Talk:Rihanna/Archive 3

Loud

Album name confirmed by Rihanna herself on the RihannaDaily chat. Update please :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.194.187 (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable. Sorry. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New section for 5th album and future projects

Doesn't there need to be a new section about Rihanna's new album and upcoming projects? Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The album is supposed to come out around September, but even the name hasn't been announced. I'm not particularly convinced production is going that well, and I'll be entirely unamazed if the eventual release is actually somewhat later.

The book is due out in September, we hear, but I don't see it as so wildly defining, even if she actually did write more than 40% of it, which I frankly doubt. Anyway, it's really only relevant to us if the book makes a big splash (millions and millions sold, not just shipped to bookstores; or is universally praised by respected critics; or she reveals she slept with Obama or shot Kennedy; or the ink causes cancer) and is widely reported for same.

The film isn't finished, and hasn't even been started. To me, a film that hasn't begun filming is still a non-film. And making a big deal about non-films (and non-books, non-albums, non-software, non-hurricanes, etc.) violates WP:CRYSTAL. Patience, folks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The name of her new album is "Loud" she told her fans herself on her website, www.rihannadaily.com. It is rumored to be released either on November 2, 2010 or November 16, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.195.85 (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Associated Acts

To everyone who keeps adding artists who've collaberated with Rihanna in the associated acts section. Please don't according to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Associated_acts So Rihanna has collaberated with Jay-Z on a few occasions, so I'm only gnnr add him. ozurbanmusic (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This field can include, for example, any of the following:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
• Groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with members' solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
• Groups that are merely similar

NEW SECTION?!

I really think that the fifth album should be split into another section entitled: "Fith studio album and film debut" because 2009 and Rated R was a hard year for Rihanna with the domestic violence and her new album is about moving on! 82.24.227.215 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

seeing as i can't edit for some stupid reason it says only girl release date is 14 september. it is september 7!! 82.24.227.215 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

that was a premier not a release. Theres a major difference. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Singles off the Rated R album are still currently released on radios and music videos of them are still being shown on television. I believe that once the album has been released then you can start a new section for it. ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Only Girl (In The World)

why isnt their a Only Girl page yet? it just got released in iTunes, Radio and has a single cover/ Promo CDS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.253.2 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC), struck by Ozurbanmusic 22:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

I have been working so hard on the song article for "Rehab", it is almost GA-class worthy. Please can some other Rihanna Wiki editors help out a bit with some finnishing touches, namely a live performance pic or two? Thanks! - Blizzard01 (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want Rihanna Wiki editors you might be better off asking at the Rihanna Wiki, not here at Wikipedia. Also, what value is there in live performance photos in illustrating a song, as would be appropriate at Rehab (Rihanna song) (wikilink added for your convenience)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC

Albums sold

I think somebody should add how many albums she's sold worldwide because many get confused and think that she's only sold 5 million albums worldwide, when that's solely for the U.S. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.25.2 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

2009: Domestic violence case and Rated R

2009 and 2010. Rude Boy, Te Amo and Rockstar 101 as well as her Last Girl On Earth Tour have been in 2010 as apart of the Rated R era. calvin999 17:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

Why??? Loud is clearly a new era. I don't agree with this change... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikoism (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna SNL Appearances

Where should those go? In the regular narrative? Shy Ronnie and Shy Ronnie 2.0 need to be mentioned somewhere in this document! In my experience, this is something people talk about when they discuss Rihanna. (mikomango (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

Pronunciation in article

Is it pronounced /riˈɑːnə/ ? I heard an interview where it was pronounced with a different 'a' sound (like the a in cat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.41.16.175 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

/riˈænə/ is, I believe, the usual pronunciation in the UK; I live here and I've never heard /riˈɑːnə/. I'll add this to the article. 92.4.217.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

Albums and Singles Sold

"Rihanna has sold more than 15 million albums and 45 million singles worldwide."- Billboard announced the albums sales.. She has sold +19 million albums and 70 million singles.. google it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.187.92.185 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Tentative) Edit Request: Rihanna tops first-ever Social 50 Chart by Billboard

I'm not sure where this should go, but Rihanna is number 1 on the first-ever Social 50 chart by Billboard. Information about what this brand new chart actually is can be found here. Not sure where this should go, but clearly this is a career milestone for Rihanna and I think it should be included somewhere in her Wiki-world. Thoughts? mikomango (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's not. The Social 50 is a very unscientific popularity gimmick, and we don't need to report it. I am unconvinced that numbers of friends/followers has much significance. The page hits can go up just because she changes her hair style or poses nude(r) somewhere. And as you say, it's the first one, so it hasn't established any notability yet. The reason Billboard charts are worth citing on WP despite its truly miserable web site includes the fact that other reputable sources recognize the Hot 100, etc., as well as the clear data gathering methods for those charts. If, in a year, the Social 50 is considered notable by mainstream media, then we can think about adding some mention of it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair!!! So, we're waiting to see what happens with this chart before we acknowledge it? I asked on the Rihanna discography and Yves told me the main article might be best, but you're saying to leave it out until it matters? So...not even one little eensy weensy sentence? mikomango (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My preference (for now) is no, as stated, but then I'm just one guy. I know I'm not going to be adding it anywhere... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I feel you. I will refrain until either (1) other people notice and care and start clamouring; (2) the chart itself becomes worth a damn. Seems fair? mikomango (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a deal! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna in a movie

I think that someone should really post on there the fact that Rihanna is currently in Baton Rouge, Louisiana filming Battleship with an other set of cast mebers. Also, the way you pronounce her name is Ree-aa-nah. Some peopla make the mistakes of pronouncing it as Ree-ah-nah, whic is very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.154.156 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna's signature

I don't see any problem to include the artist's signature. Why? Because there is no rule that claims that can't appear, and there are other pages like this one. Thoughts? Vítor&R (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. There's nothing bad in it. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

My thoughts are that it's silly and unhelpful. Also— naw, that's pretty much it.

But how do we know that's really her sig? And what do we do with the information? Verify a check with it? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule that prohibits this. How do we know? Silly question. All information is on Commons. Vítor&R (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How do we know? That this signature is on Commons is clear, plus...come on. How many people on Wikipedia do you think have a signed copy of something or the other by Rihanna? *raises hand* That's definitely her signature! :-) People want to see signatures for some reason or the other, so if Rihanna's goes, John, you're gonna have to delete every last signature on Wikipedia! Can't have it all ways!--mikomango (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

Can we mention the red hair now guys? Please? I love it so much and it's evolving continuously! :-)--mikomango (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal life section

Rihanna has an older half sister and brother named Samantha and Jamie. Has anyone noticed that this article doesn't have a "Personal life" section? JuventiniFan (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything notable is part of her biography. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (talk · contribs) 16:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Is she married or engaged or does she has a boyfriend. Does she have (own) kids? Nothing to find here. --93.133.249.53 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC) i thought she was with chris brown but they split up after he beat her up

Associated Acts?

i think we should add an associate act on the column where her info goes... Let me list some people

Jay-Z (Umbrella, Run This Town) Kanye West (Run This Town, Paranoid (Actress), All Of The Lights) Shontelle (Man Down (Wrote), Roll It Down, Hotness, Unfaithful (Official RMX) Eminem (Love The Way You Lie, LTWYL 2) The-Dream (Livin a Lie, Hatin On The Club, Wrote Umbrella, Breakin Dishes, Rockstar 101, Hard) Ne-Yo (Hate That I Love You, Wrote Unfaithful) Justin Timberlake (Rehab, Hole In My Head, Wrote Cold Case Love, Lemme Get That, Sell Me Candy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.250.203 (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree but not with Justin Timberlake (Personally? I'd prefer to wait until she's on one of his tracks too, when he finally returns to music). --mikomango (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture

The page needs a new picture. The current picture is from August 2010, Rihanna's style and image has changed significantly since then and I feel a more recent picture would be a more accurate representation of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowanadam (talk • contribs) 00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

15 Million or 25 Million Albums?

In her introductory, she is stated for selling more than 15 million albums whereas in her discography it is stated that she has sold more than 25 million units. So which one is the right one? Because the first one is retrieved in November 2010, while the latter one is in October.SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 04:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

change the picture to one where she looks more beautiful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.138.214 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

^^Hilarious!--mikomango (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(Tentative) Edit Request: Image Section

The image section appears to be quite dated. Most of the references are from 2009 and earlier, and it makes no mention whatsoever of her ever-changing, ever-evolving hair. My edit request is for an "evolving paragraph" in the Image section that addresses the trend-setting in hair that Rihanna has been known for since GGGB. Yay? Nay?--mikomango (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The respelling ree-YAH-nə does not match the IPA /riˈɑːnə/: there is no /j/ in the IPA. The respelling should therefore be ree-AH-nə, but I can't edit the page because it's protected. The second pronunciation given has two matching representations, although it's a bit odd to have two pronunciations for a living person's name. Are there any interviews or whatever where she says her name? It's best to work out what she says and go with that. Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Source 98

Doesn't seem to be a reputable source as it states a milestone to occur in May 2011 and the link is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.237.105 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dondreah6, 6 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

x = "Rihanna has sold more than 25 million albums[9] and 45 million singles worldwide."

y = "Rihanna has sold more than 15 million albums[9] and 45 million singles worldwide."

