Talk:Talk That Talk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Producer

Hey Calvin and Tomica great work on this page so far and well done at saving it (I'm pretty sure it was you two - sorry if it wasn't). However I don't think that Calvin Harris would have produced the entire album otherwise he would be listed as a featured artist on every song - just like We Found Love - which is unlikely as that would be more like a collaboration album. Muthamonster (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, however he produced the first song, so it's obvious that he will be one of the main producers of the album :) ! Let's stay like this. When more info comes, we will of course update it. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 15:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I did. Thanks. He has produced a song, and possibly others, thus he is a producer of the album. When the tracklising is revealed, then more names will be added to the producers list. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
He's the only confirmed producer, so he would be the only listed in the infobox. That doesn't mean he produced the entire album. — Status {talkcontribs  22:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
No one said he produced the album in it's entirety. Producers of the tracks on the album are always listed in the info box. Can't help that no other songs credits have been released. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
"I don't think that Calvin Harris would have produced the entire album" — Status {talkcontribs  20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
He hasn't, but he is the only producer that we know of at the moment, thus he is listed as one of the producers. I don't know how else to say it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom release date

I don't think that an off-the-cuff comment from a Capital FM DJ is a solid source for the UK release date of the album. I suggest that this be removed until we find some concrete evidence that this is the release date, in accordance with WP:RELIABLESOURCES. SplashScreen (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Capital FM is a reliable source. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Context is key; blanket statements can not be attributed to any organisation. Lets suppose that a man is interviewed on the BBC saying that the world is going to end on Tuesday. His words aren't reliable simply because they were broadcast on the BBC. The fact that a random Capital FM DJ mentioned the release date in passing, added to the fact that there is not one other reliable source claiming that 21/11 is the UK release date, makes this extremely unreliable. SplashScreen (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't [1] also give the same date? Hobit (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That does not include details of a UK release date. SplashScreen (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-added the template; I do not feel that these concerns have been moderately answered. SplashScreen (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm missing something. Where is there a UK release date in the article? Hobit (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The edit semi-protected template is for notifying autoconfirmed editors of an uncontroversial edit that already has consensus. It's not for attracting editors to a content dispute. There are now eyes on your request, and when consensus is reached one of the participants can reflect it in the article. Please don't reopen this edit request. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the UK release date as a reliable source could not be found. SplashScreen (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

COVER

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/311900_10150325777251676_10092511675_8386791_804367199_n.jpg

just announced on facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.243.10 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Added it. Horrible. Omg ! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Horrible? I love it! Titles not so great tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebagain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I love the title and the cover! Huge Rihanna fan. Do you think it is possible to put the deluxe edition cover on here as well because it is a different image and it is also credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.11.23 (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, putting that cover on here would be necessary.Don't know how tho. I'm a fan, too. r u excited???? I AM!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebagain (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition Cover

