Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Rihanna/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:04, 19 March 2012 [1].

List of songs recorded by Rihanna

edit

List of songs recorded by Rihanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Aaron • You Da One 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have worked tirelessly on this article to completely overhaul it and make it a better standalone list of all Rihanna's song. Issues from the previous FAC have been address, as inline citations for songwriters have been provided. Media is provided throughout as well. Aaron • You Da One 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jivesh

  1. Prose
  • a Barbadian R&B recording artist - Remove R&B
    Removed R&B Aaron • You Da One
  • as well as collaborations with other recording artists on duets and featured songs on their respective albums the structure and wording looks repetitive.
    Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
  • on the singer's debut album Music of the Sun - the singer's can easily be replaced with her in this sentence
    Changed to "her" Aaron • You Da One
  • Critically acclaimed - This is fanaticism. You can instead use Grammy-winning
    Changed to "Award winning" Aaron • You Da One
  • produced 10 songs - co-produced?
    Changed to co-produced Aaron • You Da One
  • The songs lyrics were written by Evan "Kidd" Bogart and J. R. Rotem.[5] - This sentence should come before - to avoid confusion.
    Moved to before the sample. Aaron • You Da One
  • The release of Rihanna's third studio album Good Girl Gone Bad, included a combination of songwriters and producers whom she had previously collaborated with as well as some new additions. - The release?
    Removed "The release" Aaron • You Da One
  • Sturken and Rogers contributed significantly less songs - Does not make sense to me
  • Sturken and Rogers contributed significantly less songs to the project than they had previously done so, writing and producing two songs out of 13. - This is in need of proper structuring and re-writing.
    Reworded Aaron • You Da One
  • New writers and producers - Is new the correct word to be used?
    Changed to "Different" Aaron • You Da One
  • The release of the album, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, featured new songs written by former boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5. - The release?
    Re-worded Aaron • You Da One
  • Why "Tricky" Stewart?
    I have previously said 'Christopher "Tricky" Stewart', so the second time I said "Tricky" Stewart Aaron • You Da One
    Since you are talking about the wring process, it should be Christopher Stewart. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to their names. Aaron • You Da One
  • Stargate do not penned, they produce under that name.
    Changed to "produced" Aaron • You Da One
    You should have written their names Aaron. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to their names. Aaron • You Da One
  • The lyrical content of Rated R cast an ominous, dark and foreboding tone over the album - Does it sound good?
    I think so lol. Aaron • You Da One
    The lyrical content of Rated R cast an ominous, dark and foreboding tone over the album. See it now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-worded Aaron • You Da One
  • more lighter persona - Are you sure it was lighter? Wasn't she on the contrary showing her insecurities on that album?
    Rated R was darker and more vulnerable, Loud was not an insecure album, it was the opposite. Aaron • You Da One
    So "was darker and more vulnerable" = Lighter? Lol :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Rated R was dark and vulnerable. But this point is about Loud, which was not vulnerable.
    Oh My God in Heaven. :D Aaron, you are contradicting yourself... "was darker and more vulnerable" and "more lighter persona". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry partly my mistake. I misinterpreted your sentence because of that comma. Remove it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Rihanna's fifth studio album, Loud, displayed the singer return to her dancehall roots seen on Music of the Sun and A Girl like Me. - Bad structure
    Reworded Aaron • You Da One
  • penned three tracks for the album, - add including
    Added Aaron • You Da One
  • the reggae infused song - Source it
    Sourced from MTV Aaron • You Da One
  • The singers - Spot the mistake
    Apostrophe added Aaron • You Da One
  • The singers sixth studio album in as many years, Talk That Talk, offered a dance-pop, which tracks produced by Calvin Harris, Dr. Luke and Stargate - Reading and understanding this is a pain. :D
    Lol. Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
I see you have added information about chart performance of some singles. I don't know if they are needed here. Better ask someone else's opinion. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am satisfied with both the prose and the table. Good attempt overall. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Status

  • Unreleased songs can't possibly have a year attached to them. The released song section denotes the year the album was released, which doesn't apply to unreleased songs.
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • No need to say "soundtrack" at the end of any titles. Unless it's the literal name of the soundtrack.
    Yeah it is apart of the name, as Confessions of a Shopaholic is a film. Aaron • You Da One
    What I mean is the title of the soundtrack isn't "Confessions of a Shopaholic Soundtrack" it's something like "Confessions of a Shopaholic: Motion Picture Soundtrack" or something like that, which is usually just shortened to the film's name. — Status {talkcontribs 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're gonna do the Other performer(s) section like you do, you might as well just rename it to Artist(s). And add Rihanna's name to each where she performs solo. Either that or remove the out of place "feat." in the section.
    I don't get what you mean? Could you do an example on "All of the Lights" please? Aaron • You Da One
    Do either this or this (B section). — Status {talkcontribs 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Status {talkcontribs 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see any reason for the third paragraph to be on its own. It can certainly fit into the second, for now.
  • I don't like the first sentence. It doesn't flow very well with me. Maybe split "...and has collaborated with other artists for duets and featured songs on their respective albums and charity singles." into a new sentence?
