Jump to content

Talk:Umbrella (song)/Archive 1

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

Rating

I've rated this article as Start class - it has a good infobox, chart positions, subheadings, references, and is well-categorised. More information about the music video, critical reception etc. will be necessary, and this can be added as it becomes available.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 09:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

iTunes

When will this song be available on iTunes for download? DJ Biloedau 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nakedness/Body suit

How are you sure Rihanna is not naked and wearing a body suit? Please cite reliable sources that confirmes that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.140.67.97 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 May 2007

why she covering herself so good then? me + ma sis luv us sum Pretty Ricky!(wat waz dat?) 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think she is naked? PMBO 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Daft Punk

A source is needed indicating that Daft Punk did a remix to this song. A Google search turns up nothing except this page. If no source is added by Sunday, I'll remove it from the article. Douglasr007 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The only information I've heard about a remix of this song is one by Travis Barker. You can find it on YouTube[1]. Try searching for a Travis Barker remix on Google, you might come up with some results. Dead-In-Horrorwood 00:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh... New Wave?

New Wave?! Wtf? It's even more triphop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowgaze (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 May 2007

no its been confirmed to be new wave..=] me + ma sis luv us sum Pretty Ricky!(wat waz dat?) 00:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trip-hop is completely different, if that songs cheese, trip-hops of chalk - you get me?...New wave means nothing in music, other than lack of imagination...--Madkaffir 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian number-one

Hm, there seems to be a minor conflict. The Canadian Hot 100 is a new chart, which debuted this week; however, technically last week the Canadian Singles Chart still served as the chart comprising of the most popular records in Canada. Although the most popular records now appear on the Canadian Hot 100, last week's number-one single ("Survivalism" by Nine Inch Nails) and this week's ("Umbrella" by Rihanna) were still, at one point, the most popular record in Canada. I believe the succession boxes should remain linked to the former chart, regardless whether it is under a new name because of this. Velten 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a new name, but a new chart. I have no problem with linking "Survivalism" and "Umbrella" together in a succession box - but I would advise that the wikilink in the box not point to the Canadian Hot 100 article - simply to remain accurate and avoid confusion. How have past Canadian #1s been represented? Canadian Airplay chart? If so, then use that for now, and then perhaps begin using Canadian Hot 100 for the next #1 song? I guess it should be decided if this new Canadian Hot 100 will be considered the "official" chart of Canada in all future song articles. - eo 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Former Canadian number-one singles were published on the Canadian Singles Chart. This chart fundamentally crashed in mid-2004, after which it steadily became less and less comprehensive. Billboard had been in the works of creating a new Canadian chart for a year now, and during this time the Canadian BDS Airplay Chart was temporarily used as a substitute as the Canadian Singles Chart to determine which records were most popular in Canada. Velten 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, Billboard has referred to the Canadian Hot 100 as Canada's new official singles chart. Velten 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So does that mean that the recording industry is also considering it Canada's official chart? Honestly, I don't see why they wouldn't, but ya never know. So do we carry this over to Wikipedia? Anyhoo, I say for this article, link "Survivalism" and "Umbrella" but point to the Canadian singles chart... or, have two succession boxes for Canada for this one song, then use Hot 100 only for future songs. - eo 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Either is fine with me. Velten 22:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The name "Canada's official chart" should be changed to "Canadian Hot 100" for this article. The reason why is because this is still the official Canadian singles chart http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/SINGLES.html, and despite the fact Billboard referred to the Canadian Hot 100 as Canada's new official singles chart, this can lead to serious confusion... and no wonder, the title for the succession link is incorrect Agdonald 19:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think what you've done is more confusing. "Survivalism" did not hit #1 on the Canadian Hot 100 because "Umbrella" is the first #1 song on that chart. As stated above, the two songs can be joined together in the succession, but the wikilink should not attribute it to Canadian Hot 100. Both songs reached #1 on the Canadian Singles Chart, so why not just use that... at least until the Canadian Hot 100 has its next #1 song? - eo 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
That is another good point. Feel free to correct the article so that it is not falsely stated that "Survivalism" preceded "Umbrella" as number-one on the Canadian Hot 100 chart. Conversely, you could keep the official Canadian Singles Chart number-one order; however, as shown in this link at this time, "Survivalism" is still #1. "Both songs reached #1 on the Canadian Singles Chart" This statement is incorrect. "Umbrella" has not reached #1 on the Canadian Singles Chart. Please read the Canadian Singles Chart article. Realize that this is the Canadian Singles Chart. Agdonald 4:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Information - Authors