Critics have commented on the video and given a description of it, which is included in the prose. I think it should be included in the info box. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think that. + the cover is drastically different than the cover from the standard edition of the album. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
So...why is it not a part of this article yet?--mikomango mwa! 04:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, at first time it was, but Nathan removed it. Then I asked him, why he had removed, cause it's very different that the standard one. He responded it has to serve some purpose and help the reader understand something. By this he meant some lawsuit or provocativity. He point me Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster (which has two covers uploaded), but I couldn't understand why that article has two covers cause the second one has nothing what I said above. + they are too similar, you can see by yourself. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 08:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Here you know only about some critical reviews... Go and see that of Beyonce's album 4. There is much more information on who photographed it, how was the set arranged and the dress Beyonce wears by designed by whom? Yet, the deluxe cover was removed and deleted twice. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 08:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well please read this, and tell me why in this case the both covers can be included... Cause I don't really understand ...? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It does not deserve to have two covers. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 09:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Really ! If it deserves them, that Talk That Talk and 4 also and maybe more. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
No, actually i meant that The Fame Monster does not deserve tow covers. I do not know why it is there. I read the artwork section but there is nothing great to validate its inclusion. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 09:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well to be honest, I don't think TFM deserves one either, its just there was a small "consensus" to include it. If all four of us agree to remove it, then we can just remove that one as well. I mean, regarding this album, what do we really gain from the extra photo? Aside from eye candy?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I understood you Jivesh:) So for that I wrote Really ! (with ! and not with ?) :D ! Yeah that is the same I think ! Well Nathan, we got something completely different from the original + the both of them were noted as provocative. And maybe some extra information will come in future... — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
You are right Nathan. If it remains, i would also like to have some eye candies for Beyonce's articles. Lol. Frankly, who would not? But we have rules here and we have to abide by them. Ooops, sorry Tommy. You know i take sooooooooooooo long to understand. See you later guys. Happy editing. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 09:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well the article says "The standard edition artwork features Rihanna "[licking] her coral red hued lips, posing in a camouflage sleeveless shirt with the album title tatted on her right arm", whilst the deluxe edition artwork shows the singer "[blowing] out a puff of smoke" and is shot in black and white." I, the reader, does not understand what 'blowing out a puff of smoke' and 'black and white' means because I lack imagination. If only the deluxe cover was included in the article so that I can see what the writer meant. Shame. 81.105.56.133 (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You don't need imagination. Common sense tells you that she is blowing smoke out of her mouth and the cover is black and white. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
In that case, let's not have the regular edition cover on the article since the text explains what's happening. People will just use their common sense. 81.105.56.133 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep it cool Calvin. Novice7 (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's true lol. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I say that it should be in the article. Even if it hasn't sturred up controversy yet, it will. She's blowing smoke out of her mouth for heaven's sakes! — Status {talkcontribs 12:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It is... Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ive removed the cover again. The main cover is the only one that is needed, the deluxe cover is irrelevant and fails WP:NFCC 3 and 8. The Fame Monster is a rare exception where an album gets two covers because both covers are the standard edition and are used interchangeably. You can buy both physically and depending where you are from only one cover may be available. Until a valid reason other than simply text can be given as to why an image that fails copyright laws is allowed it will continue to be removed. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Added it back. Please refer to the FUR on the file page: "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." The album will be released with both covers, and especially as deluxe edition albums generally sell more than standard edition albums these days, it's important that we have the alternate here for identification. And the two covers are extremely different from one another, if this were a, say, Femme Fatale type situation I would be opposed to having the deluxe cover. It's appropriate here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that the context of critical commentary argument only works if there is actually critical commentary in the article itself. But that's easily fixed, and I agree that the second album cover does add to the article. Once you have a section that discusses the second cover, with sources, I'd suggest asking for consensus here before re-adding it. You've got my support for that, fwiw. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
How do I started a discussion for that? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

click new section on the top of the page and start typing.BenWasHere (TalkThatTalk) (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The is absolutely no point in adding the deluxe edition cover; it adds no new information to the article and just takes up space. Do NOT add it to this article. Jmagicvamp (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe Cover Art Discussion

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

Some people feel strongly that it should be included because of how there is critical and comparative commentaries between the two covers, however, others feel that it should not be included as it fails notability. In short, some think it's notable, other it's not notable. So, if people could either write Support or Oppose having the deluxe cover in the article, with a reason, I think that a general consensus can be easily reached amongst editors. Thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!

