Talk:Rihanna albums discography/Archive 1

Those sales.

Those sales are so off. Music of the Sun may have been certified gold in the US, but thats in shipments. It has only actually sold around 300,000, if that. There is no way it sold 200K in the UK. Last time I checked, it was only 93,000 in actual sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.120.212 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Up article

I Just fixed up her discography

Sales are very precise Music of the sun sold 472K (worldwide 1.9M) A Girl Like Me 700K (so far)(worldwide 1.4M) --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 17:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Right Sales.

Ok look people music of the sun sold over 2 million and 450,000+ in sales(in the US), it got certified gold because of SHIPMENTS because that is what certifications are for!

Again, A girl like me sold 1.6 million so far(according the global album chart) and over 700,00 in the US(though the certificate is already platinum with over 1 million SHIPMENTS!!!

Gosh, I hate it when people get certificates mixed up with Sales!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.132.29 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Mediatraffic only counts for 23 countries, not the whole world. We're talking about shipments.Shipments are at 2 million--172.132.200.6 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that!i didn't know media traffic wasn't the whole world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.132.29 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sales and certifications

Please cite a reliable source when adding sales and certifications to the article. If sources are not given then the sales, etc. will be removed. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

French charts

excuse me, I am french and I know that pon de replay has never topped the second place nor SOS and umbrella the first of our french charts, thx to correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.205.48 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea i agree with you. I'm pretty sure "Pon de replay" only peaked at #18, and "SOS" at #12. As for "Umbrella" its only peaked at #6. 220.101.48.181 11:24, October 3, 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.48.108 (talk)

Protection

Can we please put this page under protection some idiot keeps messing with the "Canadian" peak positions of the songs 220.101.48.181 2:10, October 4, 2007 (UTC)

"Pon de replay" didn't peak at #1 in Canada! It peaked at #7 as stated in its individual article! This page needs protection to stop the idiot that keeps messing with the Canadian peak positions! JayJ47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.48.24 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Great now no one can edit the page - rm41194 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm41194 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Some stuff fixed

• I fixed the stuff that needed to be fixed. The source says for instance that "Music Of The Sun" sold 1 million worldwide, not 2 million. And that source given for "A Girl Like Me" does not say 4 million on it anywhere.96.227.94.146 (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bolding of #1's

Please stop bolding the number-one positions. It is not allowed. JayJ47 (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands Chart Positions

Please do not change the positions for this chart to #4, #7, #12 etc because the positions are correct. This source: [1] is currently being used to source the information currently in the article. It is a reliable source. Thank You JayJ47 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• These chartpositions from the website you linked are wrong because that are the chartpositions of the dutch single top100 and not the dutchtop40. In the dutchtop100 only the cd single sales count and in the dutchtop40 airplay and sales count both. umberlla-blabla —Preceding comment was added at 12:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about Guest Appearances

Hello,

This is my first time on a discussion page. I just had a suggestion for the 'Guest Appearances' section. Would the song 'Hurricane' by the rapper Rupee be included? It features Rihanna's vocals.

Dpieton (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

uhh

Someone add this to Category:R&B music discographies please, I can't do it! -F!shy Dreams (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rehab Pop 100

Rehab is at #51 on pop 100 for 11/15/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.47.33 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If i never see sour face again

If i never see your face again wasn't on #54 at the dutch top 40 but on #11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umberlla-blabla (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Let Me

Please don't add "Let Me" as an official single. There is no source to indicate that it was ever released. It just charted in Japan due to high downloads, not an official release. "Legolas" (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

NZ Chart Certifications

If these could please be amended for New Zealand. Pon de replay was certified Gold. We Ride has been certified Gold. Hate that I love you has been certified Gold. Take a bow has been certified Platinum and Rehab has been certified gold. This information has been gained from <www.radioscope.co.nz> and <www.rianz.org.nz>. Thank you. Just adding, Don't stop the music has also been certified Platinum. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.101.17 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

 added Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GGGB

What the fuck? Why is GGGB's worldwide sales listed as 11 million? That's liker her career sales. I'm definitely changing it back to 6+ million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.35.26 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad Girl

Is anyone sure about whether or not Bad Girl should be listed as a single, it's been getting a lot of air play and increased popularity. I think that even if it's not a single, it deserves to be somewhere on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.118.209 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a discography. Not a songography. If it gets released as a single, it can go on. Otherwise it's just another song that is getting some airplay. See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Certs

Why hasnt anyone posted the RIAA certs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love.Game (talk • contribs) 11:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

False Certification

I was never aware about this certification? How does Rihanna album go platinum that quick less than 2 weeks? Dont put false facts that are NOT accurate or not true. There is no way you can put this if you dont have PROOF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.41.94 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Rated R is just barely over gold no were near platinum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.139.242 (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to present your arguments and citation-based references. While we talk, I've reverted your edit of Rated R (platinum-back-to-gold, comment deletion). I base this reversion on the listing I see at the reference cited in the article, specifically, this one, where you need to go way down to the bottom of the page to notice that there are multiple pages, then go to page 2 (next) and look for the Rated R listings. There's one for the Gold award and one for Platinum.

To make it simpler, you can go to the cite used on the Rated R article (where I'll be reverting your similar change, with respect). That article goes to the listing for just Rated R.

I hope this clears it up for you (and others). And BTW, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Eurochart should be included!

Eurochart Hot 100 and European Top 100 albums show the performance of the artist over 16 and 19 european countries respectively. Eurochart is therefore more important than some other charts listed here like Norway, Finland and New Zealand charts.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefron12 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Next Single: "Rude Boy"

Here's the cover artwork for the next single "Rude Boy". Perhaps you can use it, to create a new article about that song. [2] --91.9.78.122 (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry i didn't mean to but i was trying to change the infobox so it had

Studio albums : 4
Remix albums  : 2
Compilation albums : 1
Singles  : 16
Music Videos  : 19
As featured artist : 5
Promotional  : 3
Chairty  : 2
DVD's  : 2
Tours  : 4

bu it went a bit wrong. Can someone do it for me, i'd really appreciate it! Also, the picture really needs to be updated too its from 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Someone do it please!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bogus sales figures and certs. Again.

I suppose that pointing to sales figures could be a useful part of describing the commercial success and attractiveness of one or more musical works. Still, I have to say that I am more than a bit tired of seeing numbers get hammered into this article multiple times a week, or even day. I do not believe a few thousand, or a few tens of thousands of copies make a big difference either way.