The info box states the song is written by "Jay-Z, Terius Nash, Christopher Stewart" but the article states it was written by "Terius "The Dream" Nash and rapper Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter". Was Christopher Stewart an author or not? PMBO 09:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All Music Guide states that the authors of the song are Stewart, Nash, Jay-Z and also someone named Harrell. I suppose he is the author of the song that is sampled. This should be added to the article. Maja123456 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On Chris Brown's upcoming album, Exclusive, Brown wrote an answer-song titled "Cinderella" with the same beat but different lyrics.

On Chris Brown's upcoming album, Exclusive, Brown wrote an answer-song titled "Cinderella" with the same beat but different lyrics? YES THE SONG EXISTS; I'VE HEARD IT BEFORE BUT IT AIN'T AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL BY RIHANNA, BUT, IF THIS IS SO, WHY ISN'T THE SONG METIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE FOR HIS ALBUM "EXCLUSIVE"?--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! 00:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Small Markets

Why arn't small markets put on the chartlist? Electric Storm89 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

En Pointe

Article previous stated she can be seen walking en pointe. Just watched the video and all these shots only show the lower part of her body (apart from one, where she is holding on to some sort of gym apparatus) so this could be a body double for all we know. Have added "apparently" into the sentence for the time being. 3tmx 15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


  • No, Rihanna said this on 106 & PArk a while back: "A lot of people don't know this, but that was me wearing those en pointe shoes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.168 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2007
wearing is not walking en pointe ;) Its really strange how all the cuts are made so u only see the upper or lower part of body. Maybe its her but she could only do it with the bar. I suggest not mentioning it at all cos a) we simply cant know if its her b)its not important anyway --Echosmoke 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Normal 137.jpg

Image:Normal 137.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Name of Rihanna's mother...

...is Umbrella and that's why she made this song? Someone in es added that thing. Is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.111.69 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 July 2007 

Are you retarded?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.32.231 (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous Hot 100

The previous Hot 100 song is not Makes me Wonder, but rather Buy U a Drank can someone please fix that. 71.226.244.210 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Rihanna hasn't broken the UK single records ... yet

Just to point out to the UK editors that this song is far from the UK singles record. From the Official UK Charts Company, this record is 18 weeks (with Frankie Laine's "I Believe"). The Wet Wet Wet song lasted 15 weeks. [2] 85.232.216.110 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

correct but we have established that it is the most successful single for over a decage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 July 2007

List of countries where this song reached Number 1

Somebody needs to tidy that up - the Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand are all in there twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.63.218 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 July 2007

Originally offered to Mary J Blige

The source for this "fact" is not really notable, since it is just a message board (http://www.bigmusicboard.com/rihanna/679-blige-almost-twirled-umbrella.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurvb (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 July 2007

I saw an interview where Mary said she went into the bidding for the song too late and it went to Rihanna. Harry** (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Umbrella" was inteded for Spears, went to Blige, and finally to Rih Rih. Just finished adding the section about this matter. Take a look. --Efe (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cover Versions

What's the point of putting them on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.35.128 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 October 2007

I don't think you should have just removed the section of the page just because you think there is no reason for it to be there. It's information pertaining to the song. I call for it being put back. ... Especially after I spend the time to clean that section up. >_> --Goten X 18:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Background & Writing / Music Video

The new additions to these sections, for the most part, are incomprehensible. Quite a few points are made more than once also. I attempted to clean up the sections, to keep the articles quality up but it seems the author of them has added them once again. Sorry, but if you are going to edit an English page, use clear, understandable English. Until these sections are edited to the extent that they are actually understandable and do not shift between various tenses and periods of time, it seems best to remove extracts of them that would confuse any readers. (Nowradiate (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Hello. The addition of these things would be clear to the readers what was its history. It might me vague for now but most likely, after editing, it will emerge as clear as the water. The video then must not be removed (for me). Its the history. A little tightening is needed --Efe (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What part is "incomprehensive" by the way? --Efe (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I felt both entire sections to be lacking, not quality wise, obviously the History and the Music Video are important to the article, so instead of deleting them, I tightened them up a bit as you said to make them clearer and comprehensible. There shouldn't be any problems with it now. (90.240.124.7 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Reggae remixes

I added "Reggae remixes featuring Vybz Kartel & Collie Buddz" referring to 2 separate remixes.--Nyj1218 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting rap?!!!!

