWN, removing and adding what you want. However, I will not comment on here further, I will just wait for others people opinion. — Tomica (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

By continually reverting my edits and refusing to engage in a discussion with me, you are blatantly conforming with WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR and WP:VAN. SplashScreen (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am discussing, non-stop discussing, but only what I see from you is WP:OWN, so I don't know how this discussion should be further handled. — Tomica (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Preferably by engaging with the issues that have been raised about the content instead of continually reverting or reinstating material because, for unspecified reasons, you disagree with every edit that is not your own. What do you think about the issues I raised (like undue prominence through frivolous and indiscriminate listing of inconsequential events and the other violations of WP:BLP and the rest of the policies) in the opening statement? SplashScreen (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, things have rather been ground to a halt here by the page protection, so at least everyone can take a breather. You two really need to stop linking WP:OWN at each other etc, and talk about the actual article. Tomica, SplashScreen has questioned your edits and so far you have not addressed any of the points he/she has raised. I don't necessarily agree with all of them - I don't see the problem with a philanthropy section, albeit a cut-down one, focusing on the more noteworthy information. Saying, "I will not comment on here further, I will just wait for others people opinion" is, again, unhelpful. They are your edits, so you should justify their inclusion, providing that the questioning is reasonable. Re-adding content without properly discussing it, well, that's why the page is locked. If you can't see a problem with your current method of editing, the fact that an admin felt it necessary to fully protect the page should really make it clear. To SplashScreen, I would try being a little more open to compromise. If the two of you can work out some agreements, or at the very least stop editing so bullishly, then the page can be unprotected. Bunnies! Leave a message 10:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been quite open to compromise, OohBunnies, but it's quite hard to do so with people who are unwilling to cooperate. SplashScreen (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have left Tomica a talk page message, asking them to come back and discuss more and to explain why they think the philanthropy section should be kept. Hopefully we'll hear from them! OohBunnies! (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Having reviewed the situation, I see no reason to keep the "Philanthropy" section, but some of the material in that section should probably be kept. That she is a noted philanthropist, especially in Barbados, should be kept. That she created the Believe Foundation should be kept. That she's involved with DKMS should be kept. The massive amount of detail about all of these activities should be pared down to a single paragraph (1-2 sentences on each point I just mentioned), possibly as a "Philanthropy" subsection of the "Biography" section. - Jorgath (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that was what SplashScreen did with the section, relocated the most relevant information to other sections and removed the section itself. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with this. OohBunnies! (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Believe Foundation, her fashion designing for AIDS education and other notable aspects have already been added into the Biography section. SplashScreen (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am here and I don't see reason why I am not gonna discuss for what I think the section is needed, as I said with some re-wording, trimming and stuff. Maybe this and this are good reasons for keeping the section. Look, Rihanna together with Beyonce and Spears are recording artists, but at same time they are philanthropists. Rihanna has taken part in serious events to raise money, and I think that that should be left in its own section. And btw the sections that I posted here from Beyonce and Britney articles (which are Good Articles per the Misplaced Pages policy) contain much the same material as the Rihanna one (Beyonce one is completely the same I guess). Don't see reason why mashing up the biography which mainly focuses on songs, acting and stuff with something that is a different profession from the main one. — Tomica (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though those are Good articles, that does not mean that there are not flaws with them. Also they were promoted a long time ago and, from my experience with WP:GA pop articles, it is very much hit and miss when it comes to reviews. So I don't think those are a good reasons to keep the "Philanthropy" section. You would be much better off just focusing on this article. Also philanthropy is not a profession so I don't understand your last argument. As others have said the more notable aspects of her charity work can be incorporated into other sections of the article quite easily. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I know what you want to say actually, that every article even it's GA should be different in other way. But here we are talking about biographies of recordings artists, who in mid time have also took some charity work. I don't see the reason for removing the section tbh, its just adds what Rihanna has done. It's the same with removing a legacy section in which for the Rihanna article you can place that she has had 11 number one singles on the Hot 100 and became the youngest artist to land 11 number ones since her first appearance in the chart and adding the sentence in the biography for the TTT era ("We Found Love" was her 11th number-one). — Tomica (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to write about every single thing a celebrity has done. I'm in agreement with the others here, I think. The most notable stuff can easily be placed elsewhere in the article, and I don't think it needs a philanthropy section of its own. OohBunnies! (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course that we don't have to write about every single charity concert that she makes, but the section can stay with the most notable things. I don't really see what the problem with it is here. Look at other celebrity recording artists article. They all have a philanthropy section. In this way the article seems so poor, like Rihanna has been on the stage for like 2 years and didn't make anything notable. — Tomica (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we might have to agree to disagree. With her most notable charity work in other sections of the article, it won't make it seem like she's not done anything notable at all. Consensus is currently against you, i.e more people seem to agree that removing it is best. OohBunnies! (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I already pointed how It would look like, saying her accomplishments in the biography section instead of making a legacy one. However, I think we should wait for more opinions. — Tomica (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want more opinions, start an WP:RFC. I disagree that it needs its own section, but I'm open, as a compromise, to including more philanthropy-related material in the rest of the body. I'm also open to a philanthropy subsection of the Biography section. - Jorgath (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

One general point is that there has been a tendency in the recent past to make fan shrines out of these biography articles. Our article on Beyoncé Knowles is roughly 50% larger than it was two years ago. Jennifer Lopez has tripled in size. These aren't improvements. The goal here should be to shrink Rihanna back down to a manageable, reasonably sized article. "Other recording artists have a philanthropy section so Rihanna should have one too" isn't good logic, it's just a recipe for never-ending article bloat as section after section gets added to every artist's article.—Kww(talk) 10:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So have we reached a consensus or are we going to wait indefinitely? SplashScreen (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It would appear so. You could make an edit request; start a new section, add {{edit protected}} and a detailed account of what is to be changed and why below it. I have just asked Jc37 to unprotect the page as it is probably not needed. The other option is to request unprotection at WP:RPP or just wait for it to expire. AIRcorn (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, under the heading "1988–2004: Early life and career beginnings", after a few sentences it says "Growing up Sin a three-bedroom bungalow ...". Obviously, "Sin" should read "in".

Heebje (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

While the page is fully-protected, I can't see anyone objecting to a spelling fix so I've gone ahead and made the change. Good spotting, Heebje, thanks. :) Acalamari 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The point of this protection is to (hopefully) help towards discussion, rather than the edit warring. (And as I noted when closing the related AN/I discussion, of course any admin should remove BLP violations on sight.)

Anyway, besides all that, no opposition from me at least, to such editprotected requests : ) - jc37 20:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2012

{{edit protected}} Does someone want to remove the under construction template. It seems a bit silly to have it up when it id not going to be edited for three weeks. BTW, three weeks does seem like a long time to keep this protected. AIRcorn (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and  Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea was that it could be lifted once things were sorted out. Tomica re-adding content that had just been edit-warred over was why the protection was added, if I remember the ANI thread correctly. OohBunnies! (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Rihanna articles
• Top-importance Rihanna articles
• WikiProject Rihanna articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Mid-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• B-Class R&B and Soul Music articles
• Mid-importance R&B and Soul Music articles
• WikiProject R&B and Soul Music articles
• B-Class Reggae articles
• Mid-importance Reggae articles
• WikiProject Reggae articles
• B-Class Caribbean articles
• Mid-importance Caribbean articles
• B-Class Barbados articles
• High-importance Barbados articles
• WikiProject Barbados articles
• WikiProject Caribbean articles