Talk:Unapologetic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion on deletion

I know this isn't really my article or anything, but its well-written and completely getting to a starting point where it has enough information! In about the next month, it will have more sources, charts, and information to go around! It shouldn't be a problem when I'm on Wikipedia and I see all these new albums that are coming out later in the year and they barely have information to begin with! This article has a decent amout of sources and information to start off with, but tell me this, what is the real problem? The Smell of Magic 01:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Unapologetic or Side Effects

The article is listed as the former, but the lead cites it as the latter, which is it? AARON• ^TALK 16:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC) It is Unapologetic --PidiContent (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Artwork sources

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2216278/A-nude-Rihanna-debuts-cover-new-album.html
• http://www.rte.ie/ten/2012/1011/rihanna1.html
• http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1695328/rihanna-unapologetic-album.jhtml
• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-rihanna-new-album-unapologetic-20121011,0,588221.story

AARON• ^TALK 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this tracklist official?

Is this the official tracklist?

1. Diamonds 2. I Just Want To Be Found 3. What's Love Without A Tragedy 4. Isis 5. Life Is Beautiful 6. In Media Res 7. I Want You To Say 8. Heart Break 9. Go Harder Than My Nani 10. My Navy 11. Love Numb 12. I'm A Roc Girl 13. Love Now 14. Complete Woman 15. Petals 16. Jah — Preceding unsigned comment added by PidiContent (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, where is the source? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt there would be a song "My Navy". That sounds too ridiculous to be real (aside from Tommy's point).--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. It was invented by a member of the navy of course, the whole track listing. :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Unapologetic Release Date

wasn't Unapologetic supposed to be released on November 19th, 2012 worldwide? :/ why does this page show different release days for the album? even on rihanna's twitter the background says 11/19/12 Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by PidiContent (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you see the links in the release history table, you should notice in certain territories it will be released on November 16, 2012, and on Wikipedia we always use the first release date. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Release date

In Sweden release date changed from 16 to 21 November (so first release date is November 19, 2012) http://cdon.se/musik/rihanna/unapologetic_-_deluxe_explicit_(cd%2bdvd)-21556914 . 83.4.131.232 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Kanye on Jump?

is he in the writing credits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2booze09 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It totally sounds like Yeezy to me (albeit with his voice altered) but at first I didn't even recognize him. Though I think it is Kanye, there's no current source to confirm it. And he's not listed on the tracklist so even if it is him, he may not be an official feature and may only be providing uncredited vocals. The album just leaked so lots of info will be flooding in, no reason to add uncredited stuff currently. But yeah, that's Kanye. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OMG it leaked. Can you give me link where I can hear the album?:) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Found it on Atrilli.net. It's really good. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, it's A$AP Rocky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.109.152 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point I need a source just so I dont lose my mind... Bruce Campbell (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, it's Kanye :) ! But, still it's not officially credited. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

it's Kevin Cossum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2booze09 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 November 2012

numb samples can't tell me nothing, and the citation for that is on jump... it's all sorts of wrong

74.76.204.131 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Songwriter Credit

Yesterday Rihanna's website posted the album credits that do differ from the booklet. Including Rihanna as a writer for 12 of the 15 songs. [1] The site says that the credits are updated from the booklet, so should the credits from the site be used or the booklet? Seth71 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The ones with the album booklet. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty odd, whichever's incorrect. You'd expect a high-profile release to be more tidy about stuff like this. Perhaps make a note at the bottom of the track listing template that the website credits Rihanna on tracks so-and-so? Dan56 (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a note already. The booklet is fucked up, probably they will correct in the later publishing. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the producers for track 3 actually credited with "@"'s in the booklet? Dan56 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Awkward, I know. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Official and Digital booklet should be the only source. Her fansite/website is not as reliable as BMI and or the booklet, so for now, the Booklet and the Digital Booklet, along with BMI, should be the only credible sources. 74.67.47.245 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How can her official site rihannanow.com not be reliable? The fact is that the booklet is wrong and has certain issues, the website has the right credits. Adele didn't write "Half of Me", it was Adele Emely Sande, however, the booklet lists Adele separately. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This proves that they messed up the booklet, the only good source then is her website.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic

I strongly feel that the opening should say "generally favorable reviews from music critics" instead of "mixed". I've had this discussion with User:Fidelove but they seem intent on putting mixed even though I have explained to them that the "grade" on Metacritic states that it indicated "generally favorable reviews" I have agreed with them that it isn't a perfectly reviewed album and that is why I put how critics felt the album was rushed. For now, the album should say the album received generally favorable reviews if that is what Metacritic says, no? And if the user is intent on changing the opening, then they should at least change the Critical Reception section, which would be vandalism anyway because the source does not agree with this. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Tomica for sorting that situation out as I didn't want to violate my editing restrictions. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There are other news sources that verify "mixed" (Caribbean360 [2], Digital Spy [3], Chicago Tribune [4], AnyDecentMusic? [5]), but any statement in the lead about the reception might be premature. While Metacritic does show more mixed reviews than either negative or positive, they weigh different publications differently in their scores, and it's also early, so it would be incomplete if more reviews were to come. As of now, though, this should suffice. Dan56 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Album Artwork Controversy

there should be a section in the article surrounding the album cover and the "uncensored version" going around the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortiondude (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Chart Debut in Australia

Unapologetic debuted this week at No. 8 on the Official ARIA Chart (link: http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums/370 ) and at No. 1 on the Urban Chart (link: http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/urban-albums/367 ) I would add the data myself although I'm not exactly sure how. 58.165.62.140 (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unapologetic? Let's "Pon De Replay".

This may not get a Wiki edit at all, but for those out there looking for a point on what this lucky seven effort by an artist who tells us she has been unapologetic throughout her whole music career, then read on. Seven albums in a span of 8 years, an in and out relationship with every high profile man, acting in film, near-constant working herself to death, tweets back and forth, abandoning her record company bosses, smoking like a train, getting hospitalized, and still she goes right back into all of this. Year after year, and so far..... She deems herself unapologetic. Just like James Brown's slogan, only.... The Hardest Working Woman In Show Business. Fortunately, she's only 24 years old. To mainly, everybody she's touched in her life: Her fans should not feel guilty to be a huge fan of hers. She can't undo seven albums in eight years. She has been smoking behind closed doors. She continues to sing, dance and party. Now she returns back to arms that she longs for, those same ones that injured her. In short, this album tells us that Rihanna is unapologetic for "everything Rihanna". She's charged with even contemplating her music career to go in this direction. Guilty, but we can't punish her! She's cray cray. Signed, a Rihanna fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.133.208 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Songs" section

It needs to be rewritten. The same discussion was had with Christina Aguilera's Lotus. This section of The Emancipation of Mimi is described as an example of an appropriate "Songs" section, and in fact contributes to the good article status. May it be noted that it is included under a "Composition" heading, not "Music and lyrics". "Composition" describes the album's make-up as a whole, where "Songs and lyrics" describes each song's individual composition. The "Songs" section seen in Unapologetic is mainly nothing more than a gathering of quotes from other track-by-track reviews, and is just not formatted the way a Wikipedia article should be. Instead, it should consist of a more detailed description of styles and techniques presented in each song. 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone with the same preference changed that article long after it passed GAN, which was on July 18, 2011 (see "article milestones" at the top of Talk:The Emancipation of Mimi). Apparantely, it was nominated and passed with the section heading "Music and lyrics". Dont get "songs and lyrics", as if theyre two distinct aspects; wouldnt it be "music and lyrics" making up a song? Either way, according to WP:MOS: "Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Where MOS makes provision for more than one style option, editors should not change an article from one of those options to another without a substantial reason ... If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Dan56 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)\

Writing Credits

As much as I hate to admit it, Rihanna did not write or co-write any of these songs. She is not credited at all for any writing credits on the album footnotes, which is the best source we (wikipedia) can provide. Her label would have added her onto the credits on her website to make it appear as though she contributed the way she ACTUALLY did on Rated R and Talk That Talk. This needs to be discussed and reconfigured.

Pour It Up as second single?