Please change x to y because Rihanna has sold 15 million albums not 25 million albums.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/eminem-rihanna-arctic-monkeys-to-play-uks-v-festival-2230297.html

Dondreah6 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 01:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So it is 15 or 25 ? Because it is said 25 on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.120.171 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Done I actually updated the number this time. Last time I just updated the source that was provided. Thanks for checking and the reminder.—C45207 | Talk 03:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

rihanna's total number of record sales worldwide have surpassed 80 million (including featured songs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.167.35 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Consecutevily weeks in billboard top ten

I think rihanna is now 46 consecutevily weeks in billboard top ten with Love the way you lie, only girl, wahts my name, S&M, maybe she breaks katy 52 weeks record. Could someon wwrite it in the rihanna article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synthieprojektakame (talk • contribs) 10:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 2.127.0.68, 25 May 2011

Please change to The source required is from 3 years ago, so Rihanna's page is broadcasting incorrect information. 2.127.0.68 (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current numbers are sourced, so that's why they remain.—C45207 | Talk 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wikiaddict999jr, 27 May 2011

Please change "Rihanna has sold more than 15 million albums and 45 million singles..." to 'Rihanna has sold more than 30 million albums and 100 million singles...' because they are the latest figures as shown on this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/43193061#43193061

Thank you Wikiaddict999jr (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 05:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Source 9

Um we do not know where those numbers came from and plus since when has Good Morning America been a reliable source? That needs to be taken off. So far we only know that she has an official 15 million albums old and 45 million singles. Until those extra 13 million albums and 55 million singles (yeah right) are certified and approved by the RIAA or whoever they should not be counted for. I'm taking that off. --Logicalfoundationisdoubt (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My thinking for using Today as a source is that it is a news organization, which, especially for basic facts, we usually consider reliable. (Though, this segment does fall a bit more into the variety show genre...) However, as you note, we prefer more field-specific sources if possible, If we usually use RIAA numbers in these cases, then we should probably use that as a source instead of the MTV.de source we have now. I browsed the RIAA site for a bit, but couldn't find artist-level number, just album ones. Does anyone happen to know where these RIAA numbers might be? Thanks. —C45207 | Talk 07:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsuitable Info box picture

The current picture of Rihanna in a blue tuxedo jacket shows everything apart from her face, surely that is not acceptable? I thought the Info box pictures had to clearly show their face. calvin999 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

6th album

I don't know whether it should be referred to as her 6th album when Rihanna's management and Rihanna herself have said that the LOUDera is not over and that she will be re-releasing LOUD in the fall ??? Muthamonster (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is much better. Thank you :)) Muthamonster (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Barbados gov't signs Rihanna as honourary tourism ambassador now too.

I'm just adding this info since it may be difficult to find soon. Currently, it doesn't fit the article but, she has now been bestowed as honourary ambassador of tourism for Barbados.

• Barbados inks marketing deal with Rihanna
• Rihanna seals Barbados deal
• Rihanna and BTA sign deal
• Rihanna named tourism ambassador for Barbados
• Rihanna named Barbados tourism ambassador, USA Today

CaribDigita (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Barbadian singer?

Why is she always referred to as a Barbadian singer on wikipedia pages, when her music is written, produced, copyrighted, and released in the U.S.? In other words, she only identifies herself as Barbadian in terms of her origin and nationality. If she`s mostly known for her Americanized music, maybe it should be left out. Angiex3-2 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I`ll just go ahead and change this since no one seems to oppose. If anyone has a valid reason why it should stay, just tell me here. Angiex3-2 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow.. I just read this article and it`s beyond repairable. Angiex3-2 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna is a Barbadian singer because she is a singer from Barbados. The same why Celine Dion is a singer from Canada, Adele is a singer from the United Kingdom, and Mariah Carey is a singer from America. Talkwithme (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Awards Article

Can somebody please correct the table for the MuchMusic Awards and NAACP Awards section, it seems to be mixed up together. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Rihanna Thankyou. --92.7.30.92 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Article for "Who's That Chick?"

We don't know if "Who's That Chick" is gonna be on Loud, but it's being promoted heavily with Doritos. The 2 music videos for it premiered today on Doritos' Late Night website. The video's are also a mark in music video history, making it the first interactive music video ever. This song deserves it's own article. It has also been confirmed to be on David Guetta's One Love re-release, One More Love. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1650333/20101019/rihanna.jhtml --Sdoo493 (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lovebug8779, 10 May 2011

Please change the description of Rihanna as an R&B recording artist to a pop, reggae, R&B recording artist because it is a more accurate description of her musical style and biographies should be as accurate as possible. The influence of her carribean roots on her music is undeniable, look at her songs Rude Boy, Pon de Replay, and What's My Name. There is also a pop element to her music that distinguishes it from the music of R&B artists like Mary J Blige. No one would consider songs like "Shut up and Drive" or "California King Bed" to be R&B songs and you will not hear them played on R&B radio. Furthermore, Rihanna currently holds the record for the most number ones in the history of Billboard Pop Songs chart. That is more than her fellow artists Pink or Lady Gaga. It would be a major mistake at best and dishonest at worst, to not acknowledge Rihanna's relevance in today's pop music world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovebug8779 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

She is primarily an R&B artist. We've discussed this before, see the archives of past discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitorvicentevalente (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing Photos

For some reason, whenever I come back to this article after a week her so, her picture is different. Any reason for this? Talkwithme (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the most updated picture of her. We must be able to see her face to be suitable for the infobox. VítoR™ ^{get LOUD!} 20:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently wikipedia is now censored, and we can't show Rihanna's buttocks. Maddox (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, because we only have mediocre ones. But I note we have a couple of usable ones now:

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E

Which one is the best? I restored B earlier because I found her to be not recognizable in A, but C-E are probably better. Opinions? Amalthea 20:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A definetelly the best one, I don't see what's the problem with it Tomica1111 (talk)

A. I do not understand why the photo was changed before the discussion. VítoR™ ^{get LOUD!} 19:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with with Vitorvicentevalente. Tomica1111 (talk)

A rear view while she's wearing a Bozo wig, and you consider that to be the best shot? Wig free and full face strike me as being bare minimum requirements for an infobox picture.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Offenses should be ignored. The photo is suitable for the infobox for me. The pictures are both of the same show, same day, which nullifies that lil comment. VítoR™ ^{get LOUD!} 01:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I see no rational line of thought that would let one prefer in particular A over C for the infobox (side-face vs. a frontal shot, with all else being the same) and would be interested to hear your objective reasoning here, but suit yourself, I can see when help is unwanted. Amalthea 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sales

I presented sources that proves the information posted. I was reverted and went back to update with another references. But it seems that lil "untalented" Mariah Carey doesn't have a "interdependent third party source" too... VítoR™ ^{get LOUD!} 19:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Mariah Carey is an article, not a Wikipedia guideline: the guideline for using reliable sources is at WP:RS. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers (Drink to That)

Why is there no article for this single? Is it because there currently isn't a release date for it? --92.7.25.92 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have written the article but it has been re-directed to the Loud article because it hasn't charted yet, thus failing notability to be an active article. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for replying. --92.7.25.92 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be added to her Biography that she won a Beauty Pageant at school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willykey (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rated R Era

The Rated R-Era was longer than just 2009! The era was till summer 2010 and than begann the Loud-Era!!! Ilikeriri (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision

This page needs major revision, especially under the "Loud" section. It does now flow at all and there are numerous grammatical errors that need to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.238.125 (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Girl Gone Bad

My reasons for wanting this section to be marked as 2006 - 2009 rather than 2007 - 2009 is because recording sessions for the album started in 2006 as well as Rihanna starting to change her image and style. The last era stops here and the new one starts. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, GGGB is 2007-2008. Because she wasn't promoting the album or any singles in 2009. And by April/May 2009, she had started on Rated R. So no. This section will not be marked as 2006-2009. And don't change it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read my post again, I was proposing it to be 2006 - 2009 rather than 2007 - 2009 which it currently is already. I also believe that Wikipedia articles start referring to the beginning of periods as including the year(s) in which the album was made, rather than when it was released. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is going to be majorly reconstructed soon anyway. I did read what you said, GGGB didn't start in 2006. So no, that is not being changed. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Something about "We Found Love"

WE FOUND LOVE has been pushed up to September 22. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rihanna&action=edit&section=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.151.64 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rjkhan, 9 August 2011

The women who spends $22500 on her her grooming weekly . the news tribe

Rjkhan (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This claim of her spending on hair is pure gossip. She actually refuted this claim on Twitter.--mikomango mwa! 03:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales

Rihanna has sold over 30 millions album & 100 million singles cinfirmed in her oficial website RihannaNow biography --RihannaNavy (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing on her official website could confirm anything about sales. Artists' sites are notoriously unreliable as sources of sales figures. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Film debut" - very misleading

Despite what the heading of that sub-section says, Rihanna's film debut was in Bring It On: All or Nothing. To claim that the Battleship piece is her film debut is wrong and misleading. I suggest that it be changed to "theatrical film debut" or removed from that heading altogether. 81.106.127.99 (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the Film Debut part from the heading. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have been changed back. Could some hidden text be added to make sure that it doesn't get reinstated again? 81.106.127.99 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Has been fixed again by someone else. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Rihanna is a Barbadian R&B recording artist?"

Has Rihanna not successfully transitioned into an artist who records both pop and R&B songs, equally? I'm not sure this descriptor is entirely sufficient. Perhaps it should read, "Rihanna is a Barbadian pop and R&B recording artist", which would probably be more accurate. Please change it from "R&B" to "pop and R&B". Thoughts?--mikomango mwa! 03:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

She started out us straight up teen pop, but she has transitioned into more of an R&B/Reggae artist. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But her first song, "Pon De Replay" was more of a reggae song, and her latest hits "S&M", "Only Girl" and "We Found Love" are very synth-pop influenced. I'd say she was a R&B, pop and reggae artist combined. I do not feel that the simple description of her being an R&B artist even remotely defines her. She has said as much in interviews.--mikomango mwa! 22:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Then get the interviews, find the external sources, and then revise the article on that basis. It doesn't matter what either of you (or me, or any passing WP editor) "feel", what matters is what reliable sources say. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

2010-11: Loud era - No mention of RIHANNA RED hair?