Having said that, if we are going to make any claim whatsoever about units sold, could be please, please, PLEASE do it with some accuracy? Where are these numbers coming from? When I see the citations that are being offered when the numbers are inserted, I must conclude: they a coming from nowhere. There are no citations. You folks are making the numbers up, and so in the interest of a credible Wikipedia, I feel compelled to revert them, the way I do with any other vandalism. Convince me I'm wrong. Show me what I'm missing. Reveal your secret (and reliable) sources.

Just now, somebody has whacked in a bunch of "WW" values, with no citations, and no edit summaries. I have guessed that "WW" is meant to stand for "worldwide". I cannot guess where the IP editor got them from. I feel compelled to revert; although I want to assume good faith, I am left with the clear impression that the most promiscuous editors of this article are interested only in inflating sales figures, claiming higher than actual chart rankings, and announcing certifications prematurely. They deserve reverting.

I know, this topic is nothing new; see here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly 500,000+ copies sold...

While I'm at it, I'll also mention the use of plus signs when sales figures are quoted. Even when I've seen actual reportage of sales figures (you know: the kind of thing we could use for citation here), they never have a plus sign. What is this supposed to indicate?

If the unsourced and unremarked sales figures are deduced from the certifications, where, for example, a cert for US gold tells us that 500,000 copies must have been sold, then where do we get the authority to say that more than that were sold? We can't assume that (and tell other people that it's undeniably true), because we do not know. It's likely to be true, but so are a lot of other things which we do not claim here on WP. I will be deleting the plus signs unless there's some evidence I shouldn't.

Discussion welcomed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The plus signs just mean that it has sold more than that because it hasn't sold for example 500,000 copies exactly has it its probably sold like 510,000. Plus, can someone sort out the certifications section in the 'Studio Albums' part because on Good Girl Gone Bad with the certifications for CAN and AUS, the references are going down another line which is annoying. PLEASE CAN SOMEONE WIDEN THE LENGTH SO IT ALL FITS ON 1 LINE??! THANKYOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But first of all, "+" isn't a number. Second of all, whatever number we do put ought to be the most accurate one we have sources for. Third, if we know, I mean know the number is more than 500,000, then it's because we have a source for that and we should put that exact number. And "500,000+" isn't an exact number (or any number at all). At the same time, if we have no source so that we can be absolutely sure that the number sold, or shipped, is over the 500,000, then we have no business stating that it is over. The plus signs are lies; let's not use them.

In regards to column width on tables: Wikipedia is on the World Wide Web, and one thing about the WWW is you don't know how wide any user's browser is, or how large their text is, so it's nearly impossible to be sure that lines won't break in a way you find displeasing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I've done it know don't worry. It looks great and I am getting those figures from the album pages thats all nothing else, so if you delete those figures then you should delete the figures on the album pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure right now, because my computer is slogging like an arthritic tortoise right now, but I think I reverted those numbers away again (for all the previously discussed reasons). But generally, if you have reliable sources for the figures on the albums' articles, make sure you have them here, too, when you add the figures here. And if you don't have the sources there, then you shouldn't use the figures either here or on the albums' pages. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does someone keep changing the Irish peak chart position for rude boy to 11 when it is 6??!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for asking. I have a number of separate responses to your query, in no particular order (but numbered for future reference):

1. I am mostly that "someone". Feel free to refer to me by name. Or contact me directly (as I've asked you before).
2. Why do people keep changing it to 6 when the cited source says 11?
3. It's stopped happening for now. The reason: the cited source (http://irish-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Rihanna) now also says "6". This brings the article's claims in line with the reference sources. The galactic harmony is restored; peace envelopes us all.
4. It will probably happen again, with different numbers, and different charts, and likely different songs. The reason will be the same as the reason heretofore: Editors change numbers based on some "knowledge" they have, without making sure the article points to the source for that knowledge. The result looks no different from vandalism to (editors like) me, so the appropriate response is imediate reversion.

I think I reverted this 11-to-6-Irish-peak-for-"Rude Boy" edit about three times. It seems like more but that's because it keeps happening with different charts and different numbers (see #4). When the same numbers keep popping up, I get the idea that the data is coming from somewhere, but the question for me is where? The eventual change of the cited source (#3) suggests that it's bona fide data, but if all the article lists is the one source, and that source is a week or more behind some other source, how can anyone tell the difference between early info, raw invention, and malicious vandalism?

Compounding the situation is the refusal – the repeated, consistent refusal – of editors to provide an edit summary when making such edits. The real solution, however, is to find out, somehow, perhaps by torture or extraordinary rendition, where people are getting the data earlier than the cited sources. If only there were some way... some way for editors to communicate, to talk, or explain their edits. Hmmm... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WHY DOES SOMEONE KEEP CHANGING THE UK RUDE BOY THING AT THE TOP TO 23 WHEN ITS 9 FOR GOD SAKE JUST LEAVE IT ALONE, ITS RIGHT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, Luv, no need to SHOUT. (It would be great, however, if you would deign to sign your comments on Talk pages. Just add four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your text.

Now, to your question: I don't see how you can even ask this here, or why I should bother to respond, since you apparently haven't read any of my explanations in this section. This is clearly a huge waste of time.

Nevertheless, the short explanation is that it keeps getting changed because it has no source. I assume (foolishly, I know) that if you had had a source for the number 9, you (1) would have added it to the article, or at least mentioned it in your edit summary, and (2) not used 8 in the article four minutes later since, as you probably know, 8 is not the same as 9. When these numbers fly around unsourced, they deserve to be reverted. It's that simple. Please get somebody to read and explain this to you, if need be. It's fundamental to the Wikipedia project (and high time you learned it). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it doesnt need a source because it says it on the Rude Boy page its not like i'm putting in any random number. And where do you put the source? the other singles havent got a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It's nice getting to interact with you this way. Let me take your points in order:

• "Well it doesnt need a source..." — It does need a source. Of course it needs a source.
• "...because it says it on the Rude Boy page..." — For one thing, this isn't the "Rude Boy" page, so whatever facts we want to claim here need to be cited here. For another thing, the source cited on the "Rude Boy" page is wrong; instead of 9 (when you started this subthread) or 2 (which is in both articles now, correctly), it says 20! When I'm finished here, I'll go over and change that reference.
• "...its not like i'm putting in any random number." — See, this is the thing: I can't know that. Nobody can. Without a reference, I can't tell a random number from a fact, or a typo, or malicious vandalism. It all looks the same to me. I hope you see this.
• "And where do you put the source? the other singles havent got a source." —They all have sources (references); they are the little blue footnote numbers at the top of each column, just under the country indicator. The US has two of them, and Canada three; the rest just one. And that's where any new sources you have need to go. It's these reference citations that I check every time somebody adds or changes a number. And more often than not (at least recently for the US, Ireland and UK), the number I find at the cited reference is wrong (not yet updated) compared to what some editor added. So I revert. I have to. If you have other good sources that give you the info earlier, add them to the column tops. And we'll be done reverting each other. Yay!