Is Pour It Up the second single from the album? Look at Rihanna's tweet: https://twitter.com/rihanna/status/273917531968917504 --PidiContent (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just a fan-made artwork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.59.201 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How can it be a fan-made artwork if it was relased on rihanna's official twitter account? Anyway, the second single is Stay --PidiContent (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It is fake, Rihanna Daily posted the picture on Instagram stating a fan created it. Please wait for official confirmation about the next single. Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012

Mikey Mike is also a producer on "Jump." He was left out of the physical booklet due to "lack of time to proof credits" on Def Jam's part. This is proven in the itunes version, where they updated the credit mistakes and his name is listed as producer along with Stargate and Chase n Status. His full name is Michael Brennan Williams, not to be confused with the other Mike Williams on the album(Mike Will Made It). 98.192.196.41 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The digital booklet, provided by iTunes, and which I own, does include Mikey Mike. But, Rihanna reported mistakes on both booklets and the corrected credits are posted on her site. Here: [6] you can see the corrected credits, which does not include Mikey Mike. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Pour It Up

It is the second single - Rihanna herself posted it on Instagram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unapologeticwarrior2012 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a single. We need a release date or confirmation from the label/singer its a single. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Pour It Up & Stay, which is the next single?

According to most reliable websites and Rihanna herself (who posted the single artwork on her Instagram), "Pour it Up" is the next single. This is the only website that says "Stay" is, where did anyone hear that? Which one is the single? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.81.120 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There goes Rihanna again, confusing people. The "Pour It Up" cover is fanmade. At the time, she was posted artwork done by her fans. Statυs (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna never explicitly said that "Pour it Up" was the second single. She just posted a fan made cover art. Whereas it was confirmed that "Stay" was the next single when it was played on UK radio. Also confirmed at Popdust, MTV and Capital FM via Press Party — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

She just posted the cover art, which artists like Beyonce do all the time to coincide with their songs, but that doesn't confirm it as a single. Although if anything, Pour It Up would be released to urban and Stay to HAC/pop. But that's just my own opinion.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Tour removal

Is there a particular reason for this removal? I'd agree that all tour dates being listed is too much, as indicated by WP:ALBUMS/STYLE#Touring, but you also removed sources cited, making it hard to work the information in and condense it. Dan56 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tour page

The tour has already been confirmed, so I don't see why it should be listed on the page of the album. It should have its own page as I just takes up space. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 20:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we make a stand alone page for Diamonds World Tour? There is PLENTY of information for there too be it's own page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeDee1 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Genres

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Almost every song on this album incorporates hip hop, obviously it would be a main genre for the album... Whatever318 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It would obviously need to come from a reputed sources, like a music journalist, to be incorporated, as are the other genres cited in Unapologetic#Music and lyrics. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

But since many songs that have their own articles from the album have hip hop sourced as a genre couldn't we just use those sources for this article...? Whatever318 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's deductive reasoning. And the couple of song articles you're referring to are either poorly sourced or unsourced altogether. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If they're bad articles why doesn't someone delete them...? Whatever318 (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant the genres in the infobox of those articles. I fixed Numb (Rihanna song), which had genres that were not verified by the source cited, while Pour It Up had no source citing "hip hop", so I found the best source I could find that specifies a genre (in this case "club") and cited it. Dan56 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think this source is good enough to include R&B. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then, my previous message clearly went over your head. BTW, Dolan is already quoted in the Music and lyrics section, which you obviously haven't bothered to read, instead dead focused on slapping a genre onto that infobox. Dan56 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you revert my addition of R&B to the infobox? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you cited an awards category. If you understood how often other editors of this article have reverted each other because of available sources describing it as "R&B", or "dance"/"EDM", or something I think is equally valid, then you'd realize the line had to be drawn at the most explicit interpretation made, which is cited in that section--"Unapologetic is a pop album", which is what Greg Kot plainly said. "[This album] is a [genre] album" (from a reputed music critic) is where the line is drawn. Reasonable? Dan56 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Wikipedia:UNDUE Having it only listed as a pop album, and only a pop album, clearly goes against how common it is referred to as being a part of other genres in the sources already in the article. I think Dubstep might even be ahead of R&B in pure mentions (quality mentions and quantity) but it's clearly and overwhelmingly undue based on sources listed as well as the current the Music and lyrics section to only have Pop.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Pure mentions"? Which critics characterize this album as dubstep tho? I understand that a few songs are singled out, and that according to footnote 29 (Randall Roberts, LA Times) the songs "draw on" dubstep. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Umm, you're slightly misreading that LA Times source to the reverse of what it said. Dance pop is what it says the songs "draw on", it's not talking about dubstep in that sentence. It actually says, She’s gone all-in on dubstep, which makes me think they don't think it's only a pop and nothing but pop album. This isn't about whether it's the best quality example of a dubstep or pop or R&B album, it's to help people navigate to articles about music styles commonly linked to this album by our sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• How about this review from Vibe that says: "In the usual, sometimes vexing, Rihanna way, she achieves all this using a grab bag of genres, including ’90s R&B (“Jump” samples Ginuwine’s “Pony”), dub step, pop and a token Irie jam (consider "No Love Allowed" a less violent version of "Man Down")."" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Unapologetic is dark and sad, yet at the same time, it's dance-oriented and fun. The album itself morphs from Dubstep, to R&B, to ballads, EDM, to Pop-Reggae - and that is its biggest achilles heel. It isn't something that other jumping-genre albums couldn't get over if it weren't for the the fact that it suffers from a serious sequence problem". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Her seventh album in seven years is all filthy lyrics and crashing dubstep drops: R&B-pop turned up to 11." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My two cents on the issue. I personally don't approve straight qualifications such as "Unapologetic is a pop album". Genres are subjective description of the music and should be dully noted that Greg Kot from the Chicago Tribune says the album is pop (unless a solid number of critics agree with him, of course). However, because I haven't edited the article at all, I don't want to oppose other editors who worked hard and build a certain consensus over the issue. But I do have problem when some self-proclaimed "genre expert" falsifies references to feed his obsession with genres on rock/heavy metal albums.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As a member of the Rihanna WikiProject, I believe that R&B and dubstep should be included on the page, as there are many reviews that mention R&B in them, it's not like people are adding genres that have nothing to do with the album e.g. Britpop, traditional jazz, J-pop, grime which are not mentioned in anything, I believe that a certain user is being an unfair team member and has tunnel vision, if there are people who have picked up on that R&B and dubstep is mentioned the opposed source then it stands to reason as it should be included into the article who agrees? AlisaJay (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Poll

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.

---

The purpose of this RfC is to determine if the community consensus supports adding R&B and dubstep to the infobox of this article. From the article, Unapologetic#Music and Lyrics: Rihanna spoke on the album’s sound saying she loves working with different sounds and putting them together.[22] Rihanna also added "Right now we're working on collecting and creating the sound first before we even start working on the lyrical direction or melodies. I kind of have an idea though, and it's very rough right now. So I'm very eager to start that."[23] Sean Garrett spoke on the album's sound saying it was "a great mish-mash of genres".[24] A review in Vibe magazine stated: "In the usual, sometimes vexing, Rihanna way, she achieves all this using a grab bag of genres, including '90s R&B ... dub step, pop and a token Irie jam."[25] According to The Guardian: "Her seventh album in seven years is all filthy lyrics and crashing dubstep drops: R&B-pop turned up to 11."[26] Rihanna revealed during an interview with GQ’s “Men of the Year” that she wanted her music to be uplifting saying “I want to make music that’s hopeful, uplifting. Nothing corny or supersentimental. I just want it to have the feeling that brings you out of whatever you’re going through. I want it to spark that fire. I want it to be real, authentic, and raw.”[27][28]