  • Support - Several notable and reliable critics/websites have commented on the deluxe cover and reviewed it, whilst also giving a description of the artwork, as with the standard cover. Both have received the amount of critical commentary, and I think it's important for readers to be able to see the two covers, considering both are written about in the article. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Many people, including famous critics, have already commented on it. Other than Good Girl Gone Bad Reloaded, which is more a rerelease than a deluxe, this is Ri's first "Deluxe" album. The album's covers are majorly different, too.BenWasHere (TalkThatTalk) (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – According to you two, several reliable critics have commented on it. Where's that in the article? — Status {talkcontribs 01:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    The Artwork section? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    "The standard edition artwork features Rihanna "[licking] her coral red hued lips, posing in a camouflage sleeveless shirt with the album title tatted on her right arm", whilst the deluxe edition artwork shows the singer "[blowing] out a puff of smoke" and is shot in black and white.[13] Upon on unveiling of the standard edition's artwork, both James Dinh of MTV and a reviewer for NME commented that Rihanna looks "seductive" in the image" – Where is the commentary about her blowing smoke out of her mouth? — Status {talkcontribs 14:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When I see the commentary, I will change this? Support. I see it. It belongs.| helpdןǝɥ | 01:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    It's in the Artwork section. How can people not see? It's hardly a big article to have to look through. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I agree that both covers are very different and that partly justifies its inclusion. However, if you could add some information about the controversy (???), then i will give you my full support. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC) >>> Support ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I think both covers should be included, they are very different, and both standard and deluxe edition is going to be released at the same time, i think its importent that buyers will know that, because theres no text on the deluxe edtiion cover that it says its an deluxe eition cover. --91.154.110.186 (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Everybody already knows my feeling about this. I really think that the deluxe edition cover should be part of the article, cause it's rare thing that it's kind of very different from the original. + critics have already commented on both of them. Random information, just to point to @Ben that this is not her first deluxe cover ... Loud have also had a deluxe cover, however probably it was not notable for it's extra content, that featured videos from the recording sessions. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 10:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    That cover is fake. Just saying. — Status {talkcontribs 14:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The section has been expanded with more commentaries, especially with regard to the smoke, which seems to be the main focal point here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I must say the covers are VERY different. That's important. And please read the article before commenting. That helps. Oh and Thank you @Tomica. I did not know. BenWasHere (TalkThatTalk) (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Still not seeing anything that makes the cover worthy of being included. The only way I can possibly see a reason for the cover to be included if there is a large amount of controversy around it. I should have been more specific about what I was saying before. Descibring the cover more makes it even less needed in the article, as readers can get a clear image of it. Surprised to see there hasn't been an uproar over it yet. If I see her being panned by critics over the deluxe cover, I will change my vote to support. — Status {talkcontribs 21:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think so. I never even knew what French inhaling was, and the deluxe covert art clearly demonstrates it. And I think it's a bit off to say that if she gets panned then you will change your vote. You should vote in favour regardless of what type or how much more of a critique she gets, good or bad. People seem to think that something should only be included if something is negative or bad, and that's not how it should be. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Say, everyone go to Tha Carter IV and scroll down. The deluxe edition artwork is in the lower section. Let's put the deluxe edition artwork as a regular picture in the title and artwork section. Good idea or bad? BenWasHere (TalkThatTalk) (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks stupid. It should be in the info box. And I'm actually really pleased you bought that up, because that article actually has no mention of the artwork, but two covers are included. And yet, people have a problem with there being two on this article, even though both covers have received critical commentaries. This is what I mean by people needing to sort out their priorities. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
+ the Deluxe cover from The Carter IV it's practically the same as the standard, just some differs in the colors. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 14:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be serious. There is no decision. Obviously there are more "Supports" than "Opposes" so the cover should be included. Yet if we do include it, the others will take it down. And the cycle repeats itself. Just look at this talk page. It's ridiculous. Almost every section has to do with the cover. I say, let's work this out now or forget about it. Let's work on the page itself. It needs work. Who's with me? BenWasHere (TalkThatTalk) (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ben, (I assume your name is Ben) you need to let things run their course for longer. 4 days is not enough, you need to allow at least a week to let people be able to comment and express their opinions. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but I don't think a week will do it. you're the one with the awards, though. Lol. I'm moving on...BenWasHere (TalkThatTalk) (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That got nothing to do with it lol. You have to give things time to make it fair, so people get a chance to comment. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

6 Supports, 1 Oppose. Consensus: Support inclusion of Deluxe Edition Cover Artwork. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confirmed Tracks

I know there is only one confirmed track but should we start a section or not? BenWasHere (TalkThatTalk) (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the point in creating a Confirmed tracks section when a) We Found Love has been released as a single, so we know it's confirmed. b) What's the point in creating a section which will have nothing in it? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
We found love would be in it. I don't know what the point is, i'm just trying to help the page and i thought maybe it would be useful. Guess not. BenWasHere (TalkThatTalk) (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a bit pointless to only have one song which we already know is confirmed, as it has it's own article. If there was 2/3/4/5 songs, then I would say yes, of course. Don't take it personally. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry i wont take it personally. lol. BenWasHere (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 October 2011

What is the request???? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Track listing

{{Track listing Standard edition[1]

  1. "We Found Love
  2. "Man Hunt"
  3. "Talk That Talk"
  4. "Trust No One"
  5. "X’s + O’s"
  6. "All Gunz Blazin’"
  7. "Monkey See"
  8. "Blunts Rolled"
  9. "Suicide"
  10. "Battle of Nerves"
  11. "Crossfire"

| headline = Deluxe edition[2]

  1. "We Found Love"
  2. "Man Hunt"
  3. "Talk That Talk"
  4. "Trust No One"
  5. "X’s + O’s"
  6. "All Gunz Blazin’"
  7. "Head"(#)
  8. "Monkey See"
  9. "Blunts Rolled"
  10. "707"(#)
  11. "Revolution Of Heart"(#)
  12. "Suicide"
  13. "Battle of Nerves"
  14. "Crossfire"

}} (#) Deluxe Edition Bonus Track


68.33.174.142 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And where is the very reliable and notable source from where you got this from then? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

a fan sent her this on twitter and ri herself said it was fake. BenWasHere (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A music store in Australia has the tracks listed already (it comes out on the 18th Nov. over here). I'm not sure if it is considered a reliable source, however it can't be wrong because they are selling the damn thing - I think they know what the tracklisting is. http://www.sanity.com.au/products/2204686/Talk_That_Talk. Here is the deluxe edition page: http://www.sanity.com.au/products/2205046/Talk_That_Talk_Deluxe_Edition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.169.101 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I've heard that someone tweeted this to Rihanna though and she said it was fake. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