  • "After signing a six album record contract with Def Jam Recordings" --> Doesn't really matter how many albums the contract called for.
  • "songs included on her" --> included isn't needed.
  • "Award winning songwriter Diane Warren co-wrote the title track,[2][3] while Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter Deniece Williams co-wrote the song "Willing to Wait"." Not sure why these two songs are important.
    Because they are very notable songwriters. Such writers aren't usually enlisted for an unknown singers debut album. Aaron • You Da One
    I understand that, but it's not like they were released as singles or anything. They never even charted. Not notable at all. — Status {talkcontribs 03:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's use either "Christopher "Tricky" Stewart" or "Tricky Stewart" for "Christopher Stewart", as he is commonly known as "Tricky".
  • "The re-release of the album, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, featured new songs written by former boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5." --> "The album was re-released in 2008 featured new songs written by then-boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5."
  • "Rihanna's fourth studio effort" Not sure about the use of the word "effort". It makes it sound like it's her fourth try to get something right.
    Done all. Aaron • You Da One

— Status {talkcontribs 05:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good. Support — Status {talkcontribs 01:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Oppose on:

It's a really good effort, but are think they are still here and there issues that should be resolved. Obviously, my vote can change or at least removed when the issues are resolved. — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You resolved all the issues, however, I still don't like how the alts look. For example, look how Timberlake's caption looks, A picture of a man. Awkward. This picture was part of "Rehab" and look how the alt was back then, A profile picture of young man who is speaking into a microphone. You can use this one and improve others one. There are a lot of alts which are poor. — Tomica (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Profile picture is wrong though. A profile picture is like on facebook. A profile shot is right. Aaron • You Da One 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support, but I am concerned with the incomplete list tag. Why is placed ? — Tomica (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look on the talk page. There are songs without songwriters sources. There are also unreleased songs without known songwriters. Aaron • You Da One 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fthis for writers of "Turn Up the Music", until the Fortune booklet is out? — Tomica (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does that include Rihanna's bit? Aaron • You Da One 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. But include the core writers of the song. Is there a credit for Spears' part on "S&M"? I doubt, and I think you can use this source and write the authors. — Tomica (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have. And the same writers wrote Spears' verse. It's logged on ASCAP. Aaron • You Da One 22:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I still doubt about the tag on the page, but all in all the list has improved and satisfies my criteria. — Tomica (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "The album's lead single, 'SOS', were written...". "were" → "was".
    Changed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Comma needed before Good Girl Gone Bad in the second paragraph.
    Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • "which critics noted as an step away from her previous more care-free persona." → "which critics noted as a step away from her more care-free persona from past albums."?
    Changed. Aaron • You Da One
    This looks the same as it was before. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops. Done now. Aaron • You Da One
  • "The albums lead single". "albums" needs an apostrophe before the s.
    Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • Alt text would be nice for the images.
    Every image has an alt. Aaron • You Da One
  • In the Michael Jackson photo caption, the song title has an extraneous apostrophe at the end of the song title. Also, this caption and the Avril Lavigne one need periods at the end.
    It is Somethin', not Something. That's the name of the song, so it's not extraneous. Aaron • You Da One
  • The parenthetical "website" shouldn't be showing up in ref 34. Pipe the link. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Piped it. Thanks for your comments. Aaron • You Da One
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reason as the Rambling Man states above. This should be a single list, instead of tables separated by letters. it would increase functionality for the reader, allowing them to sort by album etc. Right now if a reader wants to see all the singles that were in a certain album they have to scroll up and down the page looking for them, whereas if it was sortable it would be much easier. The point is featured lists are supposed to represent our best work, so I don't see how this list can be promoted in its present state, when it can be obviously improved. Few other things I noticed:
  • ref 1 needs the first name of the author as well
    Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Rihanna's sophomore album" is that a common term when referring to a second album? I've never heard sophomore used in relation to the music industry, surely it would be easier to say second?