Rihanna's hair was red, ranging from fiery-hot to almost-burgundy, during the Loud era. This was a major defining aspect of this era, something that was constantly discussed in the news and heralded by stylists worldwide. "Rihanna red" was actually a thing in many salons. A girl was suspended from school in the UK for dying her hair red to look like Rihanna, for crying out loud. Why is no mention of her red hair anywhere in this article, specifically in the Loud era section? Thoughts? Anyone? Would anyone object to me adding a mention of her red hair to this section?--mikomango mwa! 03:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone???--mikomango mwa! 13:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant to be honest. Loads of people got the Umbrella haircut when she did it, but it's not worth mentioning. If it is mentioned the Madonna article then you might stand a chance of being able to write something about her image, as Madonna changed her hair a lot. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. So if I add one sentence discussing the red hair (with several highly reputable sources attached) in her image section, it will be acceptable? I think it's highly relevant, sorry. I have a very close friend who's a hairdresser who was frequently asked for "Rihanna red" hairstyles. I think at least one sentence mentioning that her hair was fiery-red during the Loud era is not only relevant, but slightly important to mention, when one wants to learn about the extent to which Rihanna is truly shaping up to be a hair icon!--mikomango mwa! 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But it means almost nothing that a hairdresser is asked about it; that's just part of their normal job, and doesn't indicate any wide-ranging trend. If Michelle (or better yet, Barack) Obama were to color her hair "to match Rihanna's", then it would be worth a mention. As it is, if we've got a picture of her with red hair (we currently have two), than that's enough. You'll do what you want, I guess, but that's my view of it; it's not worth the time we've spent discussing it already, nor the time needed finding refs and adding the sentence. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But...the photos used to accompany these articles change with the tides...--mikomango mwa! 21:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So does her hair color. (And one reason for my indifference.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, Rihanna is a trend setter. From the Umbrella haircut, to the Take a Bow one, Rated R, and now the red hair, many people have followed and copied her edgy hair and fashion. I think at least, some where in the Artistry section incorporate something about these re-inventions of herself during each era and album she has created and the influence it has had on the public. --User:Sticky&Sweet12 —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

I couldn't agree with you more, and I see this omission from this article as an egregious oversight. I believe there should be a "hair" section under the "Image" category.--mikomango mwa! 14:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Princess of China

It was announced on the 12th September that Rihanna would feature on Coldplay's song Princess of China (from the upcoming Mylo Xyloto album). Yet there is no mention of this on Rihanna's article. The song hasn't been officially released yet, but it has been streamed on iTunes and played on the radio so I think information regarding the song should be included in Rihanna's article. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/3808583/Rihannas-amazing-on-our-new-album-but-it-took-me-ages-to-dare-ask-her.html SuperFitz (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall, she is R&B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.215.130 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2011 - Rihanna Creates Art Through Her Music

I suggest that the article "Rihanna Creates Art Through Her Music" be added to the list of references.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.popularcritic.com/2011/11/16/rihanna-creates-art-through-her-music/

NPLLC2011 (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any statements that need to be referenced with this, or is it just an article you would like linked to? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Beautiful-emas-madrid-mtv-rihanna-rihanna-da-favela-Favim.com-58009.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Beautiful-emas-madrid-mtv-rihanna-rihanna-da-favela-Favim.com-58009.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2012

The picture in the "Artistry: Music" section is not Rihanna. It is Kelly Rowland in a yellow dress. I request that this photo is removed because it is NOT Rihanna.

129.93.5.135 (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's funny, you should do some research before making outlandish claims. I've actually been to her concert, she wears the dress when she performs "California King Bed", and I took almost the identical picture too. --Jakeriederer (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna's voice type

Rihanna is not a contralto, contraltos have more heavier and darker tone, than her. She's a mezzosoprano, and her range is c#3-B5, she haven't ever sing a2... the sources are from forums and blogs, just listen her voice, and you'll realize, she's not a contralto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokdudu (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSNQuSLvH_8 THIS is her range. Low mezzo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.142.173.36 (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alexandre Viros wrote in his book, she's a mezzo, either. I think she has a great low range, but this doesn't make her as a contralto :).

Moving from article in case anything is needed

Early life and career beginnings

Rihanna was born Robyn Rihanna Fenty on February 20, 1988, in Saint Michael, Barbados, to Monica Braithwaite, a retired accountant, and Ronald Fenty, a warehouse supervisor for a garment factory. Her mother, a native of Guyana, is Afro-Guyanese, and her father is of Barbadian and Irish descent. The eldest of three siblings, she has two brothers, Rorrey and Rajad Fenty. She also has two half-sisters and a half-brother from her father's side, each born by different mothers before Rihanna's father married her mother. She grew up listening to reggae music, and began singing at around the age of seven. Her childhood was deeply affected by her father's addiction to crack cocaine, alcohol, and marijuana, and her parents' rocky marriage ended when she was 14, although he remained a part of her life. During her parents' marriage, she suffered from excruciating headaches leading doctors to think she had a brain tumor and underwent several CAT scans from the age of eight until her parents separated. She grew up in a modest three-bed bungalow in Bridgetown and would sell clothes with her father on a street stall. She attended Charles F. Broome Memorial School, a primary school in Barbados, and then the Combermere School, where she formed a musical trio with two of her classmates. She was an army cadet in a sub-military programme that trained with the military of Barbados and Shontelle was her drill sergeant. Although she initially wanted to graduate from high school, she chose to pursue her musical career instead.

In December 2003, Rihanna met American music producer Evan Rogers through a mutual friend who knew Rogers' wife. When Rogers and his Bajan-born wife were in Barbados for the holidays, Rihanna and her two bandmates auditioned for him in his hotel room, who said that "the minute Rihanna walked into the room, it was like the other two girls didn't exist." While auditioning for Rogers, she sang Destiny's Child's cover of "Emotion". Impressed, Rogers set up a second meeting, and, with her mom present, invited her to do some recording and write with him and Carl Sturken at their studio in New York. Shortly after turning 16, she won the Miss Combermere school beauty pageant, as well as her high school talent show with a performance of Mariah Carey's "Hero". Over the next year, Rihanna and her mom shuttled back and forth to Rogers' home in Stamford, Connecticut. With the help of Sturken, she recorded a four-song demo, which included the ballad "Last Time", a cover of Whitney Houston's "For the Love of You", and what would become her first hit, "Pon de Replay". It took a year to record the demos, as Rihanna was still going to school and therefore would only record during her summer and Christmas school breaks.

In January 2005, Rogers began shopping Rihanna's four-song demo to various recording companies. A copy of the demo was sent to Def Jam Recordings, where Jay Brown, an A&R executive, overheard it and played it for the label's then-president, Jay-Z. When he heard "Pon de Replay", Jay-Z was skeptical about Rihanna at first because he felt that the song was too big for her, stating that "when a song is that big, it's hard [for a new artist] to come back from. I don't sign songs, I sign artists". Def Jam was the first label to respond and invited her to audition where she sang "For the Love of You" for Jay-Z and L.A. Reid of Island Def Jam Music Group. She was signed the same day and canceled a set of meetings with other labels. After signing with Def Jam in February 2005, she relocated to the United States and moved in with Rogers and his wife. Although she still thinks of herself as Robyn, she chose her middle name as her stage name because, to her, the name Rihanna is just a stage that started in a recording studio in 2005.

Aaron • ^{You Da One} 20:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC) she is a star — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.12.196 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional current information for this WP Article

You can see a short video having a lot of information. She celebrates her 24th birthday on Feb 22 in London. And she has 23 hits on the top 40 USA hit chart. (Interviewer said, "27", but she corrected him to '23'. [1] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of Grammys

Twice I have edited the article to state the information that Rihanna has 5 Grammys and twice it has been changed to 6.
Can it be concluded that this is incorrect please?
Despite Rihanna's twitter implying otherwise, only one Grammy win is actually credited in her name. The track in question, 'All of the Lights', won 2 awards yes, but the Best Rap Song Grammy is a songwriters award - and Rihanna does not have songwriting credits on the track.
This is evidenced correctly in the article: Grammy Award for Best Rap Song where "Jeff Bhasker, Stacy Ferguson, Malik Jones, Warren Trotter & Kanye West" are listed as the recipients of the award. 333cale (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Style for names in article text

Hello. The subject of this article is named Robyn Rihanna Fenty , but the article calls her 'Rihanna' throughout. 'Rihanna' is her chosen stage name, but proper encyclopedic style should be to use her last name to refer to her in the text. Compare the article on 50 cent, which correctly refers to him by his last name 'Jackson'. Accordingly I think that general references to the subject in the text should be changed from 'Rihanna' to 'Fenty', since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pop music magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.92.65.10 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 February 2012‎

There is a guideline for how this is handled throughout this encyclopedia: Wikipedia:LASTNAME. 88.217.7.59 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Rihanna has had six albums now and i believe has had a huge impact on pop music and Barbados culture, should there be a legacy section or is it too soon?

She hasn't been around long enough for a lasting impact on the music industry to be seen. She's only 24, she's still got a long way to go. Jmagicvamp (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you define "has had a huge impact on pop music and Barbados culture"? By extraordinary sales? If yes, then no. That's not called impact/legacy. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree too there is nowhere for all of her records and achievements she's broken. Beyonce and Eminem have a legacy and Rihanna ahs sold more than them. There is also nothing on the people who are inspired by her and the fact that she is 'The Queen of Facebook' and YouTube. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna as an artist is still evolving and changing, but has made no real mark as of yet. Anyone can break a record or win a Grammy.jmagicvamp (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Anyone can win a grammy? Rihanna has accomplished more than a lot of other Artist. She deserves just as much respect --Braina90 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

She's been in this Industry for 7 years now. And has 11 number one hits. And was the youngest to do so. --Braina90 (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Legacy is not commercial success only. And yes, it's hard to win a Grammy and that's why she has just a few. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna has broken records that's more than just commercial success. Seems like the people who are writing her page, are disregarding her accomplishments. She might not be a "legend" yet but she is a pop icon. And deserves respect. --Braina90 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There most definately should be a Legacy section - in a few years time. Maybe at the ten year mark, but adding one now, is far too soon. And on a side-note, Braina90, it's not whether or not we respect her - that's totally irrelivant. This is an article on Wikipedia, afterall. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert please

I updated the Rihanna page and users removed some of the changes I made which I thought were completely understandable. I changed the picture as she has blonde hair now that was already included on the page and they called it "not nice" when it was already on the page and she has blonde hair now not brown. Also I added a title for The R Logo as it is part of her Artistry. It needs to be there as it is nowhere else and has been part of Rihanna since 2009 so is very defining. Please can I revert it or someone else? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If several users revert you, it generally means you are wrong. The info box picture you changed it to was a bad picture. It is not about what hairstyle someone currently has, it's about being able to see their face straight on and clearly. The one you chose was on the side on and with her eyes shut. There is no consensus saying that there needs to be a section about her logo. When making such drastic edits, such as what you did on this article, you should come to the talk page first and propose something, then wait for people to comment. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture

• 
  A
• 
  B1
• 
  B2

Can we please try to find a better image of Rihanna for the infobox. 1) She has blonde hair now and 2) That picture is very unflattening of Rihanna. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think the picture is good enough. A good picture with blonde hair still does not exist in Commons.— Tomica (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Goal of an infobox picture is neither to show the most recent appearance of a person nor to be flattering. Per WP:Manual of Style/Images#Images for the lead, we are looking for a "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic". I don't see that we'll ever have a 'natural representation' of her when she's on stage. As a lead picture of a biography in an encyclopedia, image 'B' in the gallery above works better than the current picture. Amalthea 18:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• This again? A is better and one of the most recent of her. Her hair is blonde now, but not short, so... VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 20:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Really? This again? B1 or B2. Can clearly see her face. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  A definitely ! Those pictures are from the Rated R era where she also had blonde hair, but shorter. I don't see a problem with the current picture which is most recent. — Tomica (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We need a picture for her "2011–present: Talk That Talk and Battleship", This one is of her performing talk that talk at the Jonathan Ross Show http://thecelebrityinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/article-1330791456479-11FF688F000005DC-215159_466x310.jpg --Braina90 (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is another picture if you don't like that one. http://www.soulculture.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/rihanna-jon-ross_SC-e1330815293529.png --Braina90 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously that picture is not free. On Wikipedia, we only use free pictures from Wikipedia Commons.— Tomica (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Birthday Cake Controversy

Shouldn't it be mentioned she did a song with Chris Brown? --Braina90 (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Loud section in Biography

I think Loud deserves an own section in Biography, because it was the most successful album in Rihanna biography. I don't think it must stay with Rated R. --PidiContent (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's fine as it is. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I don't think it looks right with Rated R. Loud signified a completely new image for Rihanna and a moving on from Rated R and the whole domestic violence case. By the way Calvin, please discuss things properly with other users instead of being so vague, it's getting very annoying and comes across rude to others. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Loud needs its own section as well. It completely changed her sound and image. Rated R and the domestic violence case should be one section and Loud should be another. jmagicvamp (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit

Calvin recently reverted my edit of this [2]:

On March 4, 2012, after Coldplay's duet with Rihanna on "Princess of China" became Rihanna's twenty-ninth top-forty single on the US Radio Songs chart, Rihanna was named the artist with the most top-forty singles of the century.

The reason was that "we" don't use Twitter. I do not agree with this as a Facebook message is used on the Talk That Talk page which is also a social networking site ([3]. Also, Amalthea quoted that they did not "think that was necessary". I think it definetely needs to be included as it is a big achievement. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Birthday Cake and Talk that Talk just reached the top thirty .--Braina90 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Albums and Digital sales

In the article, it is stated that Rihanna has 25 million album sales and 60 million digital sales. This is incorrect. If you go to Rihanna's official web page, Rihanna.com, you will find that she has 30 million album sales and over 100 million digital sales to date. This should be corrected as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmorrison33 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Her website has inflated them ridiculously. As simple as that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How did her website inflated them when on every before X-Factor performance of "We Found Love" stated that she sold over 100 million? Maybe more, I don't remember — Tomica (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is Jivesh even coming to Rihanna's Wiki all he/she does is talk trash about her. Get a life, you're not a fan stay the way from her page. --Braina90 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Five or Six Grammys?

Has Rihanna five or six Grammy Awards now? We need a source! Ilikeriri (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

She has only 5, and even confirmed this herself (in a Jonathan Ross interview). But nobody seemed to care when I raised this issue! 333cale (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah they don't seem to care about Rihanna accomplishment on this wiki. Clearly the person who has control over her wiki isn't a fan. They even refuse to add a legacy for her--Braina90 (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OMG. You know that is an offensive comment. Me and Calvin are working pretty hard on her articles, and I don't know about him, but I am her true fan (RIHANNANAVY forever). The legacy will come in the time is needed. And for the Grammys, according to me there are 6, however, I will try to find a source. — Tomica (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't wait until she get's her 12th number one song. Then she'll surpass Whitney Houston. She has videos for Princess in China,Take Care(Already in the top ten) and Where have you been coming out, that should boost those songs to the top. --Braina90 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why she doesn't promote "Talk That Talk". With little promotion that song can burst out the charts. — Tomica (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess Jay-Z is one problem that there is less promotion and no video. I also guess that he and Rihanna have dispute with each other because of this whole Chris Brown thing :( Ilikeriri (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just like to think that those were rumors. Jigga Man is a strong figure in the industry. Sticking Rihanna to him will help her a lot. Well, will see what happens. — Tomica (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Right now Birthday Cake is going up the charts and doing better than Talk that Talk. It'll make it to the top 20 by next week I bet. --Braina90 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of release timeframes (specifically Princess of China on Coldplay's Mylo Xyloto)

The article as it is currently written states under the section 2011–present: Talk That Talk that "In early 2012, two collaborations featuring Rihanna were released; Coldplay's 'Princess of China' from the album Mylo Xyloto and Drake's 'Take Care' from his album of the same name." This is inaccurate however, as Princess of China was released as a part of Coldplay's Mylo Xyloto on 24 October 2011, as opposed to the "early 2012" the article claims. The article should be edited to reflect the correct release of the song, perhaps mentioning the collaboration as a part of the previous section, as "2011-present: Talk That Talk" first discusses events following 24 October 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.15.18 (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It was released as a single in early 2012; that's what it's referring to. — Statυs (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna 100 most influential people in the world.

This came out today by Time Magazine. She's named one of the most influential people in the world. Think it should be added to her page--Braina90 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_2111976_2111948,00.html

 Done — Tomica (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tomica :)--Braina90 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Where have you been

Where have you been is the first song to ever reach 4.9 million views in 24 hours. I Think this should be added to her 2011- present page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braina90 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Previous VEVO record held by Nicki Minaj broken by Rihanna: https://twitter.com/#!/VEVO/status/198095439415877633--mikomango mwa! 21:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

unclear passage Rihanna page

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

"...he felt "Pon de Replay" was too big for her, saying "when a song is that big, it's hard [for a new artist] to come back from. I don't sign songs, I sign artists".[23] The audition resulted in Rihanna signing a six-album record deal with Def Jam Recordings in February 2005, on the same day of the audition, with Jay-Z saying "There's only two ways out. Out the door after you sign this deal. Or through this window ...",[21] meaning that he was not going to let her leave with signing a record deal.[21] After signing to Def Jam Recordings, Rihanna cancelled other meetings with record labels and relocated from Barbados to New York to live with Rogers' and his wife.[24] Rihanna explained the concept behind the title of the album to Kidzworld, saying that the sun is representative of native Caribbean culture, as well as herself, and that the album consists of music from her heritage.[25]..."

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

the passage that starts "Rihanna explained the concept behind the title of the album to Kidzworld..." Not only does this sentence just hang out by itself, It needs to explain who or what "kidsworld" is and what album rihanna is speaking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.30.181 (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Biography sub-section titles

Firstly "2010–11: Loud and Endorsements" - really? The "Other ventures" section claims that she has been signing endorsement deals since 2005 and 2006, so what makes the recent perfume and book so particularly notable? And "2011–present: Talk That Talk and film debut" - just no. As has been discussed [4], her first film was also in the mid-2000s. SplashScreen (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 27 June 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Article cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomica's re-addition of content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 28 June 2012

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

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

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

Edit request on 22 July 2012

in the infobox where it saids birth_date it saids, birth date and age|mf=yet|1988|2|20 that is wrong and should say, birth date and age|mf=yes|1988|2|20 because mf=yet does not make any sense and it should say mf=yes because it makes more sense than mf=yet.

69.209.201.188 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Name

Why did her parents spell her middle name that way in the first place? "Rhianna" is a standard name; the h comes before the i. To spell it her way is either highly creative or flat-out wrong.

They're free to spell it however they like, but I'm wondering whether she's ever commented on this? It's like having a name "Jhon" or "Stephnaie". 66.105.218.18 (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna is the first woman ever

She's the first woman ever to receive two video's of the year awards. I think it should be added to the page. --Braina90 (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Source?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Total WW sales

There is a refence that claim she sold 37M albums and 147M singles. Sorry but I think that is imposible, mostly since de last source we had before said in march 2012 that she sold 25M albums and 60M singles. It is impossible she sold 12M albums and 87M digital singles in only six month. As much as I love Rihanna the new sales are just impossible and wrong. We should find a better source for sales.--Albes29 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the previous source was older and outdated, meaning they used information from previous years? This source is a reliable source, and I don't see reason for not being used here. — Tomica (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That source cannot be used. First off, its ridiculously inflated. Its almost laughable. Her certifications are around 75 million, so implying her sales to be near 200 is just plain crazy. Secondly, LiveNation is not a third-party source, its a website used to promote her new tour. We need independent sources.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The source is actually not from Live Nation, but from The Sacramento Bee, so I don't see reason why we can't use it. And what is ridiculous around here? She has 6 studio albums, we all know that they sell averagely so 37 million is perfectly fine. She is the digital artist of the decade so the 146 number goes fine to me too. — Tomica (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tommy. Read the bottom of the article... It says very clearly SOURCE Live Nation. Its a press release.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