She did. plus she is still recording. so they havent even made the tracklist yet BenWasHere (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

How do u know she is still recording? I doubt she would be 20 days before it's release. They usually release the track listing 2 week prior, which would be in a weeks time. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Source is reliable, why hasn't this been added? And just because she is still recording doesn't mean that the track listing isn't real. She isn't exactly an artist that records 30+ songs for an album. Her and her team probably have most of the track list planned before recording has finished. — Status {talkcontribs 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Who scatters their deluxe tracks through the standard track listing? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Lady Gaga, Beyonce... shall I go on? What does that matter? Sanity is a reliable source. — Status {talkcontribs 23:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

She Said she was still recording. who puts out a tracklist if they don't know what songs are on it? annnnnnnddddddd lots of peeps spread out the deluxe songs. annnnnnnddddD we are probabayly giong to unlock it. BenWasHere (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, so? They can plan out what's going to be on the album and then record it... It's not like she's recording 30 songs for an album and picking the best. The site's reliable; that's all folks. — Status {talkcontribs 21:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
So... the argument against the source is word of mouth? | helpdןǝɥ | 21:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That tracklist is fake. The confirmed next single is called "You The One" and they are still recording. --84.113.151.242 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

whoever added the trracklist is going to be off the hook. once it is down, if he/she does it again... a warning will be issued. not by me. i want to be friends on here with everyone. but i'll request someone issue a warning. you the one? where is this source? BenWasHere (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - The Real Final Tracklist

The current track list is fake, Digital Spy are mistaken, they just copied the list of songs from here, which is only a picture that shows rihanna putting in a list which songs are completed and which songs she still needs to work on.....it is by no means the tracklist...

This, however, is the official real final tracklist for the stand and deluxe editions:

Standard:

1. You Da One (3:20)
2. Where Have You Been (4:02)
3. We Found Love (3:36)
4. Talk That Talk (3:29)
5. Cockiness (Love It) (2:58)
6. Birthday Cake
7. We All Want Love (3:57)
8. Drunk On Love (3:32)
9. Roc Me Out (3:29)
10. Watch n’ Learn (3:31)
11. Farewell (4:16)

Deluxe:

12. Red Lipstick (3:37)
13. Do Ya Thang (3:43)
14. Fool In Love (4:15)

Source

Can someone fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockinesss (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it.Countercouper (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know blogs were considered reliable sources? --Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

yea this sounds kinda fishy..... BenWasHere (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliable, they gave the exclusive first look of many tracklists for many albums.....you can see Here all the tracklists they exclusively revealed first and they all turned out to be 100% true...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockinesss (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The song birthday cake is not 1:18, the one that has been leaked isnt even the complete song.

Urban Bridgez reliable for track listing?

Yeah, is Urban Bridgez reliable for track listing? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliable, they gave the exclusive first look of many tracklists for many albums.....you can see Here all the tracklists they exclusively revealed first and they all turned out to be 100% true...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockinesss (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

still seems kinda fishy... but perhaps it is true. i say keep it until further notice BenWasHere (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

NME has reported the same set list. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
In all honesty, I think we should make a heading saying confirmed tracks. We should wait until CD outlets, Amazon, iTunes or her label to confirm the order and time listing for the tracks. Even though that blog above may be right in near future, I don't think blogs are considered reliable sources. —Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Good idea Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

NME is a reliable source. BenWasHere (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeahhhhhhhhh I know. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 00:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Then add it. BenWasHere (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Jay-Z

How do you know that Jay-Z is featured in the title track?

Reported by Rap-Up Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In case this needs to be added again.

On November 5, 2011, Rihanna confirmed via her Facebook page that the final track listing of Talk That Talk will comprise 14 songs. The songs were not listed in order. The track listing was revealed by the blog Urban Bridgez and confirmed by Rihanna on Twitter.[3] The deluxe edition of the album will be packaged in a two disc digipak set; disc one featuring standard edition tracks, disc two featuring four bonus tracks (two bonus and two remixs).[4]