For the record, if you agree or disagree that R&B and dubstep should be included in the infobox please indicate that below. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Support inclusion of R&B in the infobox. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Yeah sure, you can include it, if you find a third party reliable source stating the information. This poll is clearly ridiculous. Oh, and when reverting me, you are reverting my prose too, making it read bad! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The pop label serves the genre field just fine. The record is quite definitely (not ostensibly, but definitely) a pop record even if just by the "popular culture" catch-all definition (though I could argue it's pop by many more definitions). The genre field is partially subjective and I dislike it but it's best to think of the genre field as helping a reader understand what genre an album is not rather than a precise descriptor of what the album is. "Pop" makes clear this isn't a rock, country, jazz, classical or hardcore album and so it is helpful for the reader. Whether the album is pop/R&B or pop/dance doesn't really matter and arguing over it isn't constructive. N4 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support R&B as per the Rolling Stone review used in the Reception section of the article, "Unapologetic's stark, shadowy R&B is confrontationally honest and sung within an inch of its life, whether she's turning a strip-club anthem into a declaration of independence ("Pour It Out") or pleading at the piano ("Stay")." DElliott (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Support I agree with DElliott, it states R&B in Rolling Stone and the article itself states it mainly is a R&B and pop album. So yeah. THE GTA Guy (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose It's not a matter of whether "R&B" is mentioned in a review of the album, but how it's stated (WP:NOR)--the Chicago Tribune review says there are dubstep songs (Unapologetic#cite_ref-Kot_29-1), but that doesn't make it a dubstep album. The A.V. Club explicitly calls it a "pop album" (Unapologetic#cite_ref-Koski_70-1). You can't vote to include "R&B" without the other genres mentioned in the reviews cited in this article. BTW, The GTA Guy, in the source you previously cited (this MTV review), the critic said that the album sees Rihanna "stepping out of her 'R&B' comfort zone". Dan56 (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Tomica, sorry, but you shouldn't copyedit while edit-warring. Answer me this, how explicitly do you need it stated? Tell me the exact phrase you need to hear. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Explicitly like Greg Kot stated that it is a pop, same for R&B, dubstep and all the other genres. And who says I can't copy-edit? You made a new rule now? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I just meant that if you copy-edit while reverting your edits might get reverted, but anyway sorry. I'll be more careful. Are you really saying that a source need to explicitly use the exact words "its a XXX album" or you do not agree? Its a multi-genre LP, its not a one genre pop album. Many sources support this. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• We all know "Jump" is dubstep, "Loveeeeeee Song" is R&B and "Right Now" is EDM, but in whole we only have a reliable source saying explicitly is a pop record. The thing is, may songs have different genre, but as a package is Pop, we don't listen the genre of every song which is present on the album in the album's infobox. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• What are your thoughts Elaqueate, Whatever318, Вик Ретлхед? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Has any of the editors quoting him bothered to look at what Greg Kot actually said? Apparently, he didn't even say it was a pop album. He said it was ostensibly a pop album. Have people somehow just forgotten the meaning of the word, "ostensibly"? The guidance for the infobox being used is also clear: One or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma and linked to corresponding articles. It says "reflects", not "explicitly pronounced in a specific word combination". So yes, I think we should have more than a single genre in the infobox, because I agree with Greg Kot and others that it can't be considered only a Pop album and that it reflects a couple of other genres. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• FTR, ostensibly means: "apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually." Elaqueate, thanks for your comments, but don't forget to !vote in the poll. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Great job GabeMc, just continue with the canvassing ;). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tomica, Elaqueate was involved in the discussion prior to the RfC, so they can't be canvassed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not when we talked about the Unapologetic genres as I can remember. Also you should re-read the comment you posted above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tomica, please re-read the discussion above the RfC. You'll see that Elaqueate commented there before I opened the RfC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't particularly care about the poll, but arguments based on bad reasoning shouldn't be given weight. Tomica, and others, should be a little concerned about the number of times they've asserted that something was explicitly stated when it explicitly wasn't. I can't be canvassed to a discussion I was already a part of. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and consensus should be formed by better arguments. If genres in infoboxes were held to the standard you're proposing, we'd have to take Pop off as well. If people want to !vote instead of discuss, I'd suggest they should consider that this album is broadly and frequently claimed to reflect more than one genre, that it's described as genre-hopping, that no one quoted claims it's only a pop album, that it won awards designed for R&B albums, and that the infoboxes are intended to help readers know what topics are being discussed in the article, and to helpfully point them in the direction of connected topics. My view is that it should have more than a single genre of all the genres that are most commonly referenced by reliable sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't listened the record, nor have edited the article, but I can tell that this thing with the music genres on Wikipedia is unnecessarily taking way too much energy from the editors. My advice: don't waste your time on such futile issue. Tomorrow someone else will come up with a review from USA Today saying "Unapologetic is goregrind album" and you will be arguing about the genre again. If you can't find compromise on this topic, then don't include a genre at all.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking on these lines. I agree if people can't form consensus on the genres reflected, then a claim about genre shouldn't be included until there is. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Unapologetic#cite_ref-Koski_69-1. Dan56 (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Partially support This source (Billboard) says:

Amping up on urban, dubstep-leaning R&B and scaling back on the often awkward sex jams that populated the second half of 2011's "Talk That Talk," "Unapologetic" is Rihanna's most confident, emotionally resonant work since 2009's "Rated R."

From that we can properly infer that the album (1) is R&B, and (2) that it has some dubstep influences. Being influenced by dubstep is not completely the same as being within the genre of dubstep (i.e., that this is a dubstep album). Thus my suggestion would be some variation of: Pop • R&B (dubstep influenced). Or perhaps its infusion with dubstep can be mentioned in the lead and/or other parts of the article.

Let me know what you all think. --Precision123 (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That bit ("amping up...") is relative to Talk That Talk--more urban, dubstep-leaning R&B and less awkward sex jams than... The dubstep "infusion" is mentioned throughout in "Music and lyrics". Dan56 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You're getting hung up on stupidly minor details. Just leave the genre as pop. Putting the sheer triviality of the issue aside, Rihanna never has (as far as I'm aware) claimed to be a dubstep producer. Some tracks may be influenced by dubstep but the album is not a dubstep album. That'd be like listing all rock records including a blues lick as being of the blues genre - it doesn't logically hold up. If individual songs have individual stylistic inflections, include it (referenced of course) on the page for the individual song or in the music and lyrics section where it belongs. Now, let's all just get on with our lives. N4 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

N4, I hope you're not misreading my last remark--I was in favor of leaving it as "pop" because it's explicitly attributed in the article ("pop record" → Unapologetic#cite_ref-Koski_69-1). My response to Precision123 was disproving his interpretation and saying that the source he's offering doesn't support "R&B" because the critic was just making a comparison to Talk That Talk rather than a straightforward characterization of this album's genre. Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, I know you're in favor and I read your comment correctly. My own comment is a discussion comment on the RfC in general and not on your specific comment - that's why left it unthreaded. All the best. N4 (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2014 (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.

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.

Reviews

Overall reaction to the album has been fairly mixed judging from reviews, there are several sources which even state the same. - Jak Fisher

See Metacritic score and aggregation we use on Wikipedia so can tell what reviews an album got. 61 implies generally favorable reviews. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses independent sources aswell, not just aggregate scores so saying that "we" use only aggregate scores is a bad argument as they themselves can't be varified, as metacritic weigh certain publications scores differently than others as they have said themselves, so it isn't balanced and wikipedia's rules clearly state that these sections in an article need to be backed up with several third-party sources. Plus there are many more mixed and negative reviews on metacritic than positive. Your argument is basically to base it all one source, which itself is nearing "mixed", which goes against wikipedias editing standards and its neutral point of view. Plus there are many albums that have gotten a "favourable" rating on metacritic that have been classed as mixed, just look at Ed Sheeran's album for one of many examples - Jak Fisher

Of course we use independent sources on Wikipedia, but in different cases. For albums best notificator is Metacritic which aggregates the reviews. I suggest revert yourself, because you are argument don't see vaild tbh. And also this should be more discussed before is changed. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Codes

In the first paragaph, all the text is shown as codes. Can someone more experient with Wikipedia editing fix that? --Alessandro159 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Content removal