But is a third-party source. Doesn't that mean that Live Nation's information is true? I mean, the newspaper is well known publish, why would it copy some "untrue" information? — Tomica (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tommy, Live Nation is releasing inflated information in order to boost Rihanna's appeal, in order to achieve stronger ticket sales. Think about it, what makes you wan to see Rihanna live more, that she's sold 150 million singles or 60? These are facts Tommy, she's a newer artist, so there is no reason her certifications shouldn't match sales. There isn't any way possible she's sold anything remotely close to that, and you'll find mostly all editors will agree with me.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would go to see her even if she sold 5 copies. Lol. I don't think so that the reason for which people going to see a star is her sales. And why would they inflated it in numbers such as 37 million and 146. — Tomica (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Tom. Because you are a fan of hers. Come on, just using common sense there is no way you can believe those figures. They are complete BS. And aside from that, we need independent sources. So, not only is it not true, it doesn't abide by the rules. And yes, that is very much the reason they do so. Just like American Idol inflated Jlo to 70 million when she's shipped 22... And honestly, there probably will be brainless news sites that will post these inflated numbers (only because they post any nonsense a label will push). That is why looking at certifications is so crucial.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG... the source is reliable, end of story. There are several reliable sources presented.VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 18:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Live Nation should not be used to support sales figures. Their lack of fact checking and editorial control has resulted in an inflated sales figure which immediately disagrees with Rihanna's available certified units (16.3 million albums, 63.4 million singles). I'm sure some of the units sold have yet to be certified, but her actual total including the sales of collaboration singles, would never pass the 120 million mark, that's albums, singles, videos combined.--Harout72 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Harout and Nathan here. Live Nation is an entertainment company which promotes a certain artist, so even if a reputed newspaper quoted it, we can't use it :) Ryoga Godai (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section

See also: Talk:Rihanna/Archive_3 § Article_cleanup

Having not edited this page for some time, I return to find that a Legacy section has been added - [5]. Much like the rest of the article before my aforementioned edits, this was full of crufty phrases ("The singer has been inspired and influenced countless singers", "She has become an icon and a global superstar"), copy-vios (the quote from Stella McCartney), non-notable and unreliable trivia ("In October 2011, Prefix magazine placed Rihanna at number two on the list of the best female R&B singers") and BLP claims taken from unreliable sources ([6] and [7] among others) and information that is already touched upon elsewhere in the article. Therefore, I selectively merged this section with the Artistry section. I note that the section was originally added in by User:Ilikeriri, but that other users such as User:Tomica have expanded on it. SplashScreen (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

From the looks of the page history, no user has touched the legacy section apart from the user who added the information, so I'm not sure why you are bringing in a user in which you requested an interaction ban with months prior back into a dicussion in which they have nothing to do with. Zac  23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Thanks for dealing with the important issues. SplashScreen (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I am so sorry! I did not realize that un-italicizing fb was the same thing as expanding an article. My mistake! If you want to discuss something with the user who actually added the unreliable information to the article, take it up with them, but don't involve an editor who has nothing to do with it because of your love of drama. Zac  23:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Apologies accepted. SplashScreen (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Awaiting yours. Zac  23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna has recently published a new hit called Diamond in the Sky So now you add a see also to a discussion which has no relevance to this one? Tomica (talk · contribs) has nothing to do with this. Stop trying to start drama again and leave him the hell alone. Zac  00:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Zac, that discussion is perfectly relevant as it relates to the editing that has previously gone on at this page and the reason why those decisions were made. I'm sure that others users can defend themselves if they feel personally attacked. Maybe you'd feel less incensed if you let others speak for themselves. I'm asking you nicely to discuss the content of the article or take your issues elsewhere.SplashScreen (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Again Splash spreading the drama? Come on. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, can we please discuss the contents of the article instead of the name-calling? I'm here to edit an encyclopaedia, not take part in a soap opera. SplashScreen (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mee too, so im un-watchlisting this. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it isn't. The previous discussion was mostly about your and Tomica's edit war and your accusations of article ownership. First, you unarchived the discussion. It's clear you want to keep on going with the drama between you and Tomica. I asked you to leave him out of a discussion which has no relevance to him, and you've ignored me. You claimed he expanded the article, which you, yourself, disproved. My issues are with this very discussion you began, so this is the exact place they should be taken. There's clearly nothing to discuss anyway, since most of the sources were unreliable, as you pointed out. Simply striking out your claim that Tomica expanded the section, which implies that he had to do with adding unreliable sources to the section, would satisfy me, but instead, you continue to act like a dick. I will not stand for you bullying other users, and I have advised Tomica to just ignore your plays at him, which this clearly is. Zac  00:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop being so precious. I'm not looking to start an argument with you and your 'friends' every time I bring their name up in a discussion. That Tomica, an experienced editor who has been warned about his inclusion of questionable content in this article before, ignored and built upon other questionable content is noteworthy. This need to be flagged up so we can ensure that he doesn't commit any more BLP violations. As an experienced editor, I'd expect him to know that he must remove that content, rather than reformat it. That's all. No bullying. No need for drama. SplashScreen (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're purposing that Tomica get flagged? He made ZERO EDITS (other than un-italicizing something) to what you are complaining about now. I asked you to leave his name out of this, as he has nothing at all to do with this. You're clearly bullying Tomica and dragging his name through the pits of hell for whatever reason you have to do so. Nobody is a perfect editor, sure, he made a few mistakes in the past, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. As for me and my friends; tell me, what does that have to do with this discussion? I'm simply standing up for a friend of mine, Tomica, an excellent editor, against your outrageous claims. I'm done responding here and shall be taking this discussion somewhere else. Stay put, you're comments will be needed. Zac  00:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And wait, I just caught something else you said, you are now condemning Tomica for not removing the content himself? Oh, my... Zac  00:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You've called me a dick, branded me a bully, accused me of fabricating 'drama', threatened me to leave users "the hell alone" and alleged that I'm trying to defame somebody. I mentioned a username. Who is the bully here? SplashScreen (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Tomica and Ilikeriri are both at fault for contributing to content that violated WP:BLP without removing it. I don't see how my pointing of this out is wrong. SplashScreen (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Non-notable trivia that shouldn't be in a BLP. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a fansite. Till 03:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2012

109.124.138.145 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC) hello i want to read history about rihanna. i have a question for rihanna ?

Not done: the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. David1217 ^{What I've done} 01:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Best Images in April 2012

There's a best images of Rihanna in 10 April 2012:

• 
  Headshot
• 
  Cropped

I think you could replace the picture in infobox with that picture. Thanks. --37.106.176.92 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

These pictures are better than the current image. And has been used in other languages ​​from Wikipedia. --2.89.234.220 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Brandy picture

What's so important with this picture in the influences section? There are more important influences than Brandy! By the way one picture in this section is enough. Ilikeriri (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You are definitely right. I will remove it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I did the same and others as well, but User:Malcolmo put the picture again and again in the article. Ilikeriri (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The picture can be related to Good Girl Gone Bad, but very weak to Rihanna bio article. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Beaten Rihanna - tattoed on his neck!

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Chris Brown's new tattoo (23), according to the Croatian daily 24 hours, beaten Rihanna, tatto on his neck, which he drew for the Mexican Day of the Dead. Chris received five years probation because he beat up Rihanna. Singer Rihanna is still suffering for, and she has forgiven him beaten. Last week at the MTV Video Music Awards they kissed in the mouth!93.137.54.98 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC) After incident with rapper Chris Brown, one of Rihanna's closest friends, Nzila Siluwe, helped her get through this hard event in her life. She was described by Rihanna as 'the best friend I've ever had'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.246.150 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Skin

Did she bleached her skin?Look at the picture of the "Battleship" premiere and at her old pictures!--Nikinikolananov (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazing picture for Rihanna in 2012

There's a amazing picture of Rihanna in 10 April 2012:

• 

This picture is better than the current picture. This picture shows the full face Rihanna. I think you could replace the picture in infobox with that picture. Thanks. --94.99.9.124 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Love Her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fed up with battling

I'm so fed up with battling with these users User:Tomica and User:Calvin999. He has just reverted a reversion I made on an edit which was unnecessary. [8] Details like this are not needed in the opening paragraph of an artist's page. It is in the Unapologetic section. This is just for brief summarisation. I'm fed up of not being able to revert edits of my edits as it takes so long to sort out. Furthermore, references should not be in opening paragraphs! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Me nor Tomica have added references to the opening, so I don't know why you are bitching it about with regard to us. And I un-did that edit because that is fine to be in the lead. It's current and topical, and a milestone in her career. I'll tell you what I'm fed up with, your complaining. You make it sound like I revert everything you do, which I definitely don't. Stop being so dramatic all the time, it has already become tiresome. Your exactly the same as you was on your sock puppet accounts, you've learnt nothing. But you've already made it clear that you don't want to listen and don't care. You said it yourself. End of conversation. AARON• ^TALK 12:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why are there two different pronunciations given? Should we not at least point out which one she uses herself? It's not a lot of help this way. Just because many people apparently don't know how to pronounce her name correctly we shouldn't elevate that to being a legitimate pronunciation. --77.8.20.121 (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Associated acts

Why don't we count Eminem as an associated act?They collaborated 3 times!

1. Love The Way You Lie
2. Love The Way You Lie (part 2)
3. Numb

--Nikinikolananov (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening

This is a clear picture of Rihanna , this will be her hair she says for the 'UNAPOLOGETIC ERA' which will be throughout 2013 as a release of her new album. This picture is clear and wearing her frequent red lipstick. Taken at the MTV Awards 2012 9/10/12 9:00am EST. --86.139.161.125 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)--86.139.161.125 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Just wondering if we need all the references in the opening of the article as they are featured below in the article itself? Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/article_photos/bdf70d1dd846a5204b5be41642c6c1dafee4aad0.jpg

Essence of "Puck"

Oprah asked Rihanna about Esquire magazine calling her the "Essence of a word that rhymns with puck". There has been a lot of references to this Esquire magazine label so it seems very odd that there is no mention of it in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.80.28 (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2013

I am requesting that "Barbadian-born American recording" be changed to "Barbadian recording artist". This is because Rihanna is not an American citizen and is simply living in the States on a green card. Barbados is her real home and she is 100% Bajan.