I added the genre rap music to the infobox for Umbrella but someone keeps deleting it!!! I wouldn't mind but I provided a reference plus an external link which shows my reference to be true! I am adding it again, if you have a problem with the reference please tell me why on my talk page!!! As a Wikipedia user I am allowed to contribute and I find it really unfair that I provided accurate information and it isa continuously deleted! I will be forced to report you otherwise. Besides it's obvious this song is partly rap as Jay-Z raps at the start!--Seán Travers (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

Pop Rock, Too!

"Umbrella" is a pop/R&B song, it´s true. However, there are a lot of rock elements! So, it´s also a rock song! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.22.141 (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IMAGINE HOW ANNOYED BRITNEY IS WITH HER RECORD COMPANY!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Wonda (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ROCK!

"Umbrella" is also a rock song!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.216.183 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 July 2008

1st off,please refrain from using tons of "!". 2nd off,can you provide any Web sources that call it a rock song? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
To the original poster, how do you justify calling this a rock song? The only elements that could even be remotely considered "rock" are the cymbals in this record and that's not even specific enough to call it rock. --Winger84 (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not rock. Yes the song has a guitar or something. Chris Brown's "Take You Down" has a guitar and that's not rock. An urban song can have a guitar. Charmed36 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But there are more rock elements in the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.215.18 (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Umberella was riahnaas moms name. That why she says umberella so many times. and shes on drugs.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.250.53 (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Beat Source/GarageBand

I think the song's beat being an Apple loop is a unique and interesting fact about the song. I have done my best to keep the addition inline with Wikipedia standards (cited a notable source) and included at an appropriate place. I hope that future editors will keep this fact in the article in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skilless (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikichap33 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC) This page has very good information about this song: video, lyrics and meaning of the song. How about adding it to the External Links section?

http://www.multimedia-english.com/htm/music/2008/umbrella.htm

  • No it is unnecessary information. Firstly the copyrights of the lyrics are held by record companies. Secondly, "meanings" of songs are fan interpretations and not classified as factual information. Wikipedia is a factual encyclopeida, and therefore it is not suitable. Reqluce (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the tracklisting

With my experience in writing music-related articles, I haven't encountered any User demanding/asking to add sources for the track listing, so I am wondering if we can take it away. Thanks folks. --Efe (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Several pages, particularly new ones this year (2008) with regards to new singles especially by big artists such as Britney Spears and Madonna have editors questioning sources for track listings. This is because for big releases, there will always be pirate amateur "remixes" listed on Wikipedia for nothing more than shameless self promotion, and sourcing helps to guard against that. Unfortuantely as seen on this article's history of edits, even laymen who are not familliar with club music and massive names such as Joey Van Boroder and Seamus Haji blanked the information out as they thought it was an 'amateur' remix, and that the "Umbrella:Remixes" release was fake. The serial release numbers and ref links are incredibly small on the page, neat, and appear on other song pages which have earned FA status. Hence it should be kept.Reqluce (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Not a big deal, actually. Maybe I have to find better sources. --Efe (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The "deal" here is not the question of quality of the sources. Discogs.com is a high quality 3rd party source, and even if you did find another source, the notations will still appear on the page, how would that help? "Maybe" you should just leave things as they are and accept the fact that the section is already the best it can be.Reqluce (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

"Umbrella" premiered on UK radio station Invicta FM on Hit40uk. It is claimed though that the song was released first on Radio Kado FM on May 11, 2007 although this is still disputed whether it was legal to do so.

I tried to find a source for this. If you have, just add it on the page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Weather curse?

I don't care enough to research it, but I really hope some credible source has pointed out that the opposite chain of causation is far more likely. The weather was stormy, so people were more taken with a song featuring uplifting lyrical content related to stormy weather; the weather got better, people moved on. Seems a lot more reasonable than magic, right? -VJ (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

the beloved - spaceman

this song has some connection to the song spaceman from the beloved??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.110.171 (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Total sales

Can we get a reference for the total sales to date for this song? It's being added to the list List of best-selling singles worldwide without a ref. I'm sure it belongs there but I'm trying to improve the list and requesting that only referenced titles be added. Abrazame (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The single performed, most notably, in the United Kingdom, breaking a record on the UK Singles Chart.