I hope this clears things up for you (and everybody else). Thanks again for discussing it here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Remix albums

The lead and infobox say two remix albums, but the section only lists one. Can someone clarify and fix this, please? Adabow (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The second entry was removed from the table on 11 March 2010 (UTC) by Iluvrihanna24 (talk) without explanation here (and then cleaned up). I wish you good luck in your endeavors to find out why she did that.

Me, I'm still wondering about the claim in the lede that Rihanna "has also provided original recordings for a film soundtrack". What film was that, then? Sources? Etc. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I deleted it because it said the release date was in February and as you can see it is nearly April! Also, there has been no new news about this album so has been identified as only a rumour. Thankyou 82.19.248.157 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are Iluvrihanna24 (talk) (and maybe forgot to log in)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

Why is the studio albums sequence stating certs from only 5 countires for her first three albums, but a lot more for "Rated R"? Reidlos (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Possibly it's one of these two reasons:

1. Rihanna has had more success with Rated R than she did with the previous three. Her fan base is building, so she sells more units, so the current album gets certified (more quickly) in more countries.
2. She's got more fans now, while Rated R is out, and Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

What reason do you think it is? Are you aware of certifications in other countries not shown for, say, Good Girl Gone Bad? And what would make the article more useful? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the obvious reason is that whoever undid my edits wants her last album to look as successful as the previous one compensating the underachieving sales of Rated R in some countries (UK, Canada) by stating as many certifications as possible. I think we should stick to 4 or 5 countries at most... Btw: you comment is EPIC FAIL! Reidlos (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith. - eo (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant information

Seeing as how she's from Barbados, shouldn't there be information on how her music performed there in the article?Josh (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know the country does not have any official music charts and I don't even know if/how music sales are certified there. If someone has a reliable source on it, that would help. - eo (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

SVK

{{editsemiprotected}} Other charted songs - Cry - Slovakia is SVK not SLO fix it! Te Amo also made appearance on Slovak airplay chart - 34th place source: http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparadask/index.php?a=titul&hitparada=18&titul=145735&sec=5aef6b8f8d1342e9731cdae4567e5c16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.248.206 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Per ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, I have corrected SLO to SVK. The second request remains outstanding at this time.  Chzz  ►  18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

DoneThe {{editsemiprotected}} template was misplaced and the request was improperly formatted, but it seems the changes got made anyway, so everybody should be happy now. Template moved up and defused. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let Me

The song Let Me should be listed under other charted songs. It charted in Japan peaking at number 9. thanks:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27ivan (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

July 2010 Changes

This article is supposed to be a featured article and until today would have failed reassessment as it had become a horrible mess of random trivia as well as not following the WP:Manual of style for discographies. I've gone ahead and re-aligned all tables so that each column for charts is equal. I've also reduced the size of the columns as there is no need for such big columns. I've removed the certifications table and put them back into the singles. MOS:DISCOG clearly says "Certifications should appear alongside thier respective singles". Finally I've rewritten the introduction to fairly represent the OVERALL success of the artist. Every single chart achievement doesn't belong in the introduction. It is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the discography NOT a trivia list. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lil-Unique. I agree that this page has become a mess in recent months and was nothing like how it was when I worked on it originally and had it promoted. I'd been considering for some time to simply nominate it at FLRC, as I didn't have the time to work on it myself. Thanks again. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I need some help citing Good Girl Gone Bad: The Remixes was number 4 on the dance/electronic albums, and we ride was 106 on the billboard hot 100, thanks. --Aquabender (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. First of all, how do you know those positions are true? I mean, what gave you the idea that The Remixes was #4? Whatever gave you that idea, wherever you saw that, that'd be your source. Wouldn't it?

Second of all, there is no way "We Ride" or any other song was 106 on the Hot 100.

Thirdly, why didn't you obtain a reliable source first, then edit? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been wotking with other discogs and nominating them for FL, there are still improvements needed to this article including improving the sources and sourcing all the videos. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Charity Singles

Can someone please sort out the Year column in the Charity Singles section please because it looks very unproffesional as it is very wide. Thankyou :) x Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul with table combining, restoration

Hi. One editor just took it upon herselfhimself to combine the Albums tables into one table, and the Singles tables into another, with the singles' certifications shown in a separate (two-part) table. This had a number of problems, among them the lack of discussion or development of consensus, about which I left a note on the user's Talk page. I see that other editors have also found that page and continued a bit of (so far one-sided) discussion there.

After a couple of reversions to points both after and well before this big overhaul (none of which were explained in the edit summaries), I have reverted the reversions to the last pre-overhaul version, namely the one from 01:05, 25 July 2010 by JohnFromPinckney (myself). I had just spent some effort standardizing the column widths using em units instead of px. I took out the "smaller" and <small> instructions, and set the col head font styles to 85%. Not all discog articles use such "large" text sizes for the headings (though some do, or larger), so they may look a bit large to some of you. I'd like to suggest we keep it though, since (1) 85% is still 15% smaller than each user's preferred font size; there's no gain in accessiblity by making them still smaller; and (2) these are supposed to be column headings, it's appropriate that they actually look like them (even though they are actually a bit small).

If there's a strong dissatisfaction with the 85% we can talk about reducing it to say 80%, but let's have some discussion here first. No need for edit-warring. Let's work things out here, and save ourselves a bunch of reverting. Okay? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way it was me and i am a HE not a she. Plus i was just about to revert all my references like you said John and then Candy goes and reverts the whole page without even discussing it!! I have done things you said John but now they have made it look messy! You have to admit it looked better before she changed it back! I AM REALLY ANGRY BECAUSE IT TOOK MY 2 HOURS TO DO! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Iluvrihanna24. First of all, let me apologize for the gender mix-up. Somehow I came to the clear conclusion you were female, and I've been confidently using "she" to refer to you. I don't know where I got that, but I'm sure sorry I got it wrong.