Why the 3 deluxe edition bonus tracks not mentioned in the tracklisting?=

Why the 3 deluxe edition bonus tracks, Red Lipstick, Do Ya Thing, and Fool in Love, not mentioned in the tracklisting?....it's already been confirmed by MTV and Def Pen Radio that those 3 are the bonus tracks in the deluxe edition, so why they are not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockinesss (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes mtv is a reliable source. it should be included BenWasHere (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Because, the source is currently using the United Kingdom pre-order track listing from iTunes, which was made available today, and there are no deluxe tracks. They will probably be for the US or be will updated on UK iTunes at a later date. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Calvin, you are wrong my dear, cause the UK iTunes source shows the tracklisting for the standard edition, those 3 extra tracks are in the Deluxe edition......how do you expect those 3 tracks to be mentioned in the standard tracklist when they are only in the deluxe edition tracklist......and the UK iTunes sources only shows the standard edition tracklist......those 3 tracks have been confirmed by MTV and Def Pen Radio , so they should be mentioned...Cockinesss (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no Deluxe Edition on UK iTunes yet, that is why. Just because MTV etc. are reporting and confirming, it does not mean that every single country that the album is released in will get those 3 deluxe tracks. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 00:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but i still think your not understanding the diffrence, the UK getting a We Found Love remix on the Standard Edition has nothing to do with the Deluxe Edition album, the deluxe edition is being released everywhere, in all countries there will be a standard edition and a deluxe edition........the uk getting a We Found Love remix on the standard edition should not be confused with the 3 extra tracks in the deluxe edition..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockinesss (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I never said it did? A deluxe edition and having a bonus track are two completely different things, though I have changed it on the article. A deluxe edition never includes just one extra song. Fact of the matter is, Red Lipstick, Do Ya Thing and Fool in Love are not on the track listing in the UK, thus they are not included at the moment. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 00:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Lipstick, Do Ya Thing, and Fool in Love are now finally confirmed by iTunes...im gonna add them to the article...Cockinesss (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to, already added from the Australian iTunes Store. --Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Talk That Talk ft. Jay-Z

Calvin • TalkThatTalk 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Farewell Producer

All sources I have seen states that Alex Da Kid is the producer of Farewell.... *http://www.rap-up.com/2011/11/09/rihanna-reveals-second-single-producers-on-talk-that-talk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.207.22 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Vh1 Review

For the future:

http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2011-11-09/album-preview-rihannas-talk-that-talk-is-the-dirtiest-pop-record-since-madonnas-erotica/

"Rihanna‘s new record, Talk That Talk, is the dirtiest “pop” record we have ever heard."--mikomango mwa! 20:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

Please change the Second Songwriters name on the Song "Cockiness" to D. Abernathy. This is his Manager Darone Bowers of FM Management...Thanks

Darone Bowers (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Provide a reliable 3rd party source stating that, as you have no evidence of who you are, and no one is going to call you. CTJF83 22:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 November 2011


WhiplashSelly (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


Can you actually write down what you request is then??? Calvin • TalkThatTalk 15:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.
WhiplashSelly, what exactly do you think should be done to improve the article? We can't help you if you don't tell us what the problem is. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You Da One

Why is there no article yet for this single? The single was released today. It would be understandable if there was no release date but the date had been confirmed for a while. Thanks. --92.7.25.92 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Until it charts, it fails notability. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
i must disagree. even charting wouldn't give this song notability quite yet. it needs reviews, ect. i will start hunting for information tomorrow.BenWasHere (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not about whether or not you disagree, rules are rules. Until it charts, it fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NSONGS. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 20:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well some songs chart and have no page. if you would like to make about 500 more articles of songs that don't need it, be my guest. BenWasHere (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There has to be some notability though Ben. There needs to be a lot of information to be able to make up for it not charting, like Skin (Rihanna song). I'm not interested in other articles, only Rihanna ones, and I've been through this with both Fading (song) and Skin, so I know what its about. Until You Da One charts, the article is not to be opened up. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 13:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: The single has been released today on November 14, 2011. Pixelyoshi (discuter) 15:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes we know, but we have to wait for it to chart. We've been through all of this already with Cheers (Drink to That) and We Found Love. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 15:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand thanks. --92.7.25.92 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

umm... calvin i think we're having communication issues. that's what i've been trying to tell you. i said "i must disagree. EVEN charting wouldn't give the song notability. there must be more information." BenWasHere (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Ohhh, it's because you said "I must disagree". Calvin • TalkThatTalk 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

i was arguing with you saying that it doesn't have enough info, and you were saying the exact same thing. lol BenWasHere (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Parental Advisory sign

the real album art has a Parental Advisory sign. i think the covers should change to the real covers. in songs like Talk That Talk we're hearing the F word and also some songs contain sexual content and there's no CLEAN version of album. (Reza (Let'sTalk) 21:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC))

I might be wrong, but I think we actually don't include the artworks that have the explicit content sign, because that isn't part of the original image. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You're correct, we don't. There is always a clean version of an album anyway. — Status {talkcontribs 23:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The "original", technically, has no sticker. It must be added by stores. therefore if WE added it, it would not be original. BenWasHere (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually we do include the artworks that have the explicit content sign, take a look: Relapse (album), Recovery (Eminem album), Hell: The Sequel and so many others and on every websites, you can see the cover with this sign. for example, Allmusic included the explicit cover in it's review and so many others.