There seems to be an edit war going on regarding the first paragraph of the background section, with editors removing it because they believe it does not belong in this article (20:37, 27 April 2013‎ by 80.41.69.184, 10:51, 13 April 2013 by Sebastiaan1234, 18:14, 12 April 2013‎ by Iluvrihanna24), before being reverted. If this is an issue of undue weight of content forking, then please explain yourselves at this talk page. Otherwise, don't remove it again. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Other users are correct, none of this content about Talk That Talk is relevant to the process of Unapologetic, much like the copied and pasted text being featured in single articles that I have to keep continually removing. None of this:

In November 2011, Rihanna released her sixth studio album entitled Talk That Talk. Musically, the album was rooted in pop, dance-pop and R&B, but also incorporated a variety of other musical genres such as hip hop, electro house, dancehall and dubstep, a genre which was prominent on her fourth studio album Rated R (2009). Talk That Talk received generally positive reviews from contemporary music critics upon its release. It was a commercial success and reached the top ten in over twenty national charts, including number one on the UK Albums Chart and number three on the US Billboard 200. The album produced six singles including the worldwide hits "We Found Love" and "Where Have You Been". "We Found Love" topped the charts in over 25 countries and sold over 6.5 million copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling singles of all time.

is associated with Unapologetic at all. Why does We Found Love being number one and sales of the single affect this album? Why does the genre of Talk That Talk affect this album? Why do the reviews affect THIS album? I'm fed up of having to explain this when it seems so delusional to have any of this rubbish in this article. I think what really needs to be stated is that whoever is adding this content needs to explain themselves. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Brief edit summaries through reverts are not appropriate. Tag the particular section you are disputing and discuss (Wikipedia:Content_dispute#How_to_initiate_an_NPOV_debate), especially when there are multiple editors on both sides of a dispute. Dan56 (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Iluvrihanna24: That's called a Background it's there for a reason. Go through nearly every album article and you will see information for the previous release, it's nothung unusual or strange, or something that should be removed. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph used constantly

This same paragraph is used in every article that relates to the album:

"In March 2012, Rihanna revealed that although she had not yet begun recording, she started "working on the new sound" for her seventh studio album. On September 7, following the singer's performance at the 2012 MTV Video Music Awards, she announced that she will embark on her fourth worldwide tour entitled the Diamonds World Tour, to support her then upcoming album. Rihanna's managing company Live Nation Entertainment posted a video on YouTube with the announcement of the North American dates of the tour. The tickets for the concert shows were made available a week later on September 14, 2012. Via her official Twitter account, Rihanna posted series of "teasing" tweets announcing the further release of the record. On October 11, 2012, in one of her tweets revealed that the title of her new album is Unapologetic alongside with its cover; On November 14, the European leg of the tour was announced. It is consisted of 36 concert shows and starts in Bilbao, Spain."

Why is this paragraph constantly used in every "Unapologetic" article?? Can we remove this from the other articles??!!! ChicagoWiz 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Erm no, and that's not the same paragraph, it varies according how much it fits the respective article, because it's important for all of them! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm... well it use to be in every article and it always has those same words! All of a sudden, it disappeared from the articles of the album's four singles -_- ChicagoWiz 23:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yearly peaks

There is no reason to include chart peaks for each of two years for the same chart. If the album peaked at number one in 2012, there is no need to list that it peaked at number 6 in 2013. No other chart listings do it that way, and if there are others, they should be fixed as well. This is not recommended by MOS:CHARTS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What Now, next AUS single?

I've been hearing Rihanna's What Now everywhere in Australia and it currently has peaked at number #23 on the ARIA charts. It seems like the song is getting heavy airplay on the AUS radio and was confirmed on the radio as her next single. Does anyone have any validity to this and can back it up with it being released as the next single? Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Loveeeeeee Song Not A Single

Loveeeeeee Song was never officially released as a single to Radio. It was played on UK Radio but was not sent to the radio intended to be a single. Please remove this informatoion from this page and any other relevant pages. Rihanna never confirmed a single release of Loveeeeeee Song therefore this is incorrect information. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeardley (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, this is not true. If you read sources for "Right Now" and "What Now", you can clearly see that the sources describes them as the "fifth" and the "sixth" singles off the album. And then you look at "Loveeeeeee Song", which WAS SENT to radios in the UK as the FOURTH single. If you want proof, here are some reliable sources for "What Now" and "Right Now" that states that they're the fifth and sixth singles from the album. These are for "What Now": 1 2 and these are for "Right Now": 3 4 I don't have any for "Loveeeeeee Song", but these will get you to the point. ChicagoWiz 18:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No Loveeeee Song is not an offical single, no promo, no single cover, no music video, no confirmation from Rihanna or her team different source saying what number single Right Now and What Now are isn't proof that Loveeee Song was a single by that logic Jump or Lost In Paradise could have been this apparent 'fourth single'. The addition is messing up the Unapologetic page and Discography and needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.143.24 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a note: isn't it a case of WP:ORIGINAL if we assume "Loveeeeeee song" was a single just because there are sources claming that "Right Now" and "What Now" were the fifth and sixth singles off the album? Decodet (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a source of it being sent to UK R&B radio so I don't see the problem here. "Loveeeeeee Song" was a single, even though not hardly promoted. I remember starting to chart higher in the UK in April (the month it was sent) meaning people started knowing the song better. It is a single, and that's a fact. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Colombia

Please add that Unapologetic reached Gold in Colombia. Source: http://www.lax1039.com/Portal/index.php/videos-recomendados/item/614-rihanna-disco-de-oro-en-colombia

Thanks! --213.188.125.96 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 213.188.125.96 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The author of that post is not included in the "staff" listing for the website. Can you find a different source, possibly from Columbia? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

New Source! --Rudeby88 (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Page fully protected

Enough with the genre-warring. There have been enough reverts and edit-summary back-and-forths that blocks were imminent. In lieu of that you guys can hash it out on the talk page to reach some sort of consensus. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Tomica, I think there's a possibility of a problem with one user and multiple accounts, since the editing patterns and content are identical or closely similar--12:41, 11 February 2014 by 82.132.221.233 (inactive after 11 February, 06:21, 12 February 2014 by AlisaJay (not active after 12 February), 18:52, 12 February 2014 by 86.142.51.177 (blocked on 12 February), and just now THE GTA Guy (his first two edits to Wikipedia were on 19 December, then a period of inactivity, and started editing again near the end of 12 February, editing the same articles the three aforementioned editors have been editing). Dan56 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 Yeah, I suspect there is a case of multiple sock puppetry. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014

"change Pop to Pop, R&B" The album won awards for Best R&B album and Best Urban album so why aren't those genres included? It even mentions R&B several times in the article so clearly it should be included right? 93.186.23.83 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

"Please change Pop to Pop, R&B, dubstep because...." Rollingstone Magazine notes that Unapologetic's stark, shadowy R&B is confrontationally honest and The Guardian/Observer states Her seventh album in seven years is all filthy lyrics and crashing dubstep drops: R&B-pop turned up to 11. which is why R&B and dubstep should be included, also note that Unapologetic had been nominated for R&B awards and that's why it is a main reason to include R&B as the genre. Thank you and God bless. 217.39.32.244 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I did not include, dubstep as per lead of the article, that says, "Unapologetic is mainly a pop album that incorporates elements of EDM,hip-hop and dubstep in its production". I've included R&B because, "Unapologetic was awarded Top R&B Album at the Billboard Music Awards of 2013". Hope, it is clear. If not satisfied, feel free to open the edit-request again. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Genre change poll

Removed. Started by a sockpuppet of User:MariaJaydHicky and only supported by sockpuppets of MariaJaydHicky.—Kww(talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Change to the article

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.