Also, I very well understand that you are angry. I hope the frustration you feel is only temporary. This is exactly the reason (well, one of them) for discussing big changes like this first. I need to point right here, too, that the lack of discussion came from you first, so Candyo32 wasn't required to clear reversions through you first. Candy also had some actual reasons for reverting, and did enunciate them on your Talk page. Take a read through WP:BRD. You were bold, Candy reverted, now we can discuss. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DO YOU KNOW WHAT? I GIVE UP EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA NOW BECAUSE I PROVIDE REFERENCES AND JUST TRY TO MAKE GOOD CHANGES TO RIHANNA ARTICLES BUT NO ITS GOT TO BE THE WIKILEADERS PAGES NOT ANYONE ELSE'S! WHATS THE POINT IN WIKIPEDIA IF ONLY THE WIKILEADERS ARE ALLOWED TO SAY WHATS ON HERE? I DONT JUST SHOVE ANY INFORMATION AND VANDALIZE PAGES, I ADD GOOD INFORMATION WITH GOOD REFERENCES!! I WARN ANYONE ELSE NOT TO USE WIKIPEDIA! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Try not to let your momentary frustration control you. Counteract it with deep breaths, pleasant thoughts, and three-letter acronyms. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I JUST LOOKED ON THE PAGE AND IT LOOKS SOO MESSY! THE CERTIFICATIONS INCORPORATED WITH THE SINGLES LOOKS MESSY AS ALL THE SINGLES ARE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS! PLUS THE CHARTIY SINGLES' YEAR COLUMN'S WIDTH IS LIKE MASSIVE AND IT LOOKS STUPID! IT LOOKS SO MESSY NOW I MADE IT LOOK TIDY AND NEAT! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not SHOUT, as it becomes very hard to read. Also, there is no such thing as 'Wikileaders', and everything is decided by consensus and policy (which is also determined by consensus).

Personally I find that the certifications incorporated with the singles is fine, except that the album titles are a bit squished in the far column. Iluvrihanna24's point (different row heights) is valid, but I fear that removing the certifications will only confuse people more. Please stop any reformatting until there is agreement. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about the column widths on the Charity singles table. The columns are defined the same as on all the other tables. The Year column is defined with no specified width (the same as the others). Maybe it's because you're looking at it on an iPod, and it shows the Charity table differently because that table has fewer columns to keep the year compressed? Does anybody else see this? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, lets talk about this rationally. If you have accessibility issues e.g. the columns etc are not showing up properly then please discuss it here rather than just reverting/editing without discussion. John I've checked a few FLs and I think 75% seems to be the norm. (!style="width:3em;font-size:75%;"). Perhaps this would solve Illuvrihanna24's issue? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Rationally" is always good. Even if I'm not always rational. And anyway, I invited the discussion. Yes, I know that a lot (probably more than 80%, just guessing) of articles use 75%. I respect the value of standardization, even though I think we are standardizing on the wrong thing.

For large tables (and here I'm thinking not just of tables with single names left and certs and albums right, but also some of the older tables before MOS:DISCOG cut its recommendation from 18 to 10 max charts), it's worthwhile to find ways to reduce unnnecessary width. Applying <small> to those repeated column headings was an obvious and oft-used technique. Now, I think the CSS 75% has succeeded <small> because the two usually look about the same in most browsers.

However, let's think about what "font-size:75%" means. It means, whatever normal size you prefer to see in your browser (or iPod, whatever), we insist on this text being 25% smaller. It's like saying, "Dude, we want you to have trouble reading this." Before my change, incidentally, we had, I think, <small> on <small> for some of the multiple footnote links, and they really were not legible on my screen (no matter how close I got).

My secret agenda (sshhh!) is to slowly and subtly encourage the use of more reasonably-sized text in WP's music tables. Possibly (nay, probably), I need to argue this at MOS:DISCOG, although they don't specifically address this little detail. I think they just happen to have examples with 75% (per above).

What I'd like to see (heh) is legible column headings, marked up as such. If they're headings, they ought to be entered as headings !Title, !U.S., !CAN, etc. This isn't a problem here, but i've seen articles which just use regular cells, bolded: |'''Title, |'''U.S.''', etc.

What's "legible" for people varies from person to person (and maybe depending on their device), but we should avoid diverging from their preferred size as much as possible. I've seen 85%, 80%, and 75% (also 65% once, ickk!), and I'm comfortable with the 85%. Full size (100%) just looks too big, even on a two-chart table. 90% is okay for me, too, but I know we shouldn't get too far away from what people are used to.

Do you (and others) really hate the 85%? If so, would you be willing to try 80%? Or are you (all) against it in principle?

I don't think the 85% has anything to do with Iluvrihanna24's issue, to the extent that I understand it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an issue or preference personally. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss. Nothing was wrong with the article, for crying out loud it was a featured article and was passed looking like this, and was up to par with other FL's. It seems like IluvRihanna's main concern is that they want to combine the album and singles tables and move the certs from beside the singles, and I'm sorry but that is not the way the FL's are and isn't how Rihanna discography was promoted. What one user thinks does not take precedence. Candyo32 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sales column to be deleted

I'm sorry to be always complaining, but the recent good-faith addition of a "Sales" column to the Albums table is the concern here. A (long) discussion some months ago led to consensus that these things shouldn't be shown in the chart tables, for one reason because the figures given are typically poorly sourced, for another because it's usually unclear whether the figures actually refer to sales or shipments. The U.S. RIAA, for example, certifies based on shipments, rather than sales. The result of those discussions was that it's best to delete these columns.

I haven't deleted the recently added column (yet), for reasons of neighborliness, and also to preserve the references for a short time. If somebody wants to takes those figures and refs, and incorporate them into the text, then that would be just fine. Otherwise, I think they need to go away, and I'll delete the column pretty soon if nobody else does. That is, of course, unless wildly convincing arguments in favor of preserving this one column come out uppermost in a wide-ranging consensus-developing discussion. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I kind of agree (I was briefly involved in the discussion) it was my belief that the change was never authorised for Discogs. According to MOS:DISCOG it actually recommends the inclusion of sales columns last time I checked this type of thing. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree sales should be removed. But it should also be brought up for consensus on the Discography WikiProject I guess or the MoS idk. The HQ discogs Pink discography, Girls Aloud discography, Lily Allen discography do not make use of sales. Candyo32 00:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They should be removed but the issue needs to be addressed as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style because MOS:DISCOG still permits the use of it. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

a "Sales" column can be included in the albums table if they are sourced reliably, kept an eye on and people don't start adding stuff from forums and places like that, and also as long as it doesnt get silly and people start adding sales from every country in the world. they are included in the recently promoted FL Spice Girls discography, but they adhere to the above points. Mister sparky (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 8 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Billboard, Discogs and many reputable websites do not have Rihanna's Rehab Single as featuring Justin Timberlake. He is featured in the song, but his name is not included on her cd single or on the official billboard website. Therefore he is not a feature in the song. Only Rihanna is credited.

173.181.32.223 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

2 Things Need To Be Changed

Good Girl Gone Bad: The Remixes charted at 4 on the dance/electronic albums, and we ride charted on the hot 100 at 106. --Aquabender (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

106 is not a chart position on the Hot 100. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

German Charts ?