and about the clean version, when i wanted to buy this album they told me there's no clean version of the album yet and it's only the dirty one. this album acts like Madonna's Erotica album, full of sexual content. if there's gonna be a clean version, you only hear instruments without words.

and about that sticker. it's not a sticker, it's on cover of the album. i owned it and it's on the cover.(Reza (Let'sTalk) 06:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Leak

Why is there no mention of the leak in this article? I just did a quick Google search for articles on it and found: "http://globalgrind.com/style/rihanna-gets-loud-and-leggy-london-photos" (second paragraph). There are undoubtedly more. Could it be written in somewhere? 82.33.34.230 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't talk about leaks. To be honest, 95% of albums leak in their entirety 7-10 days before it's official release. Beyonce's 4 leak was mentioned on her article because it leaked over 3 weeks before and it caused a bit of controversy, and Beyonce commented about it herself. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 00:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammer

I found about seven grammer mistakes, mostly incorrect use of commas: a comma is needed if: you can make two sentences into one(compound sentence) he took the cake, and he ate it. two sentences: he took the cake; he ate it a comma is not needed if you cannot do the above(complex sentence): he took the cake and ate it. please be careful. Thank you BenWasHere (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's only a start class atm, it's changing constantly. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 12:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

atm? BenWasHere (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At the moment. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 00:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 November 2011

Please remove the track listing time for birthday cake, it is not accurate and the source of the time is not even a valid link, replace all the times with none until a valid track listing can be posted. DonutHoles (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC) It leaked. how much more of a source do you want. BenWasHere (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition does not come with a DVD

Can someone please change the article to reflect this. I bought the deluxe edition and there was no DVD. Neither of the cited links or Amazon seem to indicate it comes with a DVD so it can't be a regional thing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.93.169 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Fool In Love" producer credit for Cirkut

The song "Fool In Love" under the "Deluxe edition additional tracks" section is missing credit for producer Cirkut. For reliable sources, Cirkut is listed as a producer in the official credits in the "Talk That Talk" CD booklet. Please make this edit so that the credits read correctly. Thank you.

75.83.122.27 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. VítoR™ Talk That Shit 21:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dark Themes

"[...] the album received generally positive reviews from critics, many of which complimented its departure from the dark themes presented on her fourth and fifth studio albums, Rated R (2009) and Loud (2010), respectively."

Loud was already a departure from the dark theme presented on her fourth album, Rated R. There's no reason to have this information on the article, Loud does not include dark themes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.103.128.72 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviews in a nutshell

Recording info

Certification

If you go on the website for UK certifications, the album has already been certified Platinum in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.90.7 (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fucking hell! That mean's she has sold between 300,000 and 599,000 copies already! Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
OMG !!! :D I'm so happy for that xD! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 13:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Info

77.28.230.27 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

New artciles

Why havent articles for Do Ya Thing, Fool In Love and Red Lipstick been made. They have charted on UK R&B singles Chart. ref: [2] Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I created them 3 weeks ago and re-directed them, but music critics did not comment on them, so there would be nothing to include apart from an info box, lead, credits section and a charts table = very very short. I don't think they would be notable enough? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 18:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

talk that talk (album)

according to this, talk that talk has sold WW more than a million copies its at number 25 it is suposed to be from the official united world charts but i dont know it webpage http://www.cromosomax.com/11953-united-world-chart-corona-a-21-de-adele-como-el-disco-mas-vendido-de-2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.171.158 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

TTT had sold over 2millions copies WW http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-2011.htm this are the sales of last year plus this http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week01-2012.htm from the first week of 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.50.131.28 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Birthday Cake

Rihanna has stated on her twitter that she will turn "Birthday Cake" into a full song in 2012, where would we put that in the article? Because it is pretty notable, especially since it would change the structure of the album?--Jakeriederer (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Nothing has been released yet, so we have very little to work with. Ben•TalkThatTalk2me 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Source

This source talks about all of the songs: http://www.fourthestatenewspaper.com/mobile/4play/rihanna-s-reign-just-won-t-let-up-1.2772892 Aaron • You Da One 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthday Cake single?

I don't think Birthday Cake is a single only cuz rihanna released the complete version... --PidiContent (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The full song is not even released. So true, its not confirmed as a single, but probably it would be. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It sais on the album page that Birthday cake is the 4th single, should we turn that into a single page? Kalestorm (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed that information. "Birthday Cake" is definitely no single. It has no release date for download or radio add. — Tomica (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

where have you been

where did you guys get info that where have you been is the 5th single? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalestorm (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Genre

I think that hip-hop she be included in the info box since over 50% of the album utilizes it (You Da One, Where Have You Been, Talk That Talk, Cockiness, Birthday Cake, Watch n' Learn, etc.), what do you think?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that You Da One and Where Have You Been use Hip Hop. --PidiContent (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
They both do, go read their respective pages.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Single releases

With a recent music video shoot for "Where have you been", isn't it safe to say that "Talk that talk" and "Birthday cake" (who are listed before "Where have you been" as singles) are only promotional singles or radio singles? I mean, real singles always have an accompanied video for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSfan88 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Birthday cake as Single??