99.255.228.194 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Another editor fixed this. RudolfRed (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

New Image

Since the infobox image currently being used is beginning to become outdated I'm proposing that we should change the picture. One of Rihanna at the Grammys would probably work best like this one or this one. Jjj1238 (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but they are not free. If you find a free image add it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what a "free image" is or how to find it. Jjj1238 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Free images — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Adam Selman

I'd like to propose a small change from "She teamed up with her ​​personal stylist Adam Selman" "She teamed up with her costume designer ​Adam Selman." http://runway.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/rihanna-steals-the-attention-at-london-fashion-week/?ref=style --Matipop (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to follow up on this. This article clearly states that Adam Selman is her costume designer and not her stylist. Can I request that an editor make the changes? The reference is above. Thanks.Matipop (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammy Awards

I think there is some confusing amongst sources/verification concerning how many Grammy Awards she has won; her awards page asserts she has won six, and I can find evidence for this, but I can't find evidence that accounts for another. Could someone check this? Otherwise the verifiability of the source should be questioned and subsequently removed. —Jennie | ☎ 20:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the internet, there is a majority of media sources saying she has won 7, with some saying 6, I used the Grammy's history search that returned 4 (so it isn't up to date or inclusive of all awards), I'll have to dig deeper... —Jennie | ☎ 21:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a large debate. The conflict started last year when there was a twitter message she had won 2. The thing is Rihanna was on the red carpet for those awards. The same thing happened to Kelly Rowland a few years ago when she wasn't even at the show and was texted that she had won when actually it was the remixer for her song that one. According to Grammy.com Rihanna has 6. The 2013 results aren't in the search engine yet but can be found on the site itself. One award she is credited by her real name, Robyn Fenty. The Best Rap Song award from 2012 is a songwriters only award and Rihanna only sang on the track. Many people are confused on this. But only the writers are given a "Best Song" award, that is the point of it since many times those who write the songs don't perform on them and lose out on winning a Grammy when there is one for the performance. Here are all the references. http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=rihanna&field_nominee_work_value=&year=All&genre=All, http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=%22robyn+fenty%22&field_nominee_work_value=&year=All&genre=All, http://www.grammy.com/nominees?genre=18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xffactor (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2013

71.119.126.108 (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Rihanna did not die on march 15th she's still alive

Already done. The addition has already been reverted.  — daranz [ t ] 20:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Role model

Why is there no information on Rihanna being accused of being a bad role model for young girls? 12 Portillo (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Because that's irrelevant shit invented by the media. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the swearword, but thanks for replying! Portillo (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

'Personal' section?

Why is there no 'Personal' section as commonly found on other biographical pages? Was there one? Was it removed? Why?

I'm sure there is plenty of info that could fill out such a section and I'm equally sure there would be plenty of interest as well, making such a section quite appropriate.

Thought anyone?

I think matt kemp should be added as him and rih dated for over a year. Why no mention of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolochri (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

108.162.189.236 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As well as a personal section, why isn't there a 'Legacy' section? I'm not a massive Rihanna fan, but I'm aware of her major commercial accomplishments. She's the biggest global star in the world right now who has been extremely controversial and had a major influence on numerous other artists and society in general. I think using the numerous statistics and achievements listed throughout this article, a Legacy section could easily be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.117.6 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't say legacy, as she hasn't lived that long to leave one behind yet. A Personal life section is necessary, to discuss that incident with Chris Brown, as well as her 2005 arrest in Berlin [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.192.145 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox picture

In the First picture Her face is not clear, The Second picture is better to put them in Infobox. The difference is clear. And First picture also been put in the List of awards and nominations received by Rihanna.

• 
  First picture
• 
  Second picture

I see the first picture place is not in the Infobox. It is also best to put a picture close to her face. And not to her body and also the colors in the first picture is not Original. This is the opinion. --Oz Steps (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Second picture - much better for the first pic.Moxy (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course Moxy, I see the first picture also been put in the List of awards and nominations received by Rihanna. And The version of First picture the colors is not Original. Will wait for a better picture of it in 2013. Thanks. --Oz Steps (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. None of them. I think it's better to upload and use another new photo of her. The first is good for Rihanna discography article and the second is not much better than the first and it's old. But for now (until the new photo), the second. Zheek (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. To see the second picture, was approved in other languages, Such: Greek, French, Portuguese, Arabic and other. --Oz Steps (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I see now the First picture best in the section: 2012–present: Battleship and Unapologetic. --Oz Steps (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Third picture
• 
  Fourth picture
• 
  Fifth picture

What about this picture? Ilikeriri (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you Ilikeriri, this picture is the best for the infobox. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not good in the Infobox. Current picture is clearer. This is it blurry. And also the colors is not Original. --Oz Steps (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• The current picture in the infobox is older! We need newer one, you understand that? And is nothing wrong with the one that Ilikeriri proposed, it's a little bit low quality but it can pass for a certain time until a beter pic from the DWT is uploaded. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Horrible blurry image - do not replace the current one with this one - has anyone look at what flicker has for free see here?Moxy (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

All the existing pictures from the Diamonds World Tour that are present on Flickr were posted here on Wiki. There are some pictures at the Grammys red carpet on Flickr, however, I doubt they have a free license. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

These images are blurry. Will wait for the better pictures in the coming months. --Oz Steps (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oz Steps, it doesn't matter if the photos are in original colours. It's not like her face was turned blue or something. It's called editing. But yes, the photos are awfully blurry and a mess. Zach 02:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2013

Robyn Rihanna Fenty xxx (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 2007 album 'A Girl Like Me'.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As of May 17, 2013, Rihanna has 6 Grammy's and not 7. Contrary to popular belief, she did not receive the award in 2012 for Best Rap Song due to her lack of writing credit. Grammy.com can back this up! Please edit as soon as possible, seeing as the information is incorrect and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.182.174 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts

The infobox guidelines - Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts - state "This field can include, for example, any of the following:... Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together" and "The following uses of this field should be avoided: ... One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song".

Are two songs enough to count as multiple ? -- Beardo (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

Hi I have also been discussing the Chris Brown article too by the way but about this Rihanna article, for the sake of education, could a controversy section be added then allowed to stay particularly detailing the 2009 fight between the two recording personalities? I see that event has not been detailed in the article at all and furthermore, I'm left scratching my head as to the "legacy" section, I understand Wikipedia to take a neutral point of view at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The prominence of Chris Brown related events is covered quite succinctly under the second paragraph in "Domestic Violence Case and Rated R". There is no need to add anything more because generally the eminence of any further "controversy" you speak of is simply media babble and tabloid gossip. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or blog which will cover ongoing disputes within their relationship. With regard to legacy, that section does have a neutral point of view. Only facts about numbers, awards, achievements and sourced quotes/opinions are given. 333cale (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when? I logged on this same article and I remember reading nothing at all about the domestic violence. Wikipedia is easy to edit and because of that people exercise that ability quite freely for various purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.5.36 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the controversy about her semi-pornographic advertising, rather than her relationships?203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Youngest ever to headline Paris' Stade de France

This should be under her legacy, she's also the third black act at Paris' Stade de France. The first two are Prince and Tina Turner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KzdLife (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That should be under the legacy of Diamonds World Tour article. The legacy is good as it is now. We don't need a huge section that couldn't be navigated freely. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally think selling out at Paris' Stade de France , and being the youngest person to ever headline it;is BIG. Should be in her legacy instead of the shady song, "walks like Rihanna". They confirmed it in Watch What Happens live..(staggered walk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KzdLife (talk • contribs) 12:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How is selling out a stadium and being the youngest to play there important to her overall existence? It isn't.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Shows her impact on music.. To be only 25 and performing at the prestige's Paris' Stade de France that's something in itself. If you really wanna go there, how is vevo views and "walk like Rihanna" important to her overall existence either? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KzdLife (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a work influenced by her (although the song is a flop and I think it should be removed as it is non-notable). And for the stadium, as I said, that should be included in the legacy of DWT. She also performed to 150,000 people in Morocco, that's also a record, should that also included in the section? I don't believe... — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening

This is a clear picture of Rihanna , this will be her hair she says for the 'UNAPOLOGETIC ERA' which will be throughout 2013 as a release of her new album. This picture is clear and wearing her frequent red lipstick. Taken at the MTV Awards 2012 9/10/12 9:00am EST. --86.139.161.125 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)--86.139.161.125 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Just wondering if we need all the references in the opening of the article as they are featured below in the article itself? Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/article_photos/bdf70d1dd846a5204b5be41642c6c1dafee4aad0.jpg

Essence of "Puck"

Oprah asked Rihanna about Esquire magazine calling her the "Essence of a word that rhymns with puck". There has been a lot of references to this Esquire magazine label so it seems very odd that there is no mention of it in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.80.28 (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

'Personal' section?

Why is there no 'Personal' section as commonly found on other biographical pages? Was there one? Was it removed? Why?

I'm sure there is plenty of info that could fill out such a section and I'm equally sure there would be plenty of interest as well, making such a section quite appropriate.

Thought anyone?

108.162.189.236 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As well as a personal section, why isn't there a 'Legacy' section? I'm not a massive Rihanna fan, but I'm aware of her major commercial accomplishments. She's the biggest global star in the world right now who has been extremely controversial and had a major influence on numerous other artists and society in general. I think using the numerous statistics and achievements listed throughout this article, a Legacy section could easily be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.117.6 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't say legacy, as she hasn't lived that long to leave one behind yet. A Personal life section is necessary, to discuss that incident with Chris Brown, as well as her 2005 arrest in Berlin [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.192.145 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2013

I am requesting that "Barbadian-born American recording" be changed to "Barbadian recording artist". This is because Rihanna is not an American citizen and is simply living in the States on a green card. Barbados is her real home and she is 100% Bajan.