Why aren't the positions of the German Albums Chart and the positions of the German Singles Chart given? Germany is one of the most important music markets (next to the UK and the USA) and more interesting than countries like Finland or Austria (nothing against our neighbours ; ) !

Please add it! --79.216.189.122 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Because there is already 10 charts and those are the maximum allowed. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 15:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Than, we should delay one chart that is not that important... I'd say that the ones, that have to be in, are: USA, UK, Japan, Germany and Australia... Those ones are the most important! Countries that might be in too, could be: France, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and Finland... By the way: Here, there are 14 charts given, so why not here? --79.216.189.122 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Because MOS:DISCOG clearly says 10 charts. and there isn't an issue with the current charts. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I support. German is one of the biggest music markets in the world. It could be switched with Finland or Austria, since Germany is more relevant than those countries (in music markets, no offense). Decodet (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't realise Austria was included and Germany isn't. If that's the case Germany should replace Austria. Sorry i wasn't trying to be patriotic (I'm from the UK so none of the other countries have any special affiliation to me). I just have a dislike for the switching of countries in discogs because an artist performed better in another country or because the user requesting the change is from another country. But yes in terms of music markets Germany is much more significant and should be included. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I can do that. :) Decodet (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

yes germany should definitely be included. Mister sparky (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Shut up and drive" reached No. 6 in Germany, not No. 38 source. --79.216.217.79 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Several Mistakes and Additions

Ok, I was going to point this out, released in the US and Canada was for Break It Off (No longer Hard now), and Rockstar 101 i sonly US, but it's good someone changed it. Someone should add a note to hard, officially released in the us as the 2nd single and uk as fourth. Rehab is ft. justin timberlake. He has been credited by rihanna, and it also says in the music video's title, so please add that back, because it's the same thing w/rockstar 101 for slash. We Ride has charted at 106 on bubbling under hot 100, so that needs to change as well. Also, Let Me is most likely a single, but Billboard does keep much history of the Japan Hot 100, so someone plz find a source ASAP for Let Me at #8 and intended to be a worldwide single too. One last thing, I'm not sure if Te Amo is a worldwide single. So far, it is been released in every place but the US and Canada (Officially, but charted due to digital sales) (Mainly released in Europe.

Thanks, and please fix these things ASAP. :) --Aquabender (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Love the way you lie reached No. 2 this week in Germany, so please change it! source--79.216.157.204 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pon De Replay - EP

I was on iTUnes, and I found that RIhanna released an EP of Pon De Replay, so someone please check it out, and add it, thanks. :) --Aquabender (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean this? It's not a proper EP, but its like a feature-length single. It should be added to Pon de Replay (if its not there already), but not here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dance singles column

Can a Dance singles column be added? I don;t know how to do it but Rihanna is quickly racking up #1 dance hits and I think it warrants having a column.

Here's the breakdown of her dance hit:

Pon de Replay - #1 SOS - #1 Unfaithful - #1 We Ride - #1 Umbrella - #1 Shut Up And Drive - #1 Don't Stop The Music - #1 Take A Bow - #14 Disturbia - #1 Breaking Dishes - #4 Russian Roulette #1 Hard - #1 Rude Boy - #1 Rockstar 101 - #2

Source - http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/rihanna/chart-history/658897?f=359&g=Singles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.10.62.253 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the table's plenty full already, as we try to keep the chart count to ten or below. See WP:DISCOGSTYLE. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, genre charts are generally included for established artists of the respective genre. Rihanna is not an established dance artist. –Chase (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Misc. comments

Not sure why certain people get to run this page. Only Girl debuted at 75 on the US charts and someone removed that milestone. I don't understand why people get to run this and nothing is done about it.

Also, Rihanna's number one dance singles should be part of her single discography.

Get with it people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.247.33 (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Only Girl's US peak was added back. There is no need for the dance chart in this discography. Rihanna, unlike, say, Madonna or Kylie Minogue, is not an established dance artist. If anything, the US R&B chart should be included. While I am not opposed to adding that, there would need to be a consensus among the editors of this page. And frankly, Rihanna does not have a large amount of high-peaking R&B singles, so I doubt consensus would be in favor of that. And generally, the number of territory peaks are kept at 10. I don't think having 11 to include a component of a chart already here would be an issue, but again, there should be consensus before adding another. –Chase (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Love the Way You Lie" peaks in Germany

Love the way you lie reached No. 2 in Germany, so please change it! source--79.216.157.204 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done with updated refs for the German column of that table. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This week, LtWYL finally reached No. 1 in Germany source. Please add! --79.216.218.63 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlabeled question from 99.185.247.33

Who keeps getting rid of the chart performances for "Only Girl in the World"?? WTF...I hate wikipdia!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.247.33 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yearly column

Why are the yearly columns in the chart tables after the single title columns now? It's very visually unappealing, and this is the only article I've seen on wiki that's doing this. It's also unnecessary and annoying to list the same year every time, opposed to just using the rowspan feature. Roller Co-star (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

These are the new guidelines set out at WP:DISCOGSTYLE to satisfy WP:ACCESS, and there are several other articles on Wikipedia like this. Feel free to join the discussion at WT:DISCOGSTYLE! Yves (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Who's That Chick?" video

Should the "Who's That Chick?" video be included here? The section title says "released", and it wasn't; just leaked. Yves (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, is that what the problem was? I've seen "Who's That Chick?" get added and deleted a few times, so I was a bit surprised when this addition didn't get reverted. If it's a questionable addition to you then go ahead and remove it. Anyway, isn't it really only a freaking Doritos commercial? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of the edit warring. I think I will go and remove it, and if it is a Doritos commercial, that's more of a reason for its exclusion, as that certainly doesn't make it a music video. Yves (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a commercial normally under one minute long? This is for a Doritos campaign, not a commercial, but it is indeed still her music video, so it should be added. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 11:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely the video(s) (note there are two versions) should be included because they were confirmed and filmed videos. Remember earlier discussions were we established that discographies are not just for released singles but other notable ones too? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The day version is unconfirmed and unreleased. Holding the bag of Doritos to your webcam only gives you the night. Yves (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If I don't edit Wikipedia for the next few hours it's because I am contemplating this statement. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to inform you in advance that the Late Night All Nighter Cheeseburger chips taste nothing like cheeseburgers. Yves (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Any objects to me adding them? Speak now, or revert later. :P ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The day video has not been released. Yves (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

A number of dead and redirect links now infect the article. Concerned editors please take up the issue as per the Checklinks tool as the article is a FL. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

GGGB Live

I have been fixing some dead links, and according to Billboard, Good Girl Gone Bad Live never charted. Can someone enlighten me as to why there is a #6 in the list? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All I can do is point you to its addition at 17:13, 26 February 2009 by Matthewedwards. Despite the alpha-reordering of the countries, the numbers haven't changed since then (momentary vandalism excepted). I know diddly about DVD charts, but I'm guessing we'll have to go to (Google-ized archives of) Billboard paper magazines for a usable ref. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It was no. 10 (up from 18) in its 19th week shown in the 2009-03-07 issue. It'd be nice to see the 2009-03-14 issue, or at least the 2009-03-21 issue, to see if it was really trending upwards or had already had its day. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

From the 2009-03-14 issue and my search results, I get the impression that maybe Top Music Videos isn't/wasn't printed every week.

