Jump to content

Talk:Rude Boy (Rihanna song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Notability

Why would you delete this? This is a perfectly notable article with all of the available information???? (Circusstar (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

It's been confirmed as a single! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.192.204 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why has someone changed the charts?!!! It is annoying because 'French Digital Singles Chart' was on there and now someone has delted it. Plus someone has deleted UK R&B Chart! Why??!!! Just leave it alone it was fine as it was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Noted similarities to M.I.A.'s Boyz video

The noted similarities between this video and M.I.A.'s Boyz are well documented and referenced in the article accordingly. Well cited material should stay regardless and not be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.92.159 (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

US Number 1 [and Billboard succession box dates]

why does with the chart succesion number one box for the US say it's from march 27 when it's actually the 18? It's really annoying me now!!! 82.19.248.157 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It goes by the Billboard magazine issue date. Charmed36 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite annoying, isn't it?
As I tried to explain in my edit summaries here, here, and again here, the Billboard positions are associated with a publication date significantly after the calendar date that we all discover whatever changed. This advancing of the publication date is not uncommon in the magazine industry; I once subscribed to a certain magazine and would receive the September (or "September") issue at the end of July. This trick helps newsstands convince readers to buy a mag because "it's still current", even though it was printed several weeks ago. The mags take longer to look stale that way. (Compare the auto-industry tradition of producing, e.g., "the 1998 Caprice" in mid-1997, or the trick of pricing something at 249.95 instead of just 250.00.)
You may remember (if you noticed at all) that I reverted several edits to this exact item, because, yeah, on the 17th Billboard released an online announcement that on the 18th, it would point to "Rude Boy" as #1 on the Hot 100. I'm clever, so I reasoned that the date must be the 18th, so I reverted other editors repeatedly (examples: here again again).
I checked with someone more knowledgable and got an explanation and I was also corrected somewhat ineloquently on my Talk page. Since then I've found myself reverting the other way. It's obviously confusing, and not just for me.
But if the explanations I pointed you to above aren't enough for you, got to the current Top 200 albums page at Billboard. See the date at the top? It says (now) "Week of April 03, 2010". Look again next Wednesday or Thursday, and it will be even farther (the next Saturday) in the future. You'll never catch up!
Does that help? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes but say rude boy wasn't number one next week, it would say March 27 - April 3 which isn't true! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly right. It's wrong by the calendar, as I've explained. It seems to be wrong, too, by logic, because then each song seems to be credited with one week less then it really spent. But that, apparently, is how this is handled here.
Go, for example, to the song which preceded "Rude Boy", in the left cell of the succession box. "Break Your Heart" has its own succession boxes, and the Billboard Hot 100 number-one single cell shows only this: "March 20, 2010". The song doesn't get a range, because it was #1 for only one week. It's like we don't really measure time, we just mention the weeks. In fact, we're just mentioning the issues of Billboard, and "Break Your Heart" was #1 in only one issue, the one called "March 20, 2010" (even though it was lining birdcages before the 20th of March ever rolled around). "Rude Boy" will be #1 in multiple issues before it fades, and what will get shown is the range of issue dates in which it was at the top, not the calendar weeks from its beginning to its successor's beginning at #1.
Crazy, non-intuitive, I know, but that's how it seems to work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Remixes

