Jump to content

Talk:Pour It Up

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

Charts

[edit]

Have a new source for the belgian chart= http://www.ultratop.be/nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Rihanna&titel=Pour+It+Up&cat=s . 141.135.11.188 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre change

[edit]

After looking through reviews of Unapologetic and articles on this song, the source that explicitly calls "Pour It Up" a "[genre] song" (or something in that vein) is Prefix's review, which calls it a "club song". Your argument is a matter of interpreting the writer's use of the term, whether he's using it informally as a song suited for nightclubs or what "club music" redirects to: electronic dance music. Either way, "club music" is discussed in that article, which partly defines EDM as music appropriate for nightclub settings. In any case, a better source is welcome, although using the chart designations isnt reliable. What chart an artist enters is usually dependant on what market they are in. For example, Kanye West's "Love Lockdown" charted on R&B/hip hop charts in the US and UK. Dan56 (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we have another editor who feels they are an expert on genres. The song having a hip hop beat (as the source cited in the composition section verifies) does not make it a hip hop song. The composition section also cited "Pour It Up" as being a "club song", so why are you ignoring that? Dan56 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why are they changing the genre. We already have a third-party reliable source citing "Pour It Up" as Club song and it should stay like that. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone told me consensus was established on the talk page when there was only a conversation between two people. Anyway, even though the article says "club" music - it is referring to music that can be played in the club -- NOT electronic dance music which the article redirects to, and there is no source that says this song is EDM. Therefore, until a source explicitly states what genre it is, it should be Hip-hop, a genre chart which this song appeared on. If that shouldn't be used, then no genre should until a reliable source pops up, because having the genre as club (EDM) is a disservice to the reader, especially without a source that explicitly states the genre should be that. Candyo32 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down to where the stubborn editor needed further explanation. This is all stemming from your own interpretation of the sources' use of "club" (what gives the impression that the reviewers are referring to "music that can be played in the club"?). "Club music" appears to be a synonym for it at electronic dance music. And you cant seriously be considering using Billboard's chart designation? (which I addressed in the first paragraph in this section, opening this initial post for an IP that was originally vandalising the genres) Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Pour It Up

[edit]

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 Pour It Up'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 "France":

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⚡ 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Having to come on talk pages to sort out issues is becoming very tiring. The background of Unapologetic I removed as it is irrelevant in this article. Why do we need to know about rumours of its release and when she revealed the title? What at all has that got to do with Pour It Up? Its obvious this has just been copied and pasted on every song article from the album by a user. I have seen it starting to be removed from other pages now and needs to be removed from here. Certain users just feel the need to undo my edits for the sake of it because they know I cannot revert them without being blocked again. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, you are learning to use a talk page. I've always used a talk page. How can it be tiring? You've been unblocked less than 24 hours? It's called Background information, hence why it is in a Background section. This article is a mess anyway. It doesn't "need" to be removed. We don't revert for the sake of it, you make it difficult for the project to maintain stable articles, we revert you because your 90% of your edits don't make sense. (Notice that some of what you did on this article is still here). AARON• TALK 10:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, what doesnt make sense is having pointless information about the album on a single page. If you want that information go and look on that article not here. Look on all of the other articles of Rihanna's singles. They dont include all of the running commentaries of the album's release, title etc, they are where they should be in the album's articles. This is not relevant at all to Pour It Up!! If there is nothing from the Background in your opinion then why dont you just take out the word "background" from the subheading and not revert the whole edit?? Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should provide some background on where the song came from. It's needs to be contextualised, because not everyone will look at the album. AARON• TALK 11:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha that has to be the worst excuse I have ever heard on here. "Because not everyone will look at the album"??! You're just making up excuses now. There are several links to Unapologetic's page on this article page to link them to it., as there are on the album's page of Pour It Up. And what is information about Diamonds doing in this page? That is like putting information on Pour It Up in the Diamonds article, it doesnt make sense one bit. Why dont you just accept that I am right? Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an excuse, it's true. All articles should provide context. Now run along. AARON• TALK 11:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are not right of course. Nobody is right here, people just have opinions. Your opinion is wrong in the case. Not to start talking about the edits you make for the sake of it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre revisited

[edit]