Page 48 of the 2009-03-21 issue includes the Top Music Videos chart, but GGGB Live isn't on the list of 25. Must have been earlier then. Looking... — JohnFromPinckney (talk)

Well, that was fun. I've learned a few things today: Billboard prints its Top Music Videos only every second issue; the Top Music Videos is apparently available to Billboard.biz clients every week (although I can't confirm that); not all of Billboard's issues are archived for searching and display by Google (some are missing).

See what you think of this: It seems that GGGB Live debuted at No. 6 in the chart week 2010-08-02. The Aug. 9, 2008, issue shows it in its second week at No. 12, up from 6. That's on page 56 of Billboard, August 9, 2008, vol. 120, no. 32. If you have billboard.biz access, however, you may be able to show an online reference. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't researching through old Billboard archives fun? I spent a couple of hours at the library so I could reference the physical magazine to several discographies [yes, including that of the Glee Cast; if you're wondering, I did solve my problem (:]. Just a tip for future reference because I saw you flipping through many issues: if you search at the billboard.biz archives for video charts, enter your search query (i.e. "good girl gone bad live"), and then select the bullet for "Peak Position" beside "Date", it tells you the week of its peak! Helpful to save time in the future, and less flipping! :) So to respond to your open statement, I believe using the August 9, 2008 issue is perfectly fine because it does indeed show the peak. Yves (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to keep you on your toes! :P It seems the ref link doesn't work any more. I guess it stopped when Billboard redesigned their site. I'm glad to see that your research confirmed me, though, John! I'd be horrified to learn I added something that was wrong! Thanks for the tips, Yves, as well! Matthewedwards :  Chat  13:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the digging guys! Wow that's hard to read! To me it looks like it was at #1 "last week" in the magazine, but I'm probably wrong. Could someone add the ref, please, and there'll only be a couple of links to fix! Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't find a ref for the Canadian peak (10) of "Just Stand Up!". There's a hole in the string of archived Billboard issues in which the September 20, 2008, issue is missing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Canadian singles

I am checking chart positions, and there is a gap if the chart archives between allmusic and Billboard. "Pon de Replay", "Unfaithful" and "Break It Off" need sourcing. If someone could dig some sources up it would be much appreciated :). Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what their peaks are? The magazine only publishes the top twenty(?), if I'm not mistaken. Yves (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

They are on the article. Also the German website has no mention of "Umbrella". Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it features Jay-Z. Yves (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Whataya know? Yves (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Yves! I've got to go now but I'll add it later if no-one else does. All the chart positions need to be checked, and I have done Australia, Canada, Finland, France and Germany (only singles in Germany). Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! And regarding those Canadian singles, it's because the Canadian Hot 100 didn't exist then. Yves (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Order of Album Charts

Rihanna is NOT an American artist. She is a Barbadian artist. Why do people keep putting her US charts first and messing up the structure of the entire page? This is exactly why this page is about to be delisted from the featured articles. I'm confused as to why these edits keep happening. (mikomango (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

Because everyone's so Americentric all the time. Yves (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yves darling, is it just me or is that a MESS? Does it not occur to American people that America is not the centre of the universe? Rihanna is not an American. I wish this crap wasn't happening, it makes it so hard to keep this wiki on the featured list! (mikomango (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

Promotional Singles Vs. Other Charted SIngles

Someone needs to change this, and re-add the promotional singles to the discography, because Wait Your Turn was a promotional single, and Breakin' Dishes should be re-added to this also. In addition with Promotional Singles, someone should add UK R&B and US R&B sections again to the other charted songs section, and merge the 2 'A Girl Like Me' other charted songs. Thanks. --Aquabender (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand why the two A Girl like Me songs need to be merged... they are not the same song. Yves (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant "merge the album titles" in the table. Decodet (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? They don't go in that order. Yves (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Fly question"

Shouldn't be Fly by Nicki Minaj and Rihanna added to Rihanna discography as other charted song? For example Nicki Minaj discography article includes the song Raining Men and its position on UK chart, or it includes the song Dark Fantasy from Kanye Wests new album and its position in BB Hot 100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.31.38.229 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done: thanks! Yves (talk) 07:33, 4 December 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) 02:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe on the artist page, but not here. From what it looks like, that chart simply ranks artist popularity and doesn't have to do with album or song sales at all, so it wouldn't belong on a discography. Yves (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I got shut down on the artist page by John from Pickney (sic). He says it's gimmicky for now and we ought to wait to see what develops with the actual chart itself. Thoughts? Is it simply not relevant yet? mikomango (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it's only been out for a week, and I'm not sure how relevant it will be in, say, a year from now. Things could change all the time (there could be a different top artist every week), and I guess the chart wouldn't be very reliable if someone hypothetically decides to play a bunch of videos or tweet a lot about a particular artist. Yves (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree the addition of any charts, which is based on social media in general. They are grossly violation of WP:V, is fan-manipulative, and is actually disruptive if you look deep. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"got shut down"? You make it sound like I held you down on the wet ground of the alley with my boot on the back of your neck! And the "John from Pickney" isn't as sic as he seems, honest; take a closer look.

Meanwhile, back at the topic, I agree that the Social 50 has no business being on the Discography, even if it's globally recognized as a true and meaningful indicator of artist popularity (and of course, it's not yet). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't mean to make you sound like a b!tch, I swear! I'm sorry, LOL! So yeah... if this chart ever becomes worth a damn, we'll maybe integrate it somewhere into the Rihanna main article, like "In December 2010, Rihanna became the inaugural chart-topper of the Social 50"? But if not...then it's not important? For, now, this is all we've got anywhere on Wikipedia to prove that the chart even exists. The more I look into it, the more it seems like this chart may be pretty lame eventually. mikomango (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.51.33.51, 12 December 2010

{{subst:edit semi-protected}} Sales of the Rated R in the U.S. have already exceeded 1 million for a long time, considering that the last time the complete list of the Billboard 200 was leaked, the album was already 1,002,000 +. Thank you!