I sorted out the references and sources problem for the Remixes. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Okay, there has been quite an edit war on whether "Rude Boy" is R&B (in the infobox). Personally, I think it does qualify as R&B, as it has charted on both the UK R&B and the US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop charts as proof. I would like this issue cleared up once and for all. Thanks, Adabow (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I will add R&B to the infobox now. Adabow (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but users keep reverting it without a source. Unless we can find one i fear it will be removed over and over again.Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with the UK charts, however the Billboard R&B chart tracks music played on R&B radio stations, not necessarily songs of the genre. If I'm correct, "Poker Face" by Lady Gaga charted on the R&B chart last year. I think it's the same with the UK but I'm not entirely sure. I'm of the opinion that the song is R&B, but if the other genres are well-cited, that one should be too. –Chase (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:IAR apply here? Editors are of the opinion that the genre is R&B, and if consensus can be reached, a reference is not needed. Adabow (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It probably does however we're falling into the trap of thinking that a song must be pop or rap or R&B. there thousands of genres out there and the critics for the album picked out that the most significant elements of the song are pop, ragga and electro. the genres should be listed in context of what the critics and experts say the song is. I agree with comments by Chase. A song's charting history is not really indication of its genre. For example whitney houston's i didnt know my own strenght charted on the hot dance club songs but i would go and add that to the article.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I really think a genre should be added there by now. It seems unorthodox to see a song with the genre section blank. No, it's not R&B. That genre consists of ballads with acoustic instruments and a rhythmic beat (this song is full on electronic). I'd say this song is more hip hop than R&B. Either way, the song does mostly sound of a Caribbean genre. I'd say it's a full on dancehall genre. I think people should consider adding that genre, or ragga. Meganesia (talk) 08:10, 20 Dec 2014 (UTC)

What you believe it is doesn't mean anything here.  — ₳aron 10:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
First, why such a condescending reply? Second, it's NOT what I believe. It's what the sources believe. The song's page has sources to it being raggamuffin and dancehall. Meganesia (talk) 04:11, 21 Dec 2014 (UTC)

Chart Sources

It has come to my attention that nearly all of the sources for the chart section on Rude Boy are out of date, and are simply links to the top 10 of a country, which has now changed!! Please could someone delete these sources and put a better in-date source to replace it (suggestion = acharts) I am a little concerned about other Rihanna articles having the same problem, so please would someone help me out!! Jagoperson (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brian00763, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} only i want see the information

Brian00763 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Informing about the Rockstar 101 Page

Rockstar 101 has an official page now. So please link it in the Rihanna's singles on this page. Its title is Rockstar 101.

Edit request from 123.176.32.132, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the Rockstar 101 to Rockstar 101 in the Rihanna's singles chronology on this page.

123.176.32.132 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Algebraist 12:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

Rude boy is already 2xPlatinum in Australia http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1U50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.142.79 (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

and is Gold in Denmark http://www.hitlisterne.dk/default.asp?w=19&y=2010&list=t40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.142.79 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To get up to GA

  • References need formatting using citation templates and correct use of italics. I have done some of them, but I need sleep now.
  • 'Background and release' section needs expansion - include writing credits somewhere
  • Lead needs to comply with MOS:LEAD

Adabow (talk · contribs) 12:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

New requirements

  • I've fixed those for you. I've removed all instances of R&B as nothing sources the song as this genre. Equally only Dancehall and Pop are sourced genres. The others are just influences. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have started a rewrite of the chart performance section. Please add to it here. Note: the absent references are using refnames in the actual article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

remove links from Countries in release history. This is not standard practise. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fifth-most?

[1] says that "Rude Boy" tied Rihanna with Paula Abdul and Diana Ross for having the fifth-most number one Hot 100 singles, but only lists three higher than them. Wouldn't this make them fourth-most? Am I missing something? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are. It seems clear even to me, which is always a bad sign.
Some copy-and-paste from the article, and some numbering added in for the benefit of your seeing-eye dog:
1. 18, Mariah Carey
2. 12, Madonna
3. 11, Whitney Houston
4. 10, Janet Jackson
5. 6, Paula Abdul
5. 6, Rihanna
5. 6, Diana Ross
Nope, still seems clear to me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm an idiot. I was reading from the bottom up (I don't know why either, even in New Zealand we read top-to-bottom). Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Please read WT:CHARTS#Remove succession boxes for reasons why there is a growing consensus to remove succession boxes for songs and albums reaching number one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments at the discussion above, I Support their removal as unecessary cruft, with sourcing issues, reliability issues and general unpleasentness. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
There is not consensus yet, and it has not become part of Wikipedia's guideline, let alone the Manual of Style or policy. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair there is no consensus or policy which says succession boxes must be included. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Some sources about Kids Choice/Echo performances (commentaries) for future use.

Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ester Dean.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ester Dean.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Rihanna Performing Rude Boy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rihanna Performing Rude Boy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rude Boy (Rihanna song). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rude Boy (Rihanna song). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rude_Boy_(Rihanna_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1140150613"