---

I spoke to a fellow Wikipedian (it's not my place to name names); who has gone through the article and the talk page and said that the previous genre changing poll was a bit weak to exclude certain genres from the article and that someone had only gave one source that states that Unapologetic is a pop album and that it was not enough to just keep it as a just a pop album; Rolling Stone notes that the stark, shadowy R&B on the album, the Guardian categorizes the music as R&B-pop (with dubstep drops on one of the Guaridan reviews), also it should take into note that Unapologetic won an R&B album award in 2013 which also gives evidence that the album is an R&B album so I propose that we include definitely R&B and possibly dubstep to the genre info box.LuvmeorHateme (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

I’ll self-identify. The previous RfC was evenly split and the closing admin slightly favoured only listing pop. The arguments above seem very reasonable to me. I don’t understand the subject sufficiently so I won’t support or oppose, but the statement does seem reasonable. Those who disagree would do best to list contrary genres and attempt to outnumber those listed above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Genres, July 2014 Poll (add your !votes here)

• Support To include both R&B and dubstep to the genres and to put R&B before pop as the Guardian calls it R&B-pop.LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 10:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Undue weight given to one source who uses hyphenated compound noun that may or may not refer to "R&B-pop" as a single crossover genre instead. Dan56 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per LuvmeorHateme, to only list pop is to ignore the album's two most prominent genres, which are R&B and Dubstep. Stevie (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (DrummerSteve69 / "Stevie" has been blocked as a sock. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Opinion; No critics have referred to Unapologetic or its music as a R&B or dubstep. Dan56 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone review [7] refers to it as R&B.BananaLanguage (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It says "Unapologetic's stark, shadowy R&B is sung...", implying R&B is featured, but not characterizing the album as it. Sources cited in the article like The A.V. Club ("pop album"), AllMusic ("another timely refresh of contemporary pop music"), and NME ("daring avant pop") explicitly make that characterization. Dan56 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree and I think that passage of text in question (Unapologetic's stark, shadowy R&B is confrontationally honest and sung within an inch of its life, whether she's turning a strip-club anthem into a declaration of independence ("Pour It Out") or pleading at the piano ("Stay")) characterises the music on the album as belonging to the genre of R&B. BananaLanguage (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support The four most mentioned genres are pop, R&B, hip-hop (well rap to be honest) and dubstep so they should be included aswell, also whilst you're at it; the album included the song "No Love Allowed" which is a reggae song, where it says it features influence from EDM, hip hop and dubstep also include reggae into the influence part as most sources say a Rihanna album wouldn't be a Rihanna album without a reggae track, it's not like she did a Good Girl Gone Bad on Unapologetic and stayed fully away from reggae/dancehall. Names Aisha (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (Names Aisha has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

• Oppose If you'd read the previous discussion, you'd see that your concerns in the previous section were all addressed or responded to--Petridis writes "R&B-pop", not "R&B" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), and he is one source, as opposed to the several cited in the article (WP:DUE) that characterize the music and album as "pop": "contemporary pop music" (Kellman, AllMusic), "daring avant pop" (Martin, NME), "fiery pop album" (Koski, The A.V. Club). Award-show categories/titles are not professional critiques, i.e. appropriate sources. Dan56 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per:

• Rolling Stone: Unapologetic's stark, shadowy R&B is confrontationally honest and sung within an inch of its life.
• Billboard: Amping up on urban, dubstep-leaning R&B and scaling back on the often awkward sex jams that populated the second half of 2011's "Talk That Talk," "Unapologetic" is Rihanna's most confident, emotionally resonant work since 2009's "Rated R."

As I stated in the original "poll" above from the consensus, the Billboard critic is making a relative remark, on the difference between Unapologetic and Talk That Talk--essentially saying there is more "R&B" than there was on Talk That Talk, not that this is an R&B album. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• The Guardian: Her seventh album in seven years is all filthy lyrics and crashing dubstep drops: R&B-pop turned up to 11.

If you were to want to cite Petridis or Rogers as critics who see the album's music as "R&B-pop", then that would make sense. But you're not adhering to what the sources explicitly say, which is "R&B-pop", not "R&B" and "pop". They've hyphenated the two as a compound noun, which usually refers to fusion/crossover in music. Are you arguing that "R&B-pop" should be in the infobox? Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Time: this is not her best album, it feels like her most personal and with it’s urban R&B sound, it may be an indicator of the direction Rihanna is heading as an artist ... It’s these ballads that also give a hint of the direction that Rihanna may be heading in as an artist—less pop princess and more R&B diva.
• MTV: There is also evidence of a conscious lean towards an electro-dubstep infused r&b sound.
• Seawnhaka Press: The album takes a different direction from Rihanna’s last studio album Talk That Talk which featured a steady balance of pop, R&B, and hip-hop, which sold over 965,000 copies in the U.S alone. In contrast to Talk That Talk, the new album Unapologetic features more R&B and soulful-pop records versus hip-hop.

How did you find a college newspaper in your research of the best sources available on the topic? Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Axs.com: "The seventh installment in Rihanna's discography is more R&B than Pop."

Again, AXS (ticket merchant), a ticket merchant website, is not an appropriate source for professional critiques on a creative work. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Redeye: Embracing pop and R&B's unusual edges, our heroine remains indestructible.

This is in reference to the "heroine", right? But what are "R&B's unusual edges"? Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• themaxonline: Unapologetic is more in the field of upbeat-R&B than her recent records and therefore isn’t full of the obvious hits that those ones have had.

Your research continues to be questionable--a self-published blog? (maxonline.net/about) Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it utterly bizarre that Dan56 is fighting the inclusion of R&B in the infobox of an album that recently won a Billboard award for best R&B album. Harmelodix (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Award show categories/titles are not professional critiques, i.e. appropriate sources for subjective interpretations of a creative work (WP:SUBJECTIVE) Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Even though I want to include R&B, Dan's right about that one. Billboard charted Lorde's songs and Pure Heroine on Rock charts. I don't trust Billboard either. And let's not forget their unprofessional reviews that some of their stuff did like for Avril Lavigne's Hello Kitty. Dkisnis (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Dkisnis has a valid point, after all it says Genres not Genre Lisa Bathgate (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Lisa Bathgate has been blocked for sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

• Support I really don't get it when those people come together, create pool and decide the album's genre... No offence but Pop music has lost it's feature because of these things. Pop is such a hard genre to recognize. It's not like selecting between pop punk and punk rock. R&B, Dance, Electronic music etc. All of these genres can be mistaken as Pop. I don't like it. Even on trip hop albums like Born to Die. If you call it "Pop", what does it make different from a on the boil pure pop artists Madonna's, Britney Spears' or Lady GaGa's albums? If we need more sources: The seventh installment in Rihanna's discography is more R&B than Pop. says Acamea Deadwiler from axs.com. The album, a mix of club hits, personal ballads and R&B grooves,... as it is written on Hollywood Reporter. And as other critics say (can be found one Hollywood Reporter site): Andrew Hampp of Billboard takes note of the album's musical variety: "Amping up on urban, dubstep-leaning R&B and scaling back on the often awkward sex jams... I know http://rateyourmusic.com is not used but if we need a POOL, it's good one and Contemporary R&B, Dance-Pop are seems to be most votd ones. I don't say it's not Pop but R&B is really non-negligible on the album. What I try to say is yes it has pop, obviously, but not only pop it has. Then let's look at singles and songs as their genre from wikipedia;

1. Diamonds: Electronic / Pop
2. Stay: R&B
3. Pour It Up: Club
4. Loveeeeeee Song: R&B / Hip-Hop
5. Right Now: EDM / Electro house
6. What Now: Pop
7. Jump: Dubstep

• Phresh Out the Runway: Hip-Hop / Rave
• Nobody's Business: Disco-pop / Pop / R&B-funk
• Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary: Electronica / New wave
• No Love Allowed: Ragga pop / Reggae
• Half of Me: Chamber Pop