Isn't it more appropiate to mark "Birthday cake" as a US radio-single? Isn't it obvious that Rihanna just released the song as a "single" to make profit of the "Chris Brown sang on it-scandal". The song didn't really have a real international single-release and also doesn't have a music video which is still essentiell for chart-success in some countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSfan88 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Talk That Talk

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Talk That Talk's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SWI":

  • From A Girl like Me (Rihanna album): "Discography Rihanna". swisscharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved February 16, 2011.
  • From Up All Night (One Direction album): "Swiss Charts". Swiss Charts. Retrieved 2011-12-04.
  • From Unfaithful (song): "Rihanna – Unfaithful". Swiss Singles Chart. Hung Medien. Retrieved January 29, 2012.
  • From Loud (Rihanna album): "Rihanna (select "Charts", then "Alben" for albums or "Songs")". Swiss Music Charts. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2012-01-10.
  • From Roc Nation albums discography: "Discography Alexis Jordan". swisscharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  • From Rihanna discography: "Rihanna (click "Charts")". swisscharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved April 26, 2011.

Reference named "SWICerts":

Reference named "RIAA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yearly Charts

I dont understand why we must have the chart peaks that the album reached in 2011 and 2012 seperately. Only the albums highest peak, no matter what year should be displayed. Billy4kate (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Talk That Talk

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Talk That Talk's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Parle":

Reference named "EWReview":

Reference named "DailyMail":

Reference named "popmatters":

Reference named "iTunes":

Reference named "RapUp1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 uk album chart's

TTT Has hit number one on the uk album charts again!. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/albums it says 6 atm change pls!??. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.119.50 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 peaks

Since they're part of the same chart run, are they needed? I find them useless. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 08:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • That's just how Wikipedia works...yearly charts are noted. This is how we disseminate information...I would suggest you not worry about it--mikomango mwa! 05:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

YEARLY CHARTS

I agree that there should only be ONE list for where the album peaked at and how high. Having one for both 2011 and 2012 is both confusing and ridiculous - no other major international artist has this so why does Rihanna? Also, TTT NEVER reached no.1 on the Official Aria Singles Chart in neither 2011 or 2012. It peaked at no. 5. On the Urban Albums Chart it did reach no.1 however. 124.177.137.169 (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Um...many other artists have them...--mikomango mwa! 05:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request -- "Talk That Talk" Sales

According to HitsDailyDouble, US Sales for TTT are now at 1,015,000 (a good 35,000 off from what is currently reflected on Wikipedia). Not sure where the number is other than here: http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/sales_ur.cgi -- but there must be some way to archive this page and then cite it, I just have no idea how...hence my request.--mikomango mwa! 05:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You can use WebCite. Type in the link at this archive form w/an email for confirmation, and you get this. In the citation template, you can add these fields/parameters: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/sales_ur.cgi|title=Upcoming Releases|publisher=HITS Daily Double|accessdate=October 20, 2012|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6BY2gJrJq|archivedate=October 20, 2012|deadurl=no}}</ref> Dan56 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for teaching me how to do that!!!--mikomango mwa! 02:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

charts

would it not make sense to merge the 2012 chart positions with the 2011 to make it a 2011-12 chart because if the album chart higher in 2011 then in 2012 what is the point of that ask if you want me to explain more into detail because it's hard to explain what i mean --Onlythetruthisappropriate (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

an example of what i mean is the charts on Adele's 21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlythetruthisappropriate (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Per MOS:CHARTS, albums which peak on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the more recent year in a separate table below the earlier table. There's no need for listing peaks from the same chart within a specified time frame. If it peaked at #3 on a chart when it was released, you don't put in a peak of #10 for the same chart just because the calendar changed. Its peak position is still 3. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 19:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