99.255.228.194 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Another editor fixed this. RudolfRed (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Bi-ist article

This article is so bi-ist it is not funny! A section titled "Legacy"? What? This article contains everything good about Rihanna but no controversy nothing bad and it should for the sake of education. This article has turned in to like a propaganda piece than something educational in which case does not belong on Wikipedia. -- snappersteve (116.12.63.242 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC))

I agree, Rihanna must be ashamed of her representation on Wikipedia. I think she would want an article that doesn't come across as squeaky clean but something that is square and true. - ulyssessid (202.37.64.48 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC))

Wtf is with both of you? The article is decent and shows what's most important for her and career? What do you want us to do? Everything here is true and sourced... the controversies you are talking about (apart of the incident with Brown, which is present) are non-notable. Check other performers articles you won't find them. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tomica, do you have any interest in making this a Good Article? And no need for that bullying language.--Aichik (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have interest in making it a GA one day (actually FA too). But I am just so sick of people saying that a controversy is needed? What is controversial apart of Rihanna-Brown case? Everything is other is WP:FART. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think your "Life and career" section (as in everything from Early life to Unapologetic) is very good, well-summarized with good prose (although it will need more in-line citations and a thorough copy-edit). However, I think where it falls down is the "Legacy" section, which just functions as a long appraisal. This should discuss Rihanna's impact on music, which is done well where it's who she has influenced, but the quotes from Dido/Christina Aguilera/Chris Martin have nothing to do with her impact on music, it's just praise from other artists. Furthermore, the paragraph on awards should be moved out into a new section because although sort of relevant, awards aren't really an artist's impact. I would trim the sales figures and discuss things like her success in such a short amount of time (there will probably be some journals on this), and perhaps the impact of Umbrella and We Found Love (particularly the video) - have a read of the Time article about her in 2012, what does that say about her impact? That might help for some ideas. For a rubric of some excellent "Legacy" sections see Aaliyah and Michael Jackson. Finally, the article does not mention two controversies: firstly, her recreational drug taking, which has drew criticism for obviously being illegal. Secondly, the over sexualisation of her music which was the turning point of her career (Good Girl Gone Bad) and more recently songs like "S&M" and "Cockiness (Love It)". Whereas some critics undoubtedly enjoyed this direction of her music as it distinguished her from her peers in the last decade, it's garnered criticism for Rihanna being a bad role model for women and taking on a "sex sells" approach. Although controversies aren't needed in a GA to pass (especially not in a "Controversy" section), the criteria does call for a thorough application of WP:NPOV and both of these are due their weight. Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 10:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all let's be clear, Rihanna does not take drugs, she smokes pot as every 100th person on this planet earth. Should I mention to you that that's legal in more than 10 countries in the US and the Netherlands apart of other countries in the world (I am not that familiar which ones because I don't smoke weed and I am not thoroughly interested in that). How is that a controversy? Was Rihanna caught with a big amount of weed? Was she charged? Was she in a prison and there was a mug shot of her? No. So that's fails to be a notable controversy. As for the second overtly sexual videos I agree with that, an information should be provided, but under section called 'Image' or 'Image and music videos'. Btw, you have nice ideas for the legacy section, I will try to do something in my sandbox. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis is a drug. MSN posted a lengthy article on how her smoking habits have been received and according to The Huffington Post she was stopped at the Canadian border for such. It's mostly illegal worldwide and so will generate some publicity; I'm surprised it hasn't been included already (and I don't mean it necessarily has to be written in as something highly controversial), it's just she frequently uploads pictures of herself smoking weed and related paraphernalia, and seems to be fine in doing so (even despite the criticism). Concerning the "Legacy" section, I would also include "Only Girl (in the World)", it was probably one of the biggest singles off Loud and of 2010. The Billboard statistics should remain as it's a considerable achievement, and her music is mostly directed towards singles, but move the other stuff and awards into a records/achievements/awards section. I also think Rihanna has had an impact on the widespread use of EDM in recent years, so perhaps that deserves a mention too. Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 14:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor grammatical issue

As the page is semi-protected and I am not yet (auto-)confirmed, I cannot change this myself. In the second paragraph of the section Career: 1988–04: Early life and career beginnings, there is the following sentence: She caught the attention of Rogers and asked Rihanna to come to his hotel room [...], which, written like this means that She (Rihanna) asked Rihanna (herself) to come to his hotel room. Of course, it should read that Rogers asked Rihanna to do so. Could someone please change this? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Good find, AddWittyNameHere. Acalamari 20:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Acalamari.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Two more minor issues.

Career: 1988–04: Early life and career beginnings

- Rihanna's childhood was deeply affected by her father's addiction to crack cocaine, alcohol, and marijuana, and her parents' turbulent marriage ended when she was 14. Sentence reads very awkward. If it's supposed to mean that Rihanna's childhood was deeply affected by the end of said marriage, I'd suggest rewording it to something along the lines of "and the ending of her parents' turbulent marriage [...]". If it's supposed to mean that her childhood was deeply affected by the turbulent marriage, not the ending of it, I'd suggest rewording it to "and her parents' turbulent marriage, which ended when she was 14." If it's supposed to mean both the turbulent marriage and the ending of it, perhaps "as well as her parents' turbulent marriage and it's ending[...]"

If it's merely a remark (this-and-this happened), not something which her childhood was deeply affected by, I feel it doesn't quite belong in this sentence.

Public Image

- When putting together her own wardrobe she stated, [...] misses a comma between 'wardrobe' and 'she'. More stylistic, but it reads very awkward without that comma.

If someone could solve those, that would be appreciated. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Top artist of 2010s decade

Acording to Billboard Rihanna is the Top Artist of the 2010s so far!. > http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/5557804/hot-100-55th-anniversary-top-100-songs-word-cloud-top-artists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.76.197 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The New Immortals

Rihanna is included on Rolling Stone's list of The New Immortals (Not sure where this can fit in, but if an editor can it may be useful!) —JennKR | ☎ 23:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to disambiguate her with Rhianna?

I think that the template not to confuse her with Rhianna is not necessary, as Rhianna is not relevant enough for that. Most readers have never ever heard of her. Such templates distract from the article content and are to be used sparingly - we don't need to promote any barely relevant person whose name might possibly be confused with a real celebrity. Unless there is adverse consensus, I'd like to remove the template. --KnightMove (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(request transferred from KnightMove's talk page):

You removed the dab hatnote from Rihanna (for the singer Rhianna) here stating "this disambiguation is rather promo for Rhianna and not necessary".

Quite honestly, I don't see this- they're both female singers, they both operate in the same field, and they have one (silent) letter different in their name; fairly strong possibility of confusion. Also, the popularity of Rihanna is quite likely to (unintentionally) increase the likelihood of people misspelling Rhianna's name in a search. I appreciate she's far less notable than Rihanna, but it seems like a pretty clear case for a dab hatnote to me. Ubcule (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that such a template is to be used in case of an overwhelming difference in relevance, as this can be used as a carte blanche for additional advertising. Still, nobody is forced to mix the two letters up, so there is no clear demand for the template, as would be the case if the names were identic; and 99,9% of this article's readers don't give a damn about Rhianna. --KnightMove (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: Due to the vast similarities between the two (and the fact that even this editor sometimes has trouble remembering the spelling of Rihanna), I think the template is warranted. They are both singers with English names. Considering the spelling of the names, I definitely feel it is valid. As to the notability of Rhianna, her page was viewed over 17,000 times last month. Many of those probably were from others who confused the name. My 3O- The template stays. PrairieKid (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC) PrairieKid (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

She is undoubtedly the most famous Rihanna and the name itself is unusual, but as the Rhianna page demonstrates, the name (and variations of it) have existed before her. For this reason, I see your argument that Rhianna is promoting herself as invalid—it would be different if her birth name was not Rhianna and she adopted this moniker for whatever reason, but all she is simply using her name mononymously. To add to this Rhianna's first studio album was released mononymously in 2002, two years before Robyn Rihanna Fenty chose it as her professional name. The close spelling of both names means that I also believe this should stay; there is no ulterior motives in linking to the English singer, nor is she doing anything wrong using the name. —JennKR | ☎ 20:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(Counter proposal) Whereas the Rhianna page was for the singer, I noticed that there are multiple Rhianna's with articles on Wikipedia, so I've set up a disambiguation page. Perhaps we should use the template:

Not to be confused with the name Rhianna.

—JennKR | ☎ 20:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree to this solution. Researching I further found that we need to add Rihanna (book) here. Done, feel free to improve. --KnightMove (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Rihanna's new tattoo

Rihanna has recently acquired a traditional Polynesian tattoo from a renowned tattooist whilst being in New Zealand on her Diamonds World Tour 2013. This should be mentioned on the page. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePqfnkzAQjQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.193.34 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

What do you think of this picture to be the one in the infobox?

• 

Ilikeriri (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't like it much tbh. Aren't there any better Diamonds World Tour free pictures on Flickr? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Barbadian should be Bajan, no?

I've been to Barbados, and I'm pretty sure they call themselves Bajan, not Barbadian. Just a thought! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.251.108 (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2014

Rihanna loved animals

72.76.121.100 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fashion Icon Award by CFDA

This should be added to her legacy too http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2014/03/24/rihanna-to-receive-cfda-fashion-icon-award — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.133.53 (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Home

Hello, should the article not include the fact Rihanna is starring in Home and also creating a concept album for it? I think so much work on a project warrants a sub-heading too (2014: Home and upcoming eighth album?) Regards, —JennKR | ☎ 17:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Donna Summer needs to be added

She needs to be added to the people who praised Rihanna. --71.195.133.53 (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zws0jWVTJSc

Stage name?

Isn't Rihanna better described as a mononym, rather than a stage name? Loads of people are known by a name that isn't officially their first or first or last name. Robert isn't the stage name of Robert Redford and Hank isn't Hank Green's etc., after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C000:1:D8D3:5ED3:1F99:A989 (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Singer/songwriter/producer

@Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$: I've amended Mariah Carey's page as it asserted she was a singer-songwriter which is not true. However, Rihanna's lead sentence should also not read singer, songwriter and producer as she only writes and produces for herself (as most contemporary pop singers do) and even in this respect, she does so minimally. If she was independently notable for writing or producing for other artists (like Katy Perry is) this addition would be fine. —JennKR | ☎ 20:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@JennKR: OK, not a problem, thanks anyway Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$: Great--I'm restoring the article to read recording artist. (done by editor) Also, noticing your earlier edit summary and just to clarify further, the term "executive producer" is not one that signifies artistic input, in fact it means quite the opposite. It generally refers to someone who is concerned with the administration of the project, such as finance, marketing, A&R, session bookings, and who is not concerned with the composition of the project (a record producer). Although does this not mean that a person cannot be an executive producer and a producer in the traditional sense simultaneously. —JennKR | ☎ 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@JennKR:, I just read Beyoncé's page as it asserted like Mariah Carey she was also a singer-songwriter, shouldn't Beyoncé's lead sentence also not read as a singer, songwriter? Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$:: No, the Beyoncé page reads singer, songwriter and not singer-songwriter, and there is a distinction between these terms. A singer-songwriter is a person who writes, composes and performs their music almost always alone (e.g. Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell), while a singer, songwriter lists the term separately because they are independently notable for singing AND songwriting. However, this is irrelevant to Beyoncé as the page should not list her as a songwriter, as she, like Rihanna, does not write for anyone other than herself. —JennKR | ☎ 20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@JennKR:, "Grillz"'s page shows B wrote it for Nelly Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$:: That's because it samples "Soldier", which Beyoncé co-wrote. —JennKR | ☎ 20:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@JennKR:, Oh I get you now; so say if Beyoncé wrote a song for, I don't know; for example Diana Ross then she'd be seen as a singer-songwriter right? Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$:: Not quite, she would be a singer and a songwriter if she wrote for Diana Ross. The term "singer-songwriter" is a person who writes, composes and performs their own music, usually plays instruments, and usually does so alone. The reason why Beyoncé, Katy Perry, Mariah Carey and Rihanna are not singer-songwriters is because although they may co-write and co-produce their own work, they do so with a lot of help from other producers and songwriters and so don't do it alone. This is completely different to the terms "singer" and "songwriter", which when listed separately, imply that someone is independently notable for that aspect. This is Katy Perry, because she has wrote for others (Iggy Azalea, Britney Spears) and is therefore a songwriter, but is not a singer-songwriter because she does not produce her own work alone. Ugh, I know that's confusing, but basically putting a hyphen between "singer" and "songwriter" has quite different implications to the terms being listed separately :) —JennKR | ☎ 20:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Legacy and Influence section