    There's nothing wrong with the term but I've changed it anyway. No one thinks debut is a term not used in the industry, sophomore is the same. Widely used. Aaron • You Da One
Well, I've never heard that term before and second album is clearer, especially to readers with no knowledge of the industry, so its more helpful that way. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production duo co-wrote and co-produced 10 songs out of 16 included on the album" included on the album is redundant, the previous sentence mentions the album to begin with and the sentence after this one mentions it again, so this last bit is not needed
    This list is about songs. They wrote 9 out of 16 songs on one album. So this stays. Aaron • You Da One
I know the list is about songs that's not the point. The point is you've already mentioned what album is being referred to in the previous sentence, so they are aware you are talking about one album, so "included on the album" is not needed. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Aaron • You Da One
No it's not I still see Lynne Segall in that ref. NapHit (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is the publisher! Her name is in the publisher parameter! Aaron • You Da One
I know here name is in the publisher parameter, but when you click on the ref there is no mention of her name anywhere on thet page, so again why is she is the publisher, when there is no evidence to support this. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It lists her as the publisher of the publication on the Wiki page. Stop making things so awkward. Aaron • You Da One
I'm not making anything awkward. If you had told me she was the publisher of the publication from the beginning the issue would have been sorted. Anyway it appears she is so no problem. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do use cite web for MTV news refs instead of cite news, surely you should use the latter? Also mtv news should be work and Viacom publisher
    It's not a printed publication, so it shouldn't be news? And yes Viacom is the publisher. Aaron • You Da One
    BBC is not a printed publication, yet you would cite news for that same applies here. Regarding the viacom issue, you have both MTV news and Viacom in the publisher parameter when only one is the publisher, so MTV news should be in the work parameter. NapHit (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has not been done either, MTV is work not the publisher. NapHit (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has, I changed them all, you just haven't checked properly. Trying clicking on edit and have a look. Aaron • You Da One
  • Fixed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 6 does not, move to the comma after tainted love
  • Ref 3 work is MTV news not mtv
    I've been told before to not merely just put MTV, but rather MTV News, MTV UK, MTV Buzzworthy etc. to distinguish. Aaron • You Da One
  • There is no need to force the size of the columns, so I would remove the coding that does this
  • Would be nice if you could indicate what songs were singles. Perhaps using colour to indicate this. At the moment with some cells having links and others not its a bit confusing as to why
    This is simply a list of songs, not a list of singles. That is what the Rihanna discography is for. I will amend your other issues tomorrow. Aaron • You Da One 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its a list of songs, but some of those songs have been singles, yet at the moment the reader has no way to tell which ones were released as singles. It would also help with the link issue, as I assume most of the linked songs were singles. Some readers would get confused as to why some are linked and others aren't. BTW was there any need to have an edit summary of "No." I am trying to help you get this list to featured stated not hinder you (which by looking at it from my perspective you seem to think I am doing) if you carry on with this negative attitude and blunt remarks, then I'm not sure if I can continue reviewing the list if I'm not going to get helpful responses from you. After all you nominated it on the proviso that you were going to get comments and wanted input from the community, to react brazenly to some suggestions is out of order in my opinion especially as we are trying to help you, which you don't seem to realise. NapHit (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A million miles away, the last time, the last song and a girl like me. NapHit (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ye I know it's not your fault, I'll try and fix this myself, as I'm not sure what's causing them four to sort like that. NapHit (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you want to help but some of your comments are simply irritating. If you want to know which ones were singles, you can go to her discography page. If you still argue on this, maybe we can delete her discography page. Or better, we can merge her bio page with the discography, the videography, all her albums, all her singles, this list and everything else related to her. Of course, I am joking. My intention is only to show you how far this point of yours was wrong.

It is clear that you are not very familiar with music-related articles because you are assuming a lot. A song does not need to chart to have a page on Wikipedia if it meets WP:GNG. Similarly, a song does not need to be a single to chart. And a song can be a single but yet not chart. I believe you should familiarize yourself with music-related article first.

And about the comment on the reference with regard to the work parameter; whatever Aaron has done is good because MTV News in not supposed be in italics. It is neither a magazine nor a newspaper. Even if he writes ''MTV News'' in the work parameter, a bot will automatically release the '''' the day he will do a cleanup. And I don't think an FLC should have wrongly formatted references.

Last but not the least, Aaron's attitude may be negative but your comments are somehow responsible for it. And that's reason for which I comment only on topics to which I am familiar. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't hurt a reviewer to raise a concern that (s)he feels should be raised. I personally don't see any of his points as irritating. The nominator is free to disagree with concerns as long as (s)he has a reasonable rationale to. Telling NapHit to get familiar with music articles is not helpful either. This may be the first FL of its kind, so we don't necessarily have to follow other lists like these. There is no problem with identifying singles either: the article should be independent. All we need to know here is which songs were singles, nothing else. The discography dives into things like sales, charting and certification. But this is just a list of songs, many of which were singles. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, referring to comments as "irritating" when I'm trying to improve the page is just plain stupid. Maybe a song does not need to chart to have a page on wikipedia, but it still begs the question, why some have pages and overs don't. Therefore adding a colour to allow the reader to see which songs were singles is helpful. Why should I have to go to the discography page when the info could be displayed here easily, it's a no brainer! I do not need to familiarise myself with music articles at all. Your suggestion that you don't review something you don't know about and I should too is stupid. Often the best reviewers are the ones that no nothing about the subject, as they can pick up on things that are not so obvious to people who are familiar with the subject. The list is supposed to be easy to understand for everyone not just people familiar with music, so if I don't understand, its more than likely they won't, which is why I'm suggesting these changes. Its a ridiculous assertion that my comments are somehow responsible for his attitude how are they? I have not done anything differently to the other lists I've reviewed and none of there reviewers have reacted in the manner he has. There seems to be an uwiilingness to co-operate which i don't understand, as the whole point of flc is to canvas opinion from the community. That means all members of it not just music editors. NapHit (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you want colors? Okay. But there are not only things like songs and singles. We also have promotional singles. We have cover versions. We have soundtrack singles. We have songs recorded to promote a brand. I strongly believe all these will complicate things. By the way, your list of football and tombs are not comprehensible to me. As you see, it does not only matter to review a list. Also having some knowledge about it is always welcome. Those lists are like reading Chinese to me. Sorry but this is how I feel. Perhaps, I won't comment any further because you simply will not agree and I don't want to make this FLC look bigger. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jivesh, you're wrong. It's always a good idea to have someone who doesn't necessarily understand or is an expert in the subject matter. It provides an outside perspective and one that sometimes is overlooked by the "experts". I try to review each and every list (and have done for a couple of years) that gets nominated, and far from being expert in each of the individual subject matters, I believe I have a good level of experience on what would make a list featured. A shame that you and Aaron seem to think the reviewers here (who have invested their own personal time in trying to help) are deliberately trying to irritate you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm wait, can I know why you are using the word single? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A single table, i.e. one table. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now if a reader wants to see all the singles that were in a certain album they have to scroll up and down the page looking for them... - Should I explain the differences between a song and a single? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think NapHit means songs in that context. But it's a useful point, it would also be beneficial to know which of these songs have gone unreleased as singles. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is too much now. We should even say which song was released as a single? Released on an album is not enough? Excuse me but this is becoming too much. I have been telling since yesterday that some information is best to be verified at the album's page itself. Lists of songs are generally bulky, there is no need to add to that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ye I did mean songs, sorry that's my fault. But the point still stands, if the reader wants to know what songs were in an album, they would have scroll up and down the page, whereas with a sort facility available its a lot easier for the reader to navigate, which is the key issue. In its current guise the list is not easy to navigate, which contravenes WP:WIAFL part 4 as TRM pointed out above. Jivesh its not too much, you're assuming readers already know information about rihanna, some may not, therefore clarifying what songs were singles is useful to them, as not every reader of wiki has an in-depth knowledge of rihanna. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never edit Wikipedia assuming that everyone should know about an artist. But what I hope for is at least for people to have some knowledge in this field. For instance, I would never comment on an article about submarines or football teams if I am not interested or know nothing about them. You can visit an artist's discography to know which songs were released as singles. You can also visit his/her videography to know for which songs videos were shot. By the way, it's good for you to know that all songs are not recorded for albums. So according to you, a single list which will have more than 200 songs consecutively will be easier to navigate through? And there is no need for you to know which songs were on the same album as this is a list about songs, not albums. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll bite. Please explain why it would be more difficult to navigate through a single list with 200 songs? I've shown you examples of long single lists with TOCs based on anchors... What's the problem? If the coding is too difficult, you just have to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the lists you have shown me is that long. None of the list you have shown me list so many details. Your list of tombs do not even mention who built the tombs. I know this my sound foolish but this is how I want to show you that we also need to least the writers of the songs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, see List of Premier League hat-tricks. Cheers. Mind you, this is becoming pointless, you are determined to keep it "as you like it" without considering the usefulness of sortability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could have said the same thing about you. I am still not convinced. The list is not that long and it is not about songs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not useful in this circumstance. It would throw everything out of sync and balance. It is not functional for this list. Aaron • You Da One 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not about "songs" but it's a sortable list and it is longer. Please stop saying "it's not a song list", there are no other song lists this long so we need to relate it to something relevant and comparative. This list proves that it's not difficult for readers to access, it's sortable, useful and appropriate. "It would throw everything out of sync and balance. It is not functional for this list." - i.e. I don't want to do it. "throw everything out of sync", like what? "not functional" how? Many longer lists do sorbability. You need to accept this. Thanks! Your objection is baseless, and my oppose stands. And I'm now unwatching this because the "debate" is going nowhere. Feel free to email me if you need a revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My dear, there are other lists of songs. I edit music articles here and I know what I am talking about. On the other hand, I have never seen those lists you mentioned until yesterday. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) well perhaps you should familiarise yourself with what a current featured list looks like and provides to our readers. I already told you there is only one list of songs which is featured. You made some excuses. You obviously aren't aware of what we now consider to be the standard required for a featured list. And this really, really is my last post here. Oppose stands, and disappointed that the nominators weren't open to exploring the possibility of making the list better, more functional, more interactive, more intelligent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one though it is about unreleased songs and is around one twentieth the size of the Rihanna article which is about songs released. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a quick one at this stage, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be a single, sortable list, using anchors to navigate in a similar way to your current table of contents. See Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica for a good example of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think so. Not when there are this many songs. That's just a hinderance. Aaron • You Da One 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose then, "a hinderance" to whom? A sortable table which can be easily navigated using a TOC based on anchors is an advantage to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think that's quite a poor reason to oppose based on your personal preference. The idea of having them alphabetised and in separate tables is for exactly that reason. Having them sortable would completely disrupt when the first songwriter or album is wiki-linked and the order of the songs. Not to mention that editing a table that big would become a lot more difficult to navigate around. One assumes that you will also oppose other lists that follow exactly the same style. Aaron • You Da One 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WIAFL part 4. And see WP:REPEATLINK. For whom would "a table that big would become a lot more difficult to navigate around"? Not the reader, that's for sure. And it's not a "personal preference", it provides tangibly good, additional capabilities to our readers. And yes, I will oppose other lists of the "same style". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It passes part 4. This proves it is down to your personal preference. It is easy to navigate around; want to see who wrote Take a Bow? Just click on T. There are section headings for each letter and there are table sort facilities. Aaron • You Da One 14:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, where is the sort facility? I can't see the little up/down arrows on my screen... How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please? I don't believe I can. So my oppose stands I'm afraid. Don't forget I am just a single reviewer, others may disagree with me in which case the closing director is more than welcome to ignore my oppose. I also have to say that I haven't reviewed the rest of the list, which I will do in due course, but only if a single table is used. Still don't understand why you believe it will be more difficult to navigate...The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is TOC where you can choose which table you want. This is a list of songs, not a list of albums, if you want to see the songs from Talk That Talk, you look on the album article and look at the track-listing, don't you. Don't you think if you way was better, then other lists of this standard would be using it? Having one large table would also interfere with the pictures, as they are aligned with each table specifically. Having sortable columns would mean that pictures do not correspond to the correct letter, not to mention that pictures would not be able to be included (appropriately). Aaron • You Da One 14:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's commonplace amongst many lists to be a single sortable table with the images down the right hand side, initially sorted in alphabetical order. Most lists are this standard. Cheers. Just in case you missed them, three of the last five promoted FLs did exactly that 1, 2, 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Greetings. First of all let me quote this - "How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please" - If you want to know which songs are on the album, the simplest and most logical thing to do is go the album's page. All albums by Rihanna have their own album pages. Now - Most lists are this standard - Since when should all lists be by this standard? Sometimes, it is better to ignore some guidelines or rules just to facilitate reading or should I say, in this case, navigation! And how can you compare a list about tombs to a list of songs? Fellow editor Aaron is absolutely right in whatever he has been trying to explain. How many tombs does that list contain? Did you see how many songs Rihanna has? And those tombs were built were built from the fifth to sixteenth centuries. Rihanna has been recording songs since 2004 and judging from the way she works, she will not stop till 2050. If in seven years she has recorded thrice the number of songs than tombs that were built in around 1200 years, what will her list of songs look like in another seven years? Last but not the least, a list of songs has to mention the writer(s), the album(s), the year, featured artist(s), etc. The list you you gave does not even mention who built those tombs, etc. You see how these two list do not follow each other? All other list of songs recorded by XYZ follow the same format Aaron has used. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is just one featured list of this "songs" kind of list (List of unreleased Britney Spears songs) which is a single sortable list, not split alphabetically like this one. The only reason I linked the tombs list was to show an example of a single long list with anchors for navigation, I wasn't expecting you to compare tombs with songs, not the point at all. More importantly you should look at the list of Liverpool players, much larger, more relevant and, once again, a single list, not split by surname alphabetically, and one which is bound to grow way beyond the Rihanna era. Size should not prohibit this kind of thing, look at List of Premier League hat-tricks, a single sortable list which is maintained on a weekly basis. I have no idea why you and Aaron believe that excluding sortability for some unknown reason is a good idea. But as I've said before, my oppose stands, but it just one opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you listed another short list. It is absolutely normal that a list of unreleased songs will be short. This list is about released songs. In short, they are different by miles. And again, I will say this is not a list about tombs or football players. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hat-tricks list is far from short and allows sortability, has many different columns to sort by. Why you believe that our readers wouldn't want to navigate (using a TOC) and have sortability in this list, I have no idea. Irony is, by the time you and Aaron are done arguing about this, you could have implemented it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And let me try another example or two of why sortability may be useful. How do I easily list all the songs written by Sturken? Or how do I list all the songs recorded in 2010? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not about the songs written by Sturken. A separate list can be created for that. If you want to know which songs were recorded in 2010, you should go to the wiki-page of the album that Rihanna released in 2010. Simple. And why should we implement something that we feel is not working well? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand what the list is about. If you think it may not be useful to find out which songs were recorded in 2010, why list the recording year at all? And why do you feel sortability and navigation using an anchor-based TOC "is not working well" on this list when it works perfectly on a number of other featured lists? I'm not pursuing this further, my position is clear. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because unlike that number of other featured lists, this list is about songs. Most importantly, Rihanna has far too many songs. It is not a sort list. Having a single table will make everything look never-ending Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the † being used along with the colour for each single release.
    There's no need for it. Aaron • You Da One
    Yes there is per WP:ACCESS. Looks like it's been done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They are there now. Aaron • You Da One
  • You need to make sure the list sorts in alphabetical order correctly, i.e. in the same order you initially have the list (so, for instance, if you wish to initially list "A Child is Born" as a C, it should sort as a C, not as an A which it currently does).