Talk That Talk → Talk That Talk (Rihanna album) – Yes, I know this is more popular than the jazz album, but that album was released first. Billboard Man (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, Talk That Talk on Jackie Wilson's article was bluelinking to this Rihanna album, a mislink which meant it was the only one of 12 Jackie Wilson singles without a stub. Despite being the song used as title of the 2CD anthology "Talk That Talk". I've corrected that, though no one will claim the Jackie Wilson song competes in the primary discussion above, it's evidently as notable or more than many of his other songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Agreed. The hatnotes at the top of the page are extreme, and should instead be my a disamb. per WP:PDAB.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Tbhotch. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but don't you need to present some kind of argument or evidence why Talk That Talk (Rihanna album) is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC more than Talk That Talk (Rihanna song)? For example what were the sales of the song vs the album? (it does look like album sold more, but then the song is also on the album). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I will provide you; first the song was not that impact-full and enjoyed moderate success (It didn't reach number-one in any country). Obviously as part of that it sold a lot less (less than a million worldwide and 500,000 in the US according the certification) than the album which sold around 4.5 million copies worldwide. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, per In ictu oculi. I have no idea how you tell whether a song or an album with the same title by the same artist are primary, when both have articles about them. Bad form to move the page without closing this, but I'll assume good faith that the mover didn't bother to read the talk page first (which is also bad form). Wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - All articles with this name should be on a disambiguation page, and thus this article should be disambiguated with (Rihanna album).  — AARON • TALK 09:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genres

On the page it's got sourced information on the genres, in the order of Pop, R&B and dance, I haven't got a problem with that but I'm a tiny bit confused on a thing, in the page it states it is andance-oriented pop and R&B shouldn't Dance come before pop and R&B? D to the ina, R to the ae☻ My Talk Page 17:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: RESULT Not done/Nom withdrawn –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Requested move 8 February 2015

– No indication that this album is more likely to be the desired article when a reader searches for "Talk That Talk" over Johnny "Hammond" Smith's 1960 album, Jackie Wilson's #3 R&B hit from 1969, and Rihanna's 2012 international hit single combined, which is one of the criteria for a term being a primary topic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Closing admin: Please note that I no longer support this move, but can (as of this writing) not withdraw the RM per another editor's support. (See here.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Your comment at the previous RM was to create a dabpage; that has been done since. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the absence of any evidence that we should make the move. Dohn joe (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have already cited WP:PTOPIC and how it says that primary topics based on popularity should be more likely to be searched for than all others combined. While I can concede that the Smith and Wilson works aren't as well-known or as frequently visited, there is the matter of Rihanna's song from this album. Why should we assume that this album is more likely to be the desired topic over Wilson's song, Rihanna's song, and Smith's album combined? Not to mention Walk That Walk, Talk That Talk and You Talk That Talk!. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm just saying that there hasn't been any evidence presented for us to evaluate whether or not the other uses outnumber the Rihanna album. Show me some pageviews, and I might change my !vote. We shouldn't assume one way or the other, but the side wanting to change the status quo has to do the convincing, not the other way around. Dohn joe (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • All of the aforementioned articles received 6,718 combined views in the last 90 days. [3][4][5][6][7] That may not be a humongous number, but it shows that there are a decent number of readers looking for other topics. The Rihanna album article pageviews are skewed due to it currently being the primary topic and thus not worth mentioning. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    For the record, the current title got 40,668 views in the last 90 days, or more than six times the others combined. There may be a bump because it is the base title, but it's not 80% of the traffic. It's clear that the album far outnumbers the other uses combined. Dohn joe (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I admit I probably should have checked before opening this RM. In any case, I now oppose this move, but I cannot withdraw this RM due to In ictu oculi's support, unless they choose to !vote differently. Closer, please note this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Chasewc91 if the proposer changes mind then by all means withdraw rather than clog WP:RM backlog. I still think in the modern post-album era when songs are downloaded individually the title fails WP:PRECISE even for Rihanna's own fans Talk That Talk (Rihanna song) competes. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per the above comments. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per above comment and previous RM.  — ₳aron 21:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - After so many years, this album isn't recent anymore. If it still has a huge number of views more than the others combined, It is pretty much the primary topic. It is "bullshit" to propose this move now. MaRAno FAN 05:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talk That Talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talk That Talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Talk That Talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

NYMag review

http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/reviews/rihanna-drake-abebe-2011-11/ by Nitsuh Abebe
This review appears to be negative.

End of year sources

Calvin • Watch n' Learn

  1. ^ "Tracklisting: Rihanna – Talk That Talk". Vibe.com. Damn Anthony. Retrieved October 24, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  2. ^ "Tracklisting: Rihanna – Talk That Talk". Vibe.com. Damn Anthony. Retrieved October 24, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ "EXCLUSIVE First Look: Rihanna's Complete Tracklisting for "Talk That Talk" [Regular + Deluxe]". Urban Bridgez. 2011-11-05. Retrieved 2011-11-05.
  4. ^ "Rihanna - Talk That Talk (Deluxe Edition) [Double CD]". Amazon.de. p. 1. Retrieved November 06, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Talk_That_Talk/Archive_1&oldid=1190927374"