189.51.33.51 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Yves (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Who's That Chick

WTC reached No. 6 in Germany, not No. 14 as written on the table, please change that :) ! source

PS: There's something wrong with the sources... Well the one I wrote is the first one, and the source for WTC that is already given, shows second and third week chart position of the song... Could you add that? It's: 6-14-15 so far!

--79.216.175.246 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for pointing out the separate musicline.de entries. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Certifications

Is it okay if we delete all the New Zealand certifications under her albums and singles? New Zealand is a very small market, and other markets like Canada, France, Germany, etc. are much bigger. It takes up a lot of room and maybe limit it to Australia, U.S, and U.K.? I'm going to delete it for now, if there are any questions, just let me know. Remember, I'm just trying to make it look less messy!

--okredgreen (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How does it look messy? I don't think it looks messy. The certifications present are of the markets of the peaks present, which is why they are there. Yves (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is a very small market (and please, cite your source), a certification is still an achievement. Please restore it, it's not okay to remove without discussion beforehand. The NZ certs were vetted, approved and accepted during FL and FLRC nominations; to remove the NZ ones is a bit unfair considering the Irish certs are set to the same threshold, and they've been left in; the certs cells aren't huge or causing a lot of whitespace; and we aren't even listing the French, German, etc ones. Add those and it might be worth considering, until then, it isn't. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

California King Bed

this song charted in the UK last sunday at number 192 according to ChartsPlus, could it be added to the "other charted songs"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.2.119 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What's my Name

WmN debuted at No. 12 in Germany source...

Please add this, thanks!

Little question besides: Will it be able to reach the Top Ten as previous singles did? --79.216.212.250 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done! Decodet (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's That Chick

The peak position in Finnland is 5 not 11 http://finnishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=David+Guetta+feat.+Rihanna&titel=Who%27s+That+Chick%3F&cat=s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.84.42 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What's my Name

The peak position in Germany is 12, not 3! --79.216.217.154 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"All Of The Lights" (Kanye) - Edit Question

I understand that RiRi isn't credited with an actual appearance on this track, but everyone knows she was a part of the final cut. I mean...she's the first voice you hear on the song. How do we educate readers about this? She was a part of this, so...where does that go? Just wondering. Cheers!!! (mikomango (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Guest appearances, I guess. It's just background vocals, though, and I don't think they're in discographies, so I'm reluctant to add it. For example, Lady Gaga discography doesn't have "Murder My Heart" with Michael Bolton and Kesha discography doesn't have "Nothing in This World" with Paris Hilton. Yves (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand. I guess it's enough that she's listed on the vocals of the My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy article, but...maybe we'll have to wait to see if they shoot a separate video? Or if she begins performing it with him? Even then, I guess we'd have to list it under the promotional appearances for the song itself after an official release, right? Either way, my friend and I were watching the Macy's thing online and she asked me who sang the hook for All Of The Lights and I replied, "well, it seems as though you MOSTLY hear Rihanna even though there are like 1000 people on it" so I wondered...where is the space on Wikipedia for Rihanna lovers to learn this? I'm reluctant too, especially if the physical pressing of the album doesn't credit her anywhere, but...I still feel some kind of way. *shrug* (mikomango (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Actually, the physical pressing—one of which is in my hands right now :D—does credit her with "additional vocals", along with KiD CuDi, Tony Williams, The-Dream, Charlie Wilson, John Legend, Elly Jackson (La Roux), etc. Regarding your earlier question, I doubt they're shooting a separate video, even though the song is expected to see a single release, because it was already in the music video for "Runaway" ft. Pusha T. Rihanna is prominently featured, and you can also hear verses by KiD CuDi and Fergie, as well as Alicia Keys's "Oh-whoaaa"s and Elton John's piano in the second half of the song. There's actually so many people, Elly Jackson can't even pick out her own voice. Maybe it could have a sentence or two in the Rihanna article? Yves (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I say we should put it under guest appearances, and have backing vocals in small text beside it. Ending-start (talk · contribs) 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I love it! Both votes make sense to me....a sentence or two in the Rihanna article, and then the guest appearances ONLY if it charts (and kids are dancing to it in the club and they want to know if that's Rihanna they hear -- and turn to Wikipedia to make sure). I mean, we all know Rihanna is the first voice you hear after the interlude and over the horns, but you're right...if Elly doesn't know where the hell she is, it doesn't make sense to put it on the discography until (and if) it becomes, you know, an actual hit record. (PS - Alicia Keys OH-WHOAAAA warble at the end of that song is the most gratuitous part for me! LOL) (mikomango (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

In the official music video, it says that Rihanna is a featured artist? Can put AOTL under her singles as a featured artist, instead of her guest appearances? Even though the album doesn't credit her as a featured artist, the single and music video does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.241.23 (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the Lights

Needs to be added to the featured songs section, as it is a single. calvin999 (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Rihanna is officially credited in that song. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

She is credited on the single version, and also appears in the music video. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true. it's an official single which she is credited on. As if someone like rihanna will be uncredited for main vocals!calvin999 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What's my Name

The peak position in Germany is 12, not 3! --79.216.217.154 (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.186.193 (talk)

Raining Men

How does everyone feel about the inclusion of "Raining Men" in Rihanna's singles discography? Personally, I don't think it should be included in the singles chart as it wasn't released commercially or given a full radio release (released only to urban radio). If it was given a full radio release then I could see it being included. Instead, I think it should be included as a promotional single. Let me know what you all think :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.41.34 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Why is this listed as a single? it should be a PROMOTIONAL single. It wasn't given a full radio release.. Can someone change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.241.23 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

i agree, its not necesery, it has no music video, not released in non of the countries thats shown, and it think rihanna never mentioned that raining men as the third single, it should be included in other single or promo, rihanna herself said that S&M is her third single. ITS NOT A SINGLE, GET IT??!!, IT WAS NEVER RELEASED AS A SINGLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.98.39 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It got release history for purchase and radio adds, and it charted, so it does constitute a single.calvin999 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I Agree, Raining Men should be under promotional singles. --92.16.123.11 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Was released to urban radio only. And yes it charted but that does not constitute a single. Many songs chart and are never released as singles. Until this song receives a full radio release, then I believe it to be a promo-single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.41.34 (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC) [