This sentence makes no sense with the commas as they are. A single doesn't "perform". It performs well or badly (or something in between) in the charts (i.e. in gross sales or chart position). It's feasible to say it "performed notably" (implying -- just -- that it performed notably well (noted by whom?!)), but that wouldn't have a comma. Or is this saying the most notable performance (notably good? who noted it) was in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.25.15 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article point out the Beretta issue?

Even Cobra Starship pointed out that this song sounds a LOT like she's singing about Beretta, on TRL, which means that some of the song's popularity in the U.S. may be attributed to people mistaking it for a girl power song. The interview transcript is here. Most Americans are familiar with the Beretta name due to widespread personal ownership and use of firearms in the United States. For example, on average, one person is shot and killed in a car-to-car shooting on a freeway in Los Angeles County every week. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Never too late to point out nonsense. How many L's does she have to enunciate?50.147.26.108 (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Umvrella/Disturbia

I know you're all probably going to dismiss this: but do you think a section should be added about the fact this song (and Disturbia) is about getting seduced and possesed by the Devil? 1. The title is 'Goodgirl gone bad" 2. The lyrics make no sense in the context of a "sexy" song. 3. The video does an internal discourse sort of thing with Rihanna acting as both the Devil and the 'Good girl'. 4. Jay Z's lyrics are saying that he is part of the “chosen”, the elite, the secret group that cannot be harmed by the trials and tribulations of the “small people”. Even if there’s a major crisis, he’s associated with the very people that make those crisis happen, so he won’t be affected. This group however bows down and worships evil. 5. Rihanna sings the first verse but it is actually the Devil talking to Rihanna. He is “sweet-talking” her so she can accept the idea of the Devil entering her body. 6. During the chorus the Devil is offering her protection and also the "ella ella" is reminiscent of a hyponotic ritual sort-thing.

The most important one is where Rihanna is covered in Chrome-coloured liquid [semen], naked and in a Triangle [Represents phallus, penis, male energy] showing that the Devil completely in control. For a few frames at around 2:46, however, Rihanna enters an anatomically impossible position. (On knees, face on floor). This is 2 things: the biological hazard sign and also the face of the Devil! (Digitally enhanced). The horns, snout and eyes are recognizable.

I'm going to finish abruptly here as there is far too much evidence, for all of it and for Disturbia see http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=175. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyurnat4 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 9 February 2010

WTF?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.47.186 (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with the above - but think that if anything should be mentioned its the predictive aspects of the opening rap verse. It's appears to be about being under an "umbrella" of protection for the coming financial crisis. Considering the publishing date of this song, and the timing of the fall of the Dow Jones during the GFC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932011#US_stock_market - it would seem whoever wrote this knew what was coming. At least, it doesn't seem to be a controversial interpretation - and one which is arguably significant (insider knowledge).
"No clouds in my stones
Let it rain, I hydroplane in the bank
Coming down with the Dow Jones
When the clouds come we gone, we Rocafella
We fly higher than weather"
I think it's an important claim to report, but I honestly don't know if it's inclusion would be consistent with wiki-guidelines or not. If the whole "weather curse" merits inclusion, it seemed kinda reasonable to include this one too, at least to me. Anyhow, I'm not a regular wiki-editor, so I'm just putting it out there for you guys to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.244.252 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Please note : There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different versions of the same song. Please make known your opinions on the matter.--Richhoncho (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I did it for youJagoperson (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, you left the other page there. It is now a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues with song credits and who the song was originally for

Can anyone explain why Billboard credits Taio Cruz as one of the co-writers of "Umbrella"? See [3]. I can't find records of "Umbrella" at BMI Repertoire, but ASCAP Repertoire makes no mention of it. However in an interview with Popjustic he speaks of the song and says "I was there when it was written... when we produced it". Even the super-reliable All Music says this: here. Island Records doesn't say that he did/didn't write it just that he was one of the first choices for the song here. Whilst inthenews claims that the song was recorded by Cruz and would have been his but Jay Z stepped in with more money to buy the song for rihanna [4].