    I don't understand how to fix this. Aaron • You Da One
    You need to use a {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how to apply it, what should I replace with what? Aaron • You Da One
    That's what sandboxes are for. Read the documentation about {{sort}} and learn how to use it. It's really very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but if I don't know what I'm mean't to be doing, it won't work, will it. I don't know what you want me to do with it. That page doesn't explain what it is or how to use and neither have you. Aaron • You Da One
    I have explained about three times, as have others but never mind. You want "A Child Is Born" to sort by C rather than A, so you use the template {{sort|Child Is Born|A Child Is Born}}. It will sort by the first parameter and display the second parameter. Oh, and on "A Child Is Born", the article you link to talks mainly about a drama, and doesn't even mention the Rihanna song. Would consider making it link to a more appropriate article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has actually said that and written an example. It makes things so much easier and less hassle. I have done it and have unlinked it too. Done the same for The Last Song and The Last Time. Aaron • You Da One
    The template instructions couldn't be any clearer. There are other examples you need to fix as well, e.g. A Girl Like Me. Check all. And also please check the quote marks around S.O.S and Take A Bow as they don't sort properly either. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some but not all of your image captions have (pictured). I don't think this is necessary when there's only one subject in the image.
    Yeah there is. Aaron • You Da One
    No, there's no necessity to say "pictured" when there's just one person pictured and you're only talking about one person in the caption. And if you believe there really is, then you should do it for all images, not just some of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Only ones with certain people mentioned now say pictured. Aaron • You Da One
    Chris Brown needs to have it removed, for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Ref 23 looks odd.
    Fixed. Aaron • You Da One
  • So does ref 10.
    Fixed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Ref 4 is just a Wikipedia mirror so shouldn't be used.
    ? Aaron • You Da One
    Ref 4 is a BBC page which is a copy of a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you can't use ref 4 because it is a "mirror" of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I replaced it. Aaron • You Da One
  • I can't really see how you can say "intended album" for, say, "Goodbye", the reference doesn't explicitly state that.
    The source talks about it in relation to not making Rated R and how it is reminiscent of Good Girl Gone Bad. Look at the date, it's Feb 2010, Rated R was recording from Feb 2009-Aug 2009, so it was clearly intended for that album. Aaron • You Da One
    No, that's your intepretation of the details you've given there, who's to say she wasn't writing a completely different album in secret? You mustn't use original research in your articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No I know it was for Rated R, but I've put n/a anyway. Aaron • You Da One
    Well find a reliable source that explicitly states it and you can include it. I don't count you as a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've put n/a anyway" Aaron • You Da One
  • I don't see the point in linking Chris Ivery since the article redirects and says nothing about him other than he married an actress from Gray's Anatomy.
    Unlinked. Aaron • You Da One
  • Our article calls him Scott La Rock (not LaRock).
    Changed. Aaron • You Da One
  • J.R. Rotem -> J. R. Rotem.
    Changed. Aaron • You Da One

Otherwise looking better. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: Fully agree with The Rambling Man. The list looks much better and is easier to navigate through. His point was proven right when he said "How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please?" Further discussion was not necessary after that. Using invisible anchors and a TOC instead of the headings is a really nice idea too. An FL is an FL; it doesn't matter what the FL is about. Also, this isn't a very interesting way to begin a list: "Rihanna is a Barbadian recording artist." The sole fact that she is Barbadian and a recording artist does not explain what this article is about. Finally, refrain from using the work "whilst" too. Not going to oppose, because I'd like to have a closer look later on. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks worse, but whatever. Aaron • You Da One 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've changed the table would mind addressing my other points as well? Also i suggest looking at the tombs list to see how you can use anchors to allow readers to navigate by letter, seeing as this was one of you concerns. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I will. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. I don't spend every waking moment on here! Aaron • You Da One 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, co-operating with reviewers makes the difference from an oppose to a support. Everyone has a "real life", just remember that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this list of tombs? Aaron • You Da One 22:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you need to calm down, I'm trying to help I know you have a real life, but as you had changed the table I assumed you would have done the other comments as well, no need to get aggressive. The tombs list is mentioned on this page, in TRM's initial comment. NapHit (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how that has been done at all. Looks confusing to me. Aaron • You Da One 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy the coding and use Trial and error, have a go in a sandbox. That's what I do when I'm unsure of how to do something. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – looks great after all the scrutinizing; everything is organized and in its place. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks good, made a few edits myself (see here). Clearly a lot of changes have happened to this article over the course of its nomination, and I think it is reasonably close to becoming a FL. I just have some comments of my own:
  • I see that the issue of the opening sentence has already been discussed above, but I think that it could still stand to be a little tighter. I think it can be generally assumed that a reader who clicks onto this list will have an understanding of who Rihanna is, so there's no need to so explicitly state "Rihanna is a Barbadian recording artist". I feel that "Barbadian recording artist Rihanna has recorded material for her etc. etc." would flow better.
  • "whom she had previously collaborated with" -> "with whom she had previously collaborated"
  • "Some" is a vague qualifier of size, and should probably be removed.
  • For "If I Never See Your Face Again", I think Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded needs to be listed before It Won't Be Soon Before Long, so that it sorts alongside tracks from the same album.
  • Any reason why Rated R is not wikilinked in the "Rude Boy" and "Russian Roulette" rows?
  • In the caption of the Britney Spears image, should "is featuring" not be "features"?
  • Also in the Britney caption, S&M needs to be in quotation marks.