Yes Pop is more, just as some critics call by the way, however: why can't we put R&B too? Will it kill us? No. Is the information wrong? No. We have sources. We can even put Hip-Hop too. It doesn't have to have only one genre. There are several albums on wikipedia have 3 and even up to 5-6 genres... Dkisnis (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dan's comments. And Dkisnis, that website (rateyourmusic.com) is not a reliable source, so it cannot be used, at all. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you understand from "I know http://rateyourmusic.com is not used"? I know it is unreliable. I was talking about that pool thing. Duh! Whatever. Dkisnis (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dkisnis:, subjective interpretations of creative works are attributed to professional critiques (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), and we don't stray from what the best sources available explicitly say (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). axs.com is not a reliable source, and The Hollywood Reporter critic--not a reputed critical source to begin with--is not characterizing the album as "R&B", but the "grooves"--a characteristic of a song. The quote you selected would also support "club music" ("club hits") if we relied on passing mentions of genres in a review. And as I stated in the original "poll" above from the consensus, the Billboard critic is making a relative remark, on the difference between Unapologetic and Talk That Talk--essentially saying there is more "R&B" than there was on Talk That Talk, not that this is an R&B album. While I understand where you're coming from, we have to put aside our personal opinions on music and take a more disciplined, objective approach in how we deal with the sources covering the article's topic. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment:Dan56, both Alexis Petridis and Jude Rodgers call it R&B-pop; the hyphen means and so basically they are saying it is R&Bandpop in short hand and even though the album features R&B songs and dubstep songs surely they should be included in the genres, can you please tell me where there is a source that says this 'Unapologetic is mainly a pop album with R&B, EDM, hip hop and dubstep influences'? How do we know that? Say if someone reviewed Eminem's album and said that his album was a 'fiery pop album' would you say that, that was reliable?! A lot of articles on here about albums say that they are pop with such-and-such a genre songs and they still get to keep such-and-such a genre; Rolling Stone notes the stark, shadowy R&B on the album, which should indicate that it has some R&B on the album really the info box should say this: Genre = Pop, R&B and the article it self should say it is mainly and pop and R&B album; I have seen enough edits on Unapologetic that one minute it's pop, then it's pop and R&B, then it's pop then its R&B, pop, dubstep, then it's Dubstep, R&B, pop then it's back to pop; there should be a medium with it that should keep it pop and R&B, no one is denying that pop shouldn't be on the article. LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 18

27, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 17:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

LuvmeorHateme, hyphens are used to combine words that have a specific meaning together than when they're apart ([8]), not "R&B" and "pop". If this is a compound noun, an outdated practice, then the writer(s) are using poor grammar, and more rests on the reader to interpret what they mean--you say it's "R&B and pop" (which doesn't make sense considering it's hyphenated), I say it's "R&B-pop" (which is often used to refer to crossovers, something the writer might feel is an actual genre or fusion genre). I don't see a Jude Rogers cited anywhere in the article btw. Dan56 (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 Jude Rodgers reviewed it as The Guardian/The Observer stating that 'Her seventh album in seven years is all filthy lyrics and crashing dubstep drops: R&B-pop turned up to 11' I'm pretty sure that was mentioned in the article itself. LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 18:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

LuvmeorHateme, that was an aside (hence btw) in a much larger point that you havent addressed. Dan56 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 I kinda did, I mentioned 'The Guardian' (I was referring to both Alexis Petridis and Jude Rodgers who call it R&B-pop and both work for The Guardian), maybe I wasn't as clear as I should've been. Oh well, you live and learn. LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 18:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

LuvmeorHateme, you kinda didn't. I'll reiterate it for you: hyphens are used to combine words that have a specific meaning together as opposed to when they're apart ([9]); it's "R&B-pop" (not what you're proposing in the infobox, right?), not "R&B" and "pop". If this is a compound noun, an outdated practice, then the writer(s) are using poor grammar, and more rests on the reader to interpret what they mean, which is what you're doing by saying it's "R&B and pop" (which doesn't make sense considering it's hyphenated), while someone else can say it's "R&B-pop" (which is often used to refer to crossovers, something the writer--Petridis or Rogers--might feel is an actual genre or fusion genre). Dan56 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 I was referring to your comment that Jude Rodgers wasn't mentioned in the bit when I recited it as R&B-pop; now I'm totally confused :S LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 18:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Technically, "R&B-pop" means R&B-influenced pop, and not R&B and pop (the combination could be expressed shorthand as R&B/pop or R&B–pop, with an en dash rather than a hyphen). HipHop DX would support that ("she figures out how balance her innate ability to sing Pop songs with R&B arrangements") but also mentions the variety of genres ("the album itself morphs from Dubstep, to R&B, to ballads, EDM, to Pop-Reggae"). The Rolling Stone review calls it R&B, or at least states there is R&B on the album. Adabow (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, according to whom does "R&B-pop" mean "R&B-influenced pop"? Are we supposed to rely on our personal interpretations of a writer's choice of grammar? Or whether he knew (or cared) an en dash is used to connect things related to each other "by distance" or when there is a pronoun in the compound noun? Considering grammar rules, I don't see why an en dash would be used in "R&B-pop" when it's a compound noun and "R&B" can't be a prefix; the two words are hyphenated to make a compound noun ([10]), which doesn't imply which component noun there's more of, "R&B" or "pop", or whether there is a relationship where one "influenced" the other. But above all, considering WP:NOR and DUEWEIGHT, I don't see the point of leaning on one source that uses this compound when there are at least three sources that explicitly call the album and its music "pop". Dan56 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Adabow, much of the edit warring that led to the first "poll" and established consensus was because amateur editors/IPs were citing anything they could find to cite any genre mentioned without considering the context of their source('s words) or a line being drawn. At least three of the most reliable sources reviewing this album (NME, AllMusic, The A.V. Club) are cited in this article and explicitly/unquestionably refer to the album as pop. Dan56 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

The less guideline-based arguments and more personal opinions being interjected in these supports, the less value this consensus will have, undermining Wikipedia policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. (WP:POLL). Dan56 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of devaluing the consensus and "undermining Wikipedia policies", I wonder what affect your recent attempts to !vote stack will have. @ Lil-unique1, JennKR, Livelikemusic and Kokoro20. I'm curious, why did you message only these editors? I see that its already yielded one oppose, but no supports. Drmies, is this an inappropriate manipulation of the consensus process? Harmelodix (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

I'm contacting competent editors for input, who might actually respond with arguments based in WP guidelines and policies rather than their personal opinions on each of the album's songs, or loose interpretations of sources, or finding low-quality sources such as axs.com, maxonline.net, or redeyechicago. I don't see your point about "attempts to !vote stack". The editor who initiated this poll did so by soliciting a comment from a participant in the previous poll(s) to start. You're off-base, just as you were in the previous discussion you most recently hounded me at. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Not true; I was informing someone of it; I wasn't saying they had to say they support it; I'm not the only one who picked up on your behaviour as has another user commented on that you bully people to see your POV in a nutshell, who like I say it's not my place to name names. LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 19:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

And I wasn't informing someone of it and not saying they had to support it, LuvmeorHateme? Dan56 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, You was making it out like I was. LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 20:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

I was responding to Harmelodix's lame accusation, and now to this revert of yours. He conveniently overlooked that one of the editors you were first to contact happened to be in support in the previous poll, which is what votestacking is. I never said you explicitly told Stevie they had to support, I was pointing out that Harmelodix is here to continue his grudge and make personal attacks towards me rather than see all sides. Dan56 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 Oh, OK sorry about that, look I'm starving, I'm off to McDonald's can't really think with a empty stomach! Oh by the way; I think I used to have you on MSN. LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Dan56; I'm not and I repeat not trying to pick an argument or fight in any shape of form, but I was reading your comment and you mentioned 'AllMusic'; I was under the impression that 'AllMusic' wasn't really a reliable source for a reference as many people have used it to define something and their edits get reverted 'cause of it?? Or am I wrong to think that?? LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 08:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Compromise?