How much of this is true? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Orange Version?

Like half the video sites have the music video tagged "Orange Version", yet no reference anywhere on the net is available. In the 2nd sequence half the top or bottom portion of the screen is covered in a giant orange band. Not really a feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.251 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's hook

In the Covers and Remixes section, it says

"In 2009, Lady Gaga incorporated the "Eh, Eh" hook for her song "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)""". While the source material says that "Gaga swiped the Eh Eh hook", referencing the fact that they are similar. However, the Wiki quote makes it sound like Gaga sampled or re-recorded the hook, while actually, the only thing the two have in common is the way they're written because in the songs, they both sound completely different. I think this section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J4musicals (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The-Dream as producer?

Check the album booklet folks. The-Dream did not produce this song. — Status {talkcontribs 15:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Checked. Only Tricky produced the song. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Should be corrected in the rest of the article as well. :) — Status {talkcontribs 15:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna Curse BS

What is that BS about the Rihanna Curse? The presence of that alone makes the claim that this is a Good article a joke. The supposed 'coincidences' aren't even consistent from one fanciful claim to the next. Get rid of it. --jjron (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources to expand

2006 and 2007?

I remember hearing this in like 2004 or so. Is it just me? The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Umbrella (music video)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge. Aspects (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Really, is this necessary? We Found Love (music video) has a lot of good, verifiable content and would weigh its parent song article down, so a standalone article is appropriate in that case. This can very easily be merged with the main song article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge Not notable enough on it own. Don Cuan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge I concur with Don Cuan. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 13:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge: Unless more notable information happens to be found or it charts on the Poland Video Chart like "We Found Love" did, this article cannot be on its own. I'm pretty sure clean-up can be done, though. 和DITOREtails 12:52, 15 August 2014 (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.

Merge with “Umbrella (music video)”