  • From what I can discern from its Wikipedia article and a brief amount of Googling, the soundtrack album to Confessions of a Shopoholic wasn't actually called Confessions of a Shopoholic Soundtrack - it was simply called Confessions of a Shopoholic.
Overall, nice job! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I did all of your comments apart from two as I have questions about them. Aaron • You Da One 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think linking to "songwriter", "singer-songwriter" or "music critics" is a little unnecessary - they are common enough professions that a reader would recognise them.
  • Like "A Girl Like Me" and "A Child is Born", A Girl Like Me needs to sort under G rather than A. Also, The Blueprint 3 needs to sort under B rather than T.
    I tried applying the sort template into the wikilink but it didn't work? How should it be written? Aaron • You Da One
    There are probably a couple of ways of doing it. Give {{Sort|Girl Like Me|''[[A Girl like Me (Rihanna album)|A Girl like Me]]''}} and {{Sort|Blueprint 3|''[[The Blueprint 3]]''}} a go. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks. Aaron • You Da One 16:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For songs where the leading artist isn't Rihanna, the Artist(s) column needs to sort by surname, e.g. Brown, Guetta, West, etc.
    Again, how do I put the template into the wikilink? Aaron • You Da One
    These would similarly be something along the lines of {{Sort|Brown, Chris featuring Rihanna|[[Chris Brown (American entertainer)|Chris Brown]] featuring Rihanna}}. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks. Aaron • You Da One 16:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't Kid Cudi also credited on "All of the Lights"?
    Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • I'm a little confused by the three songs that have N/A in their Originating Album column – if they didn't feature on any album, how were they released?
    Birthday Cake Remix is a single only release, Brown is not on the album version; Redemption Song was a single cover only, not on a Rihanna album (Should I put Bob Marley's album instead?) and S&M Remix is the same as BC Remix, Spears is not on the album. Aaron • You Da One
    In that case, I think it might be better to put something like "Single release only", rather than N/A. It's a little more intuitive to a reader, and it seems to be what's done on other articles (e.g. Maroon 5 discography). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Aaron • You Da One
  • Having compared this list to Rihanna's discography, there seem to quite a lot of songs in that article that aren't featured in this one, e.g. "Live Your Life", "Roll It", "Just Stand Up", "Numba 1" and several others, including most of those featured in the Guest appearances section. Any reason I'm missing for their absences? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the songwriting credits for those songs. I've listed songs on the talk page which need citation. Aaron • You Da One 16:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, tricky one... Not sure what the opinion of others is, but I personally feel that, in the interests of completeness, it would be better that the tracks were listed without the songwriting rather than not listed at all. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. This is a list of songs, and songwriters are provided for every other released song. I can't really source them either because I don't have the credits or the publisher IDs. Aaron • You Da One
    But then what's the criteria for inclusion on list? I'd assumed that it was a list of every song that Rihanna had ever recorded, but there are several songs missing, which therefore means that the list doesn't meet criterion 3(a) of the WP:Featured list criteria. If you can't find the credits or publisher IDs, then that's fair enough, but the tracks could still be added to the list with the Unknown template in the Writer(s) column – it looks like that's already what's been done for "Turn Up the Music" anyway. I agree with Sanders that B-sides should be included, and "Live Your Life" was such a big hit that it definitely needs to be on the list as well. Preferably, I'd like to see all the songs listed on Rihanna's discography also be included here too. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [[3]] is an FL and has the incomplete tag. But if I include all recorded remixes, like for You da One, Rockstar 101, Only Girl (In the World) etc, the list will become so long. They are just remixes. I don't mind adding the songs and putting the Unknown template, but I would want a source saying that Rihanna is on the song. I don't wanna leave anything unsourced. Turn Up the Music, we don't know who wrote it, but I sourced it confirming Rihanna is on it. Aaron • You Da One 13:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point about remixes – I can understand you not wanting to include each and every remix or live version of a song, as that would quickly violate WP:Listcruft. And obviously not listing a song without first sourcing Rihanna's appearance on it makes sense too. However, looking at the discography article, there do seem to be references available for some of the studio-recorded tracks that are not listed here, e.g. those in the Guest appearances section. Having songs listed with the Unknown template in the Writer(s) column is probably not something that I would oppose over, but I would like to see this article be as comprehensive as it possibly could be, which would mean including the songs listed on the talk page. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I will include them. Aaron • You Da One
    Okay I have added nearly all of them. I managed to find sources from ASCAP and BMI. Aaron • You Da One 16:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After some hard work from Aaron, I am now convinced that this article meets the FL criteria - great job! Although I don't envy you having to update it every time Rihanna releases a new album... One final thing I think it might be worth including would be a short paragraph (or maybe just a sentence or two) on the unreleased songs, just to explain what they are and maybe give one or two examples of why they were never released. This could go either at the end of the lead, or at the start of the Unreleased songs section. Anyway, excellent work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :). Aaron • You Da One 19:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from Sanders11 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I randomly hit N in the contents and it didn't take me down to N on the list so double check they all work.
    Fixed. Aaron • You Da One
  • The images seem to go in alphabetical order of song name except for the picture of Britney Spears for S&M, which should go next to Stupid in Love.