I'm at the talk page, are you happy? Hip hop is a sourced genre with it's own page. Club doesn't even have it's own page, making it completely unreliable... What difference does it make if I go to the talk page? It's no different then what were doing here right now. My experience here, is that when someone has a dispute over material in an article, it is removed as a compromise between the two members until a conclusion is made. It's only fair. And I feel as a person editing on this site for well over a year, I have the right to remove something I find unreliable with something that is more reliable, as does everyone on this site. By the way, you're not an expert either, so I don't know where you're getting with that. Also, I do not have the traits of a genre warrior, because my argument is actually backed up with a source so technically it's not only my opinion Nicholas (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a genre doesn't have an article, doesn't mean it's unreliable. By the way, Club music is just another word for Electronic dance music.  — AARON • TALK 23:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"tripping hip-hop beat." [from your source] and Hip hop music is something different. Instead the source that Dan56 provides has a Club music genre in it and that's already a genre as Aaron explained to you. I don't see the big deal with it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Billboard review: "There's hard-hitting club songs ("Phresh Out The Runway," "Pour It Up," the Ginuwine-sampling "Jump")". 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Naming the section after me, Nickyp88? I'm honored. Anyway, you clearly missed the section at the top of this talk page, so it would have been better if you wouldve responded there. Dan56 (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is not that he missed the section, he also missed the word. LOL. As Calvin stated, aren't you clear enough? Please revert his edits, because I am about to be blocked because of his stubborn behavior. — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now this dude is claiming Prefixmag is a self-published source? How so? It's even used by Metacritic. Dan56 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard is one of the most reliable sources we use for new info, charts and reviews. Can't believe he is saying it is self published.  — AARON • TALK 23:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Aaron he is saying that for Prefix Magazine. Nvm, Prefix Magazine is GA reliable source, although not FA. Still the source is verifiable. I added Billboard, but still he is not satisfied. — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is more than acceptable.  — AARON • TALK 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This entire argument is so unnecessary, WOW. I removed the Prefix sourced because that article specifically is User Generated Content. If you click the user page, it says "contributer", and it's quite obvious it isn't a third party author, there's even a login/register button, it's like a giveaway. It clearly says in WP:SPS: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.
That's why I removed it. Jesus, can I not even make a single edit without it being reverted? Revision war don't you think? I've explained myself countless times yet you all continue to revert my edits without even listening to my reasoning. I've been contributing to music articles since I signed up, I put forth effort into making sure these articles are reliable and logical to the greatest extent. "Club" still shouldn't even be in the genre box... It's just really hilarious it's being used yet it doesn't have enough sources for it's own page. Well I guess I'll quit arguing, because by the looks of it the users here are abusing their powers and completely controlling the article, from what I see, which is completely unfair, so, have it your way. Nicholas (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop attacking Prefixmag. The author is listed as a "contributor" b/c he's part of their staff. The "log in"/"register" links you're referring to are not for "contributors", who can write articles for the site, but for those who follow the site: win stuff, post comments on the site's forum section, etc. Most websites, from Metacritic to Spin, incorporate this aspect to attract and garner more followers with an online community of some kind. Didnt bother really looking into that, just looking for anything to discredit a source you dont agree with? Dan56 (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well excuse me for not being familiar with that site. I identified it as WP:SPS, because that's how I seen it because I was unfamiliar with it. My lord. Nicholas (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt "identify" it, you mistook it. Neither of us were familiar with the site, but if you were so adament about removing and reverting, a couple of clicks couldnt have hurt. At least explain it here first, so those in the discussion could check it out too. Dan56 (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pour It Up" is clearly a trap song... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.26.69 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? Since Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, we need to rely on the interpretations of music journalists, individuals who are reputed in their field of scholarship (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Critics from both Prefix mag and Billboard have referred to it as a club song. If there are those who have called it a trap song, they can be cited and duly noted in the article. Dan56 (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. This is a Trap song, not Club (EDM) song. 188.123.230.99 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Dan56 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional single

[edit]

Pour It Up was released as a promotional single only. --Freedom of Lolxdhahaha (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not, it is a single, it was sent to radio thus making it single. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pour_It_Up&oldid=1209844083"