LuvmeorHateme, I'll clarify in simpler terms. If you were to want to cite Petridis or Rogers as critics who see the album's music as "R&B-pop", then that would make sense. But you're not adhering to what the sources explicitly say, which is "R&B-pop", not "R&B" and "pop". They've hyphenated the two as a compound noun, which usually refers to fusion/crossover in music. Are you arguing that "R&B-pop" should be in the infobox? Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

OMG! Sorry Dan56 I was thinking what the heck was that? Read it and left it being very confused.com LOL! How would it work? Wold it be stylised as R&B-pop or as R&B-pop? PS, I'm sitting here in McDonald's with my iPad, digging in to it looking like a Percy Piggy :) LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Although I wouldn't mind seeing more comments on this possible compromise from experienced editors, particularly those more associated with the article (Pretty colours by the way!)LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 20:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC) who have contributed greatly to it (ping a few of them?), I would just as well not mind having "R&B-pop" (attributed to those two Guardian/Observer critics) in the infobox. Since "Pop" is already linked, perhaps [[contemporary R&B|R&B-pop]] could work, LuvmeorHateme? Dan56 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, I agree, but just to be on the safe side shouldn't it link like with [[Contemporary R&B|R&B]]-[[Pop music|pop]] 'cause I think people would say, I clicked on pop and it redirected me to Contemporary R&B WTF is that all about and throw their toys outta the pram?! Whatever you say I'll go with LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 20:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

You can't change this now, Dan56. Its R&B that 6 editors support and that's what we want added. LuvmeorHateme. I suggest that you start an RfC (or maybe I will) and wait a couple of weeks before asking an admin to close the discussion. Dan is trying to compromise now because he sees this going against his opinion. Lets hold off for a straight add of R&B. Harmelodix (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Harmelodix, I suggested an RfC to LuvmeorHateme about an hour ago and this possible compromise was not my idea. Furthermore, as I explained there, polling is not a substitute for discussion, and my concerns have not been addressed by most of these superficial supports from editors who have not chosen to respond after I've pinged them. Dan56 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC has already been started, so lets all just sit back and wait until an uninvolved admin closes it in a week or so, okay? Is that acceptable? Harmelodix (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Harmelodix, Dan56 Can one (or either) of you explain to me in simple child like English what a RfC is please? LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 21:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

It means RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Harmelodix (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Harmelodix Please can you do it and tell me how to do it, you never know I might have to do one one day :)?LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 20:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

I went ahead and started an RfC, so don't add to or alter the language below it. I'll wait a couple of weeks before asking an uninvolved admin to close it and determine consensus. Harmelodix (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Harmelodix, you do realize that the supports arent strictly for "R&B"? The first two supports are for "R&B and dubstep" to be included, the third "R&B, pop, hip hop, and dubstep", while Dkisnis said to include both "R&B and dance-pop". Dan56 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, 1) you don't need to ping me in every single comment when I am obviously watching this conversation, and 2) will you please allow an uninvolved admin determine if any consensus has been achieved? Harmelodix (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Harmelodix, will you respond to what I said? That the supports you claim are for including "R&B" are in fact for other genres as well? Dan56 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll respond, but I'm not an admin and I'm too involved in this anyway, so what does my reading of the consensus matter to this discussion? I presume that if all the !votes support genre A, and half support genres A and B, then the closing admin will decide what that means and what to do. Are you implying that we need a separate RfC for each genre, or just one specifically for R&B? Just let the closer decide. This isn't up to us because we are too involved, man. Harmelodix (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

When the hell did I say to include dance-pop Dan56? Well maybe why not, but no. I was talking about R&B and what all other people called the album's genre(s). Dkisnis (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"but if we need a POOL, it's good one and Contemporary R&B, Dance-Pop are seems to be most votd ones." which on second thought seems unclear what you were actually referring to. Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I said that. And I still think that the site is better because of having far more than here, Wikipedia. But I know that it can't be used here and was just talking about POOL thing. Dkisnis (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

3) Will you please refrain from recruiting editors to the discussion? That's what the RfC is for, so that none of us do it, okay? Harmelodix (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

What gave you the impression that I would? Dan56 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan, you've spammed at least 60 people this month to join in discussion that you have a vested interest in. I guess I just assumed, my bad. Harmelodix (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Didn't that discussion you partook in at WP:FAC's talk page involve editors telling you that was completely appropriate for a stagnant FAC? Dan56 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll dismiss your bad faith accusation about this compromise and ask you straight up--What are your thoughts on "R&B-pop" being cited in the prose (#Music and lyrics possibly) to Alexis Petridis of The Guardian and Jude Rogers of The Observer--both reputed music journalists--and consequently listed in the infobox? Dan56 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as good faith brother man, when you stop accusing me of impropriety I'll reassess my good-faith for you, okay. You started off slinging mud from the get go, and you need to stop. If you must know my thoughts, I say that, based on my listening to the album, I would list pop first, then R&B and dubstep last - though I just might leave dub off, as it not that prominent. Based on my reading of the sources I'd say they support listing pop first, then R&B and dubstep last, though some might argue more dubstep, but I don't think so. That would be cherry picking. Harmelodix (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

How about this (roughly) Pop, R&B, (dubstep)? It keeps Rihanna's signature pop, R&B sound and with dubstep in brackets that symbolises it is an influence as people be it Jude Rogers (you was right Dan56 on the spelling of her name) mentions that the album features dubstep drops, and Billboard states there is urban, dubstep leaning R&B and Rolling Stone notes that there is R&B on the album; it's a win-win for everyone LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 09:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

There aren't any sources that call this album "dubstep", though, just mentions of it as an element or feature: "dubstep-leaning", "dubstep drops", etc. Above all, though, the most reliable sources available on this topic should be researched and stuck to what they explicitly say. I've left comments on those you and others found above, so it's whatever now. Hopefully, those who decide to participate in the RfC will decide, with all things considered here, to do what's best for the article. Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I really wish that you wouldn't WP:BADGER every comment in the poll; its disruptive. Look at the energy you expended and required/drained from others to avoid adding two letters and an ampersand to the infobox. At some point one wonders if your presence here is a net positive. Harmelodix (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Most of those who supported have yet to follow-up on any of it. That's not an applicable reference to WP:BADGER btw, not targeting any "specific" editor, just raising WP-based concerns with the sources found. Dan56 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The reality of this dispute is that you are requiring an enormous amount of effort out of several editors so that you may block the addition of two words and an ampersand to the infobox. If that's not tedious I don't know what is, and what worse is that its a waste of the community's resources. Harmelodix (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Let's not revisit whose edits have been tedious for the sake of blocking out a phrase or two. We've all been in discussions where we feel right in our positions on a certain matter. I'm not requiring much effort from several editors; if they choose to cite mostly their personal opinions and attach a superficial "support" to it, that's their decision, as it is not to respond back. I wanted to articulate my position, and I did. Btw, I don't this compromise is possible on second thought--I think LuvmeorHateme confused Petridis' review with Jude Rogers, who was the one that called the album "R&B-pop" (Petridis, The Guardian, didnt). So that's just one source for "R&B-pop". Dan56 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

LuvmeorHateme, I think it's best to leave "dubstep" out; there are other sources that mention influences like "hip hop" or "dance", and we have to draw the line somewhere, because no sources explicitly say this album's music is dubstep. I'll cite the Time magazine review by Melissa Locker as a source to further verify "R&B" in #Music and lyrics, while "dubstep" can be duly noted in the lead, which should summarize parts of #Music and lyrics section, where the EDM and dubstep elements/songs are mentioned. Dan56 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56 Yeah, it's not like this is a Chase & Status, Rosko, Magetnic Man etc. article where they are dubstep artists, Rihanna's more of an R&B/pop artist who mixes everything from reggae, dancehall, hip hop, dance, EDM, dubstep, rock etc. in her music so I'm game for dubstep to be noted as an influence LuvMe♥ ^{or Hate Me}☠ 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (LuvmeorHateme has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lisa Bathgate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

References

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.