I was going to start a discussion about it but I noticed there is already one about it. I agree that Raining Men should be under promotional singles because it was not released in all radios, only in urban radios, so it's not a full single but an urban single only. A proof can be found here: http://www.webcitation.org/5wcgAfNTD. It's not listed anywere, while Rihanna's other singles are. Also, I went though Raining Men's article and the references about the urban add are not working anymore. There is no music video either... does any one else has other opinions about it? Decodet (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that an R&B/Urban song can never be a single? You're also suggesting that songs which are not released to mainstream radio and don't have a music video are not singles. There have been so many discussions about this. The conclusion is that if a song is released to radio in the United States this is classified as a single release... because labels have to pay for the release and it is independent of the album. Labels choose not to film music videos for all sorts of reasons and a few album tracks have recieved music videos. a MV is not a qualifying factor for single release, but any independent release is. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Read carefully. We are suggesting that it is a promotional SINGLE, still a single but a different kind. Take a look at the wiki page for the song "Dance In The Dark" by Lady Gaga. Clearly the song was released to radio and as a digital download (overseas), but is classified as a promotional single. Explain to me why that song would be considered promotional and "Raining Men" would not. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.41.34 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Roll It + Shy Ronnie 2: Ronnie and Clyde

Is there some reason why J. Status's 2007 "Roll It" featuring Rihanna is not in the list of music videos? The music video list does seem to include videos where she's just a featured performer, like "All of the Lights" and "Love the Way You Lie". Winstonwolf33 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm I'm not certain about that. Do you happen to know the director of that video, by any chance? Yves (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Vashtie KolaWinstonwolf33 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC) + Shy Ronnie 2: Ronnie & Clide video was released on iTunes and on official The Lonely Island youtube channel on May 10 - http://itunes.apple.com/us/music-video/shy-ronnie-2-ronnie-clyde/id435845175 , so it should be added too. It was directed by Akiva Schaffer source: http://www.thelonelyisland.com/video/ronnie-and-clyde

California King Bed

CKB debuted at No. 103 this week in the USA (No. 3 on Bubbling Under). Please include :) ! --79.216.168.105 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

S & M Remix

The song S& M should be be listed as "featuring Britney Spears" as that was the version that went to number 1 and is credited as such by billboard. see this article http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-britney-spears-rihanna-hits-1005150552.story?page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.49.155 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The single version is the album version, not the remix even though Billboard credits it as the current charting version. That's my opinion anyway. Decodet (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

CKB and Raining Men Have Charted In The UK

CKB officially charted in the UK at 192 in January before it was released. Source: http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/110122cluk.txt Raining Men has also charted in the UK at 142 right after the album was released. Source: http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/101127cluk.txt

These are official chart positions so should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.39.148 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

California King Bed

CKB debuted at No. 103 this week in the USA (No. 3 on Bubbling Under).SOURCE Please include :) ! --79.216.168.105 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.168.84 (talk)

There's no source there... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides, we don't use Bubbling Under Charts in discographies. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why this? It's always been done and it's e.g. at Wait Your Turn's chart performance so why not at CKB? --79.216.162.194 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

California King Bed NOT a single

Please note that without an official release date, "California King Bed" can not be called a single. Once theres a release date (radio or digital outlet) it can be moved to the 'singles' section. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Certification

Loud is Platinum in Germany now.... Same source as the previous one! --79.199.19.100 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Loud

Loud is 5x Platinum in Ireland, please include (source= Wiki page of Loud) --79.199.25.184 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Singles

Can 'Raining Men' and 'Man Down' be removed from the singles list because they both haven't been officially released as singles yet? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieStockwell (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Both have already been released to radios. Decodet (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Singles

Man Down climbs to No. 59 this week in the USA. Please change it therefore! --79.199.16.58 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

CKB climbs to No. 52 in the US... Please change it! --79.199.38.6 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

GOODBYE

Why in her song list is nothing said about her song Goodbye? Is this not her single? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.214.221 (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Shy Ronnie 2- Ronnie & Clyde (Feat. Rihanna) in VideoClip List

Rihanna is in the videoclip of The Lonley Island "Ronnie & Clyde" and I suppose that it must be listed in her video list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.214.221 (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Man Down

Man Down has actually reached #54 in the UK charts in a previous week. Look at the previous week chart position, it is currently at #59: http://www.theofficialcharts.com/singles-chart/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.111.116 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should add a 'radio singles' section and move Man Down & Raining men to there since they were never released as proper singles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.179.219 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

They were released as proper singles. What singles are released in physical form in this day and age? Amac123 (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

No. 67 in the UK http://www.theofficialcharts.com/singles-chart/ --79.199.24.251 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Need source for LOUD's WW sales being 5mill

Dear User:Ericorbit, You locked the Rihanna Discography page.
Pls add a tag for Rihanna's current cd "Loud" having sold 5mill WW.
The source presently is " http://toyazworld.com/2011/07/24/rihanna-confirms-cheers-as-the-next-single-cheers/" which is a fan blog.
We need a source like soundscan or BB. Thanks. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna's 15 #1 Dance hits

Hello.

I am a huge fan of Rihanna and I noticed that one of her recent hits, "California King Bed" is currently number one on the Dance Club Charts. Since Rihanna is racking up number ones on the dance club play chart at a fast pace (she already has 15 #1 dance hits) can we add a column in her singles discography that calls out the her dance hits? Madonna's discography does this as well. I have outlined Rihanna's 15 #1's below and also the songs that did not peak at number one.

I would really appreciate this:) Please email me at [email protected] if you;d like to discuss.

2005 - Pon De Replay - #1 2006 - SOS - #1

         - Unfaithful - #1

2007 - We Ride - #1

         - Umbrella - #1
         - Don't Stop the Music - #1
          - Shut Up and Drive - #1

2008 - Disturbia - #1

          - Take a Bow - #14
         - Breaking Dishes - #8

2010 - Russian Roulette - #1

          - Hard - #1
          - Rude Boy - #1
          - Rockstar - #2
          - Only Girl - #1

2011 - Who's that Chick - #1

          - What's My Name - #6
          - S&M - #1
          - California King Bed - #1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmaciejewski (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 

Cheers

... Gold in Australia; source=ARIA

Please add! --79.199.62.117 (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sixth Studio Album?

I added a column for Rihanna's upcoming sixth studio album, which has been confirmed by multiple sources, and I backed it up with a source. Someone deleted it.

I found this strange, since it is common in discography pages to include columns for albums that have not been released yet, as long as they have a source to verify the edit on the column. I also found it strange since the main article on Rihanna mentions her upcoming sixth album multiple times.

Can someone explain why it was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.162.83 (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Chronology

Technically, "Cheers" should be listed after "We Found Love". The latter was released on September 22, 2011 and "Cheers" will be released tomorrow, September 26. Pancake (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Duration: 00:03:59
• Format: MP3
• Quality: 320 kbps
• Size: 9.56 MB
• Album: Now That's What I Call R&B

As a part of a compilation album. The website is mistaken. — Status {^talk_contribs  00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Pancake (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)