To not engage in Edit Warring with Tomica - as stated in edit summary, "Legacy" is not supported by content (P.S. meaning, I've read it; unlike user's knee-jerk revert indicating linked articles were not looked at). See, for instance, Beatles and David Bowie articles for what would comprise Legacy. Sales and awards is not a Legacy. Section needs to be named Impact and Influence, what reflects the content and present. Use of "Legacy" by fans is rooted in WP:OR, WP:TE, WP:IMPARTIAL.--Lpdte77 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014

Rihanna Kiesza has written several songs for Rihanna that may appear on her upcoming album. Nickaveli (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't add claims like this without evidence from reliable sources. Squinge (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Eighth studio album

Since some users believe the album is entitled R8, let it be stated: the album title and its release have yet to be confirmed by any reliable third-party source. It's pure speculation; the album happened with Unapologetic, which was believed to be called R7 before the real album title was unveiled. There is no source confirming its release. Anything online is pure speculation and until valid proof is given, information should be avoided. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You said Rihanna didn't confirmed it. in that Twitter status, Rihanna referred to it as R8. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rihanna also referred to Unapologetic as R7 during recording and early promotion. It's a promotional thing; it's not a confirmed title. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Provide a reliable source" saying Rihanna referred to it as R7. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not discussing the seventh album, we're discussing the eighth — though, if you're that hellbent on it, (Rihanna Teases New Album Details As She Launches Website Dedicated To Seventh Record). R8 is again used as a promotional hashtag on special media as a teaser, alluding to her eighth studio album. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I know we are discussing the 8th and not the 7th, but if she didn't refer to it, as R7 before, that would pretty much confirm the name, and where is she referring to it as R7? I don't see it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Like she is this era, she referred to be beginning of the era as #R7 Experience, launching Rihanna7.com, and using #R7 as part of the album design and teaser. Speculation is not confirmation. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I get it. I will drop my side of the argument, and it didn't help that her album was listed as "R8" in List of 2015 albums.

Net Worth

Rihanna's net worth is $120 millions (2014).

• dailymail.co.uk
• therichest.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.120.225 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna as an actress

Rihanna does not need to be noted as an actress. She is not notable in the acting industry, especially since half her roles were just cameo. Taylor Swift has a more notable acting career than she does. Mariah Carey was in nine films, only two of which were cameo. Also, I am told I am edit warring, yet other editors are doing the same. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

She has appeared in feature films, and as a lead role. Cameos are allowed to be included. You dismissed me saying that Mariah Carey has cameos included, how do you explain Cheryl Cole's?  — ₳aron 20:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Cameos can be included, but what I am trying to say is, cameos don't make you an actor. I can actually being only 15, sign up to have a cameo role. Would that make me an actor? I would think not. And Cole's infobox does not say actor on there, yet she has appeared in more than Rihanna. And again, half of Rihanna's roles are cameos. She appears in two feature films and an upcoming animated film. Doesn't really constitute actor. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

She has been lead role before, and her acting endeavours do warrant a mention in infobox, but her film/TV work (so far) isn't prominent enough to be listed in the lead. The opening sentence should just list what subject is most prominently noted for. Compared to people like Jennifer Lopez, Beyoncé, Madonna, or Cher, Rihanna's endeavours are not very extensive. This could change in the future, but currently the only aspect of her career prominent enough to be mentioned in the opening sentence is her singing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead needs re-writing anyway, but it's fine to include in the info box.  — ₳aron 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna single and album sales

Rihanna has sold 50 million albums worldwide and a 180 million digital tracks, making her one of the biggest selling artists of all time, and making her the biggest selling digital artist of all time.

There are many artists/bands who have sold more than that and who have had a long-term influence of a whole different order of magnitude. Rihanna's sales numbers speak more about the level of corporate promotion of her name than of any real musical impact.

Also, for an artists who's been around for a decade, she has next to no iconic songs - her looks and ability to court the media are probably more famous than her music. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

Joyce Meyer is a woman. Line should replace he with she. Rihanna has stated that she believes in God and that she focuses on obeying God and reading her Bible. She is a fan of Christian minister Joyce Meyer and tweeted to him "you're awesome" TooCloseToTheEdit (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the suggestion. ekips39 00:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

unclear passage Rihanna page

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

"...he felt "Pon de Replay" was too big for her, saying "when a song is that big, it's hard [for a new artist] to come back from. I don't sign songs, I sign artists".[23] The audition resulted in Rihanna signing a six-album record deal with Def Jam Recordings in February 2005, on the same day of the audition, with Jay-Z saying "There's only two ways out. Out the door after you sign this deal. Or through this window ...",[21] meaning that he was not going to let her leave with signing a record deal.[21] After signing to Def Jam Recordings, Rihanna cancelled other meetings with record labels and relocated from Barbados to New York to live with Rogers' and his wife.[24] Rihanna explained the concept behind the title of the album to Kidzworld, saying that the sun is representative of native Caribbean culture, as well as herself, and that the album consists of music from her heritage.[25]..."

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015

Rihanna has won 9 Grammy's. Her net worth is currently 140 million Kenpen123 (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)  Not done until you provide a source. We can't take your word for granted.--Chamith (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

She also songwrites.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unapologetic#Track_listing

82.14.201.156 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, sourcing Wikipedia itself is discouraged. Also, I couldn't find any mention as Rihanna as the writer of any of the songs in Unapologetic#Track listing. Feel free to make another request if you find a reliable source to support your claim. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 16:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@SamX: Robyn Fenty is Rihanna. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I've added that she's also a songwriter into the lead section, with sources. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna as 'songwriter' in the lead and info box.

It is misleading to include the term songwriter as one of Rihanna's main occupations, for want of a better description. Just because she contributes to a couple of songs on some of her albums, it does not automatically make her a songwriter. She didn't actually write anything on Loud. User:Joseph Prasad is insistent on reverting me, for which I have warned him, and restoring the 'songwriter' occupation with the liner notes of Talk That Talk & Unapologetic as sources. It is not accurate or right to say "Rihanna is a songwriter", citing the liner notes of an album, because it is self-published and not third party. It just means that she was involved in the songwriting process of a particular song. It does not clarify to which extent she contributed. You only have to write one word, or come up with a theme or concept, to be credited as a songwriter. Rihanna is known for being a singer. To be honest, citing her as an actress and a fashion designer and giving those due weight to that of her being a singer is quite a stretch, too. Appearing in a couple of films in supporting roles doesn't make you an actress or actor, nor does hosting a fashion programme and endorsing lipsticks make you a fashion designer. Whitney Houston co-wrote two songs on I Look to You, but it does not make her a fully fledged songwriter in her own write.  — ₳aron 22:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, she has co-written about 25 songs so far, and if ACTRESS can be included, so can songwriter. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Co-writing 25 songs in her entire catalogue means nothing. Having multiple albums where her being credited is 4 or less, and even 0, does not make her a songwriter in her own right. You just blanked your talk page, showing you know you are wrong. And another senior editor just reverted you, further showing that you are wrong. Actress should not be included either, she's hardly Meryl Streep.  — ₳aron 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I blanked is because I am not exactly in the best mood to deal with this. I blanked because I'm sick of this, doesn't show I'm wrong. And I have tried to take out actress, I think I was blocked for it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of Aaron's conclusion, but more because Rihanna's isn't notable for songwriting, than because we don't know what extent she has contributed. I think examining the latter is difficult because in this case it would involve looking at seven albums worth of material and trying to find sources that indicate how much of a song is written by a certain person, and these things are rarely discussed in detail. I think what is needed for inclusion is some form of notability. Independent notability is a sure-fire way there; artists like Katy Perry, Prince, Sia who write (popular) songs for other artists meet this. For those who do not write for others, I think it would be harder to establish notability for inclusion, but there will be some artists who write significant amounts of their own material (even with others) and if editors feel like they should be deserving of the "job title", then there should be plenty of reliable sources that talk about them in that context. —JennKR | ☎ 22:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Except for cases like Mariah Carey, Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, who have always written or co-written everything they have ever done.  — ₳aron 08:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015

82.14.201.156 (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done no request specified. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015

Please change the residence of where Rihanna currently lives from Manhattan to Beverly Hills CA of that is where she curently is living as of now. Shyraque (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

< I t just bothers me when there is the talk on the page about Rihanna's descent, her dad is black barbardian and Irish barbadian or A.K.A. Bajan descent. 69.14.195.148 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kharkiv07^Talk 17:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015

Add 'model' as an occupation. She has modelled for major fashion brands on several occasions. Examples: Balmain - http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2013/12/17/rihanna-for-balmain---campaign-star

       - http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2014/08/balmain-rihanna-iman-naomi-campbell/photos/slide/1

Dior - http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/may/14/rihanna-becomes-diors-first-black-campaign-star 82.14.201.156 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

Net Worth: $140 Million Eighth studio album: R8 71.48.14.131 (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)