Plagiarism

This article needs a thorough check for close paraphrasing and plagiarism. I found this one today:

• The article prose: "'Numb' is a slow-grinding, Middle Eastern-flavored party track."[40]
• The cited source: "on this slow-grinding, Middle Eastern-flavored party track,"

I fixed this one a few weeks ago, but I get the feeling that the article is loaded with copy-paste plagiarisms. Harmelodix (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

According to [11], it looks like that was added by a sockpuppet [12] BananaLanguage (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I added R&B as a genre

Dan56, no wonder you paranoid about socks, they is everywhere you go! But seriously, I got the distinct feeling that you had agreed above to R&B, so I went ahead and added it per said discussion - now closed by DB, which though tainted by socks is nonetheless a valid indication that you agree that its not unsourced or undue to add R&B. Harmelodix (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sock of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Agreed! Figures that at least two of those users were socks considering their edit histories. Fine with the change! Cheers Harmelodix Dan56 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Producers in the infobox

There are currently 28 producers listed in the infobox for an album that has 14 tracks. I would like to discuss reducing this to the main producers. What do you think, Dan56? Harmelodix (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC) (Harmelodix has been blocked as a sock of Jazzerino. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

I suppose the executive producers and co-exec's could be removed; if the infobox didn't warrant the co-producers that are mentioned in the track listing section, I don't see why the exec's should be there either. Dan56 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

References in alt text

Note that the backlink for reference 1 doesn't go anywhere. This reference is defined in the infobox image "alt" text; this isn't valid, per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Basics. If it is important to mention this tattoo it will have to be added somewhere else in the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Unapologetic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121121124116/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/arts/music/rihannas-album-unapologetic-makes-most-of-her-talent.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/arts/music/rihannas-album-unapologetic-makes-most-of-her-talent.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.disctarra.com/rihanna-unapologetic.html#.UT7DO6Bl42w
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140528040249/http://www.billboard.com/column/the-juice/rihanna-s-stay-is-second-unapologetic-single-1008091592.story to http://www.billboard.com/column/the-juice/rihanna-s-stay-is-second-unapologetic-single-1008091592.story
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130303112004/http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Rihanna+about+Diamonds/7302874/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Rihanna+about+Diamonds/7302874/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Unapologetic. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.josepvinaixa.com/blog/rihanna-serves-jump-as-next-radio-single-in-australia/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rap-up.com/2013/09/27/rihanna-performs-what-now-on-alan-carr-chatty-man/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vibe.com/article/unapologetic-review-rihanna-sorry-shes-not-sorry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Genres and socking

The genres list for this article has bee the subject of massive socking. For a small sampling, see Talk:Unapologetic#Change_to_the_article, above. Now we have an IP sock of MariaJaydHicky claiming to be reverting GWAR restoring the non-consensus in that discussion. In fact, they were not reverting the edit, of course, but adding their own GWAR. I have been unable to find a stable version of genres for this article, other than the one claiming to be based on the list decided upon by one or two real editors compromising with about a half dozen sock accounts agreeing with themselves.

As a result, I have removed all genres. If you wish to add any genres here, you will need to cite reliable sources. Yes, I expect unreliable sources to be submitted, reliable sources that don't support claims, sock puppets swearing they are not sock puppets, sock puppets claiming I am a sock puppet, etc. Feel free to take it to AN/I if you would like to argue against any of this. Boomerangs v. socks? I've got $20 on the boomerangs. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Unapologetic. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17369-unapologetic/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012232732/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20130001 to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20130001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107154534/http://www.fimi.it/4111 to http://www.fimi.it/4111
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dutchcharts.nl/jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2012&cat=a
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17369-unapologetic/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avclub.com/articles/rihanna-unapologetic%2C88921
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mahasz.hu/?menu=slagerlistak&menu2=archivum&lista=top40&ev=2012&het=52&submit_=Keres%E9s
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factmag.com/2012/11/23/rihanna-unapologetic/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20648482%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126182308/http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/blog--odds-and-ends-030 to http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/blog--odds-and-ends-030
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-review-rihannas-unapologetic-shines-light-on-past-drama-20121116%2C0%2C7267834.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2012
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66manGN9R?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/scottish-albums-chart/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/scottish-albums-chart/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empik.com/unapologetic-deluxe-edition-rihanna%2Cp1062103553%2Cmuzyka-p
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226205855/http://www.rihannanow.com/news-article/unapologetic-album-credits/ to http://www.rihannanow.com/news-article/unapologetic-album-credits/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empik.com/unapologetic-rihanna%2Cp1062103544%2Cmuzyka-p
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6ETXMFxmg?url=http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/95891/X-Factor-12-Rihanna-Performs-In-The-Rain-On-Results-Show to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/95891/X-Factor-12-Rihanna-Performs-In-The-Rain-On-Results-Show
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012014638/http://www.4music.com/news/reviews/6960/Review-Rihanna-Unapologetic to http://www.4music.com/news/reviews/6960/Review-Rihanna-Unapologetic
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hdu-toplista.com/index.php?what=izvodjaci&w=details&id=39
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/68i8ITzbZ?url=http://www.cyta.gr/el/IFPI to http://www.cyta.gr/el/IFPI
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rihanna.fanfire.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/artist?categoryName=Diamonds%20Deluxe%20Edition%20Box&artistName=Rihanna&sourceCode=RIHWEBWWGBP
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rihanna.fanfire.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/artist?categoryName=Diamonds%20Executive%20Platinum%20Box&artistName=Rihanna&sourceCode=RIHWEBWWGBP
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://olis.onyx.pl/listy/index.asp?lang=
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=2012&cat=a
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zimbio.com/Whitney%2BHouston/articles/_ioKW9Lh77w/Rihanna%2BStay%2Bsoars%2BHot%2B100%2Bsurpasses%2BWhitney

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) 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

More sockpuppet genrewarriors

Yeah, it's the most important issue in the world today.

Per Talk:Unapologetic#Genres_and_socking and the sockdrawers at Talk:Unapologetic#Genre_change_poll and Talk:Unapologetic#Change_to_the_article (see also Talk:Unapologetic#Poll), I am again blanking all genres from this article. After the new set of sock cases flushes out the frequent flyers we can have a discussion here. Once that discussion is cleansed of socks (as they will undoubtedly join in) we'll see what we have. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

New blocks and protections are in effect to slow it down. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Genre after latest visits from socks

From [13]: Could you please explain on the article talk page how the sources verify the information? I've found that the sock's assertions to be at best original research. Let's do this right given the history. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The sock only added "dub step" which was in the source, however, it didn't describe the genre of Unapologetic as an album, but only "Jump" (one song). As for the other two sources, the genres are there:

Chicago Tribune (pop) -- "“Unapologetic” is a tough listen, ostensibly a pop album from one of the biggest pop stars of our time"

The Observer [R&B-(pop)] -- "Her seventh album in seven years is all filthy lyrics and crashing dubstep drops: R&B-pop turned up to 11." — Tom(T2ME) 23:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The last discussion I see on this page is basically a call to start over: Talk:Unapologetic#Genres_and_socking. Given the history here, I think that some discussion is necessary. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I killed all of the genres, sourced and otherwise, back in November of last year. From what I can see, most of the genre "work" in this article seems to be the work of socks. As such, I'd propose a clean slate approach: NOT using any of the sources proposed previously in this article as they have been gathered to support various positions, not to state what reliable sources say. If you start out trying to prove it's blackened Viking death metal, you'll find sources for that.

Instead, I'd suggest we start with the obvious sources for such info: Rolling Stone, Allmusic and such. We have a little bit of time to handle this before socks come pouring back in (though a few autoconfirmed ones might pop up in the meantime). I hope we can nail something down here in that time to make the socks all the more obvious in the future. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the currently listed reviews:

• Allmusic - "another timely refresh of contemporary pop music"
• A.V. Club - "a fiery pop album"
• EW doesn't seem to directly categorize the whole album, "there are dubstep-warped bangers" is all I found
• The Guardian gives a few hints for individual tracks, but little on the whole
• The Independent has nothing on the album's genre
• NME - "daring avant pop"
• Pitchfork tells us "Nobody's Business" is "a bubbly pop tune" and "the rest of the album is a synth-pop slog"
• Rolling Stone - "stark, shadowy R&B"
• Slant - part of "pop-music history"
• Spin seems to be an unrecoverable dead link

From all of that, I get pop (repeatedly). Synth-pop and R&B are weak, mentioned by one source each. Nothing else shows up at all. Yes, fans and genre warriors will want to hang lots of genres on the album, but 5 out of 9 reviews call it pop. Nothing else seems worth mentioning. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source calling the album a certain genre, then it's fine to be added. Pop is of course staying there, but also R&B is fine to stay as well. Dub step has to go of course and I am not sure about synth-pop since the sentence is vaguely based. — Tom^(T2ME) 10:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)