    Okay, thanks for telling me. Someone else added that one. Aaron • You Da One
  • The images of Spears, Jackson and Lavigne have no reference but all the others do despite conveying largely similar information.
    Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • You've included some songs with N/A for the writers so I see no reason to not include the various songs on the talk page as I'm sure you can find a reference saying Rihanna recorded them even if not for the writers. Although I do agree with the reviewer who noted N/A is probably not the most appropriate way to denote this as the song does have writers even if they are not known.
    Change the only one to the Unknown template. Brown's album hasn't been released so that's why the credits are unknown, but we know Rihanna is on the remix, so that's the difference and why it is sourced. The ones on the talk page are not sourced. Aaron • You Da One
  • I don't understand "Fourth studio album (not Rated R)", went to check the reference for clarification and it is not mentioned in the reference, presumably just an error in referencing but clarification on what that means would be helpful.
    Has been removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Does the Year denote the year the song was recorded or released? Recorded would make more sense given the title of the article but they seem like release years, again clarification would help.
    Recorded. Aaron • You Da One
  • Rihanna has lots of remixes but you've only included two, have you got specific criteria for when to include a remix?
    They aren't re-recorded studio songs from her albums though. "Birthday Cake" and "S&M" were re-produced and feature a guest vocal from other singers, and were released as single. Aaron • You Da One
  • Any B-sides?
    No. Aaron • You Da One
  • I'm not sure if it's necessary to include the piano version of Love the Way You Lie, I take it there are no further acoustic versions or anything like that of her other songs?
    It was included on Loud as song and is different in both vocal, composition and production. Aaron • You Da One
  • There seems to be some inconsistency in linking the writers, some are linked on every occasion and some only on first appearance.
    All are linked now. Aaron • You Da One
    Justin Timberlake for Rehab isn't so double check for more please.
  • If I Never See Your Face Again has two originating albums, surely it can only originate from one album no matter how many albums it appears on.
    The original, which didn't feature Rihanna, is on the standard version of It Won't Be Soon Before Long, however, the remix featuring Rihanna was released as a single from both artists re-releases of both their albums. Aaron • You Da One
    The title of the column is originating album, in my opinion you should only have the original album that this version appeared on, whether it was the Maroon 5 album or the Rihanna one, or try and come up with a different column heading.
  • Why three refs for the Bob Marley cover?
    They confirm that Rihanna covered it and that Marley was the songwriter. Aaron • You Da One
    That shouldn't require three refs, one that she recorded it and one that he wrote it should suffice. I would also suggest formatting the refs so they are vertical rather than horizontal.
  • Have you intentionally not included the Bob Marley cover that is on Good Girl Gone Bad Live? Technically that was recorded so you should consider including it.
    It's not a released studio recorded song though. Aaron • You Da One
    That's fine, I wasn't particularly bothered either way but just wanted to flag it up.
  • You've named the deluxe version of Good Girl Gone Bad as the originating album for tracks from it but not noted the deluxe version of the album for tracks from the other album's deluxe versions - not sure if it's worth adding (deluxe version) or something to such tracks.
    Only Good Girl Gone Bad got a re-release so I'm not really sure what your point is here. Aaron • You Da One
    It was a suggestion that you could find some way to express when tracks only appear on specific versions of albums. Again not necessary to do, was just something that crossed my mind

I'm not familiar enough with featured lists to support or oppose but the comments might help. Sanders11 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the points that have been changed. I'm afraid I stand by my position that I don't feel it is appropriate for me to support or oppose as I am such a casual editor these days and am not up to scratch on the guidelines. Sanders11 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have done some of them. Thanks. Aaron • You Da One
  • Comments
  • The Avril Lavigne caption needs a closing quote on the song's name.
    There is? Lol. Aaron • You Da One
    "interpolates Avril Lavigne's song "I'm with You. Due to the" - no, there isn't. --PresN 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry I was looking at the "Cheers (Drink to That)" caption. Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • Barbadian caption needs a hyphen between reggae infused.
    Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • Remove the space before the reference in the Sean Combs caption.
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • E,J,N,V,X, and Z don't go anywhere from the table of contents.
    Shall I remove them then? Aaron • You Da One
    Sure, though isn't there an "N" song? --PresN 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I fixed that one. Okay, I removed the others.
  • I'm not comfortable supporting even if you address these until Sanders' comments above are resolved, especially about the inclusion criteria for singles, as well as Status coming back to confirm that his comments have been addressed.
    I have asked Status to look back over as well as Sanders. But I looked and Sanders contributions and he/she doesn't come on Wikipedia often. Aaron • You Da One
  • I also strongly recomend that you archive the references via webcite or web archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites ever go away or change to lose the information (like, say, that Amazon cite) then you end up with chunks of the article unsourced. --PresN 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried that website but it doesn't seem to work for me. Aaron • You Da One
    Which one? as I used webcite earlier today... --PresN 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it is that one. I tried using it and a friend told me how, but the link didn't work. Aaron • You Da One 01:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Rihanna/archive1&oldid=1195175886"