I disagree. This page (music video) more bigger, more informative than section in song page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.99 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there something particularly notable or significant about the video itself that warrants a separate page? 331dot (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I think yes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.99 (talk)
And that would be? 331dot (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Good, useful article. 188.123.230.99 (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Page (music video) restored 188.123.230.99 (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree too! Please, restore my article (“Umbrella (music video)”) again.Υμβρελλα (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Folks, being "good and useful" does not answer my question; is there something particularly notable or significant about the video itself that warrants it having a separate page? 331dot (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Umbrella (as song, as video) is very significant for Rihanna fans. Υμβρελλα (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it is significant enough for Wikipedia to have a separate article on the video. What is significant about the video? Does it have notable people in it(aside from Rihanna)? Notable filming/production techniques? The song is notable- that's why it has an article. Without something notable about the video itself it doesn't need a separate article. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
In video using many unusial technologies, such as: silver body scene (Rihanna in silver paint), scene with water (when Rihanna controls water), half-orange screen (beautiful solution). I know many videos, where such technologie has been used (After “Umbrella” release). For example: Beyonce ― Sweet Dreams (Orange Filtering), Keri Hilson f/ Timbaland ― Return The Favor (Dance in the rain), (Sophie Ellis-Bextor - Bittersweet, Jennifer Lopez - Goin' In) (Water Splashes), ect.Υμβρελλα (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have sources for all of that? It's one thing to see it and hold an opinion, but it needs to have evidence to support it. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
At First is my observations. http://thatgrapejuice.net/2008/10/keri-hilson-return-the-favor-ft-timbaland-video (2nd comment) Υμβρελλα (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) Since more of the music video article was added here, I think these additions should be discussed here. First, Template:Infobox film is not needed here and is used inappropriately. Second, there are WAY too many non-free images here. Song articles have a hard time passing WP:NFCC with one image in it, let alone the five in it now. I am going to remove the new four added until there is a discussion which, if any, image should be used in the section. Third, I think the Nabil Mechi interview is unneeded and should be removed. Fourth, the KromA interview should just be reduced to its first paragraph without its being in its own section, but in a background and concept section. Both of these interviews are just big long quotes, which is not the way Wikipedia articles are written. Fifth, the synopsis should be expanded and based on reliable sources. Sixth, the meaning of the video reeks of WP:OR and should be removed. If some of this could be sourced it could go in the background and concept section. Last, the awards section that was already in the section should be removed because all of them are in the awards table earlier in the articles besides the MTV Video Music Awards Japan, which would just need to be added to the earlier article. I am going to make these changes in separate edits with an edit summary also saying to see the discussion here, so hopefully they can be discussed here and a consensus formed. Aspects (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (Struck out incorrect, since it is listed as a year earlier in the first table.) Aspects (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. Template:Infobox very fit for this section.
  2. My be… As min 3 pic is normal, although 5 pic is normal too.
  3. I think this interview need.
  4. Why? It is not necessary.
  5. It's right.
  6. Meaning section explained base principes of construction of video.
  7. “Awards” in music video section and “Awards” in article is not the same thing. “Awards” in article is ALL awards for “Umbrella”. “Awards” in section is awards ONLY for music video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UxUmbrella (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to explain your reasons in further sentences. Why in Template:Infobox film needed in this article? No other Rihanna song article uses this infobox in it. Your answer for the non-free images show that you have no experience dealing with WP:NFCC. If this was taken to WP:NFCR, it would result it at least four of the images being removed if not all five. Why is the interview needed? Why is the full interview necessary? Both of these interviews look to be giant quotes. The style of Wikipedia writing is to have sentences back up by reliable sources. If something needs to be in the article it should be written as sentences with the reliable sources as references like I did with the first paragraph of the KromA interview. In the same regard the synopsis section should be expanded with reliable sources and if the meaning section is kept is should also be backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia article should not duplicate information and that is what the two awards tables are doing. If we want the music video section to have its own awards tables, then those awards should be removed the first table. I still hope some more opinions can be brought in here to form a consensus. Aspects (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Infobox contains useful information such as author credits (many author credits), 2 release dates, ect. Yes, in other acticles about Rihanna songs Infobox don't used, but this article have many information.
Actually all 5 pics is need: 1 screenshot illustrate the video, 2 photos from set illustrates progress of filming (1 pic (when Rihanna in silver paint) for “Background and concept” and 1 pic for “KromA Interview” (when Rihanna shooting on a green screen)) and 2 pics for “Example” section in “Synapsis”.
What bad have long quotes? Nothing. It's even better. More useful information.
“If we want the music video section to have its own awards tables, then those awards should be removed the first table.” ― Why? Don't need.
And more: I don't want to loss any information from old article (“Umbrella (music video)”). Υμβρελλα (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
P.S.: U know sources to improve “Synopsis” section? Υμβρελλα (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not think I can continue to have this conversation if I cannot even convince you that duplicate information should not be mentioned in a Wikipedia article and if it is then it should be removed from one of its two locations. Aspects (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Duplication between awards tables is very small. Is not bad.
P.S.: I have different IP. I test it. And only 1 account. Υμβρελλα (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

People! Stop undoing better version of article! This version have in “Music Video” section full Nabil Mechi and KromA interviews, Infobox, Synopsis, Award table (Awards and nomination only for video) and several pictures. Υμβρελλα (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
WHY you always undoing my changes??? Υμβρελλα (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There are processes to go through when changes to a page are disputed; this includes obtaining consensus for a major change like that, which you do not have. There are reasons your changes are being reverted which are discussed above(the primary one being you are writing and formatting a film article into a song article); please address those concerns. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Chase, (Personal attack removed) STOP DESTROYING PAGE!!! You delete Rihanna interviews, delete links in “Credits”, delete subsections in “Music Video”, but write on my talk page that I engaged edit war! 4q!!! Υμβρελλα (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is up to you to gain consensus for your changes to the article; Chase is simply restoring the status quo. Please gain consensus without making personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
He simply undo ALL MY CHANGES (Difference changes, not only in “Music Video” section) without any thinking! Υμβρελλα (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For those people, who undoing my changes cuz' I don't reach consensus: I can't reach consensus cuz' my companion (Aspects) don't response to my messages. Υμβρελλα (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre

I think genre of this song is: First, R&B. Second, Pop. Third, Hip Hop. Fouth, Pop Rock. 188.123.230.99 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The song is already listed as a pop and R&B song. You need reliable sources claiming the song is hip hop/pop rock for those to be added. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

UxUmbrella's ideas & improvements

  1. Add ELs in “Credits” section: Links to Nabil Mechi, Murex & Three Foot Giant. (Alive links).
  2. Add section “Rihanna Interviews”: When Rihanna talks about meaning of the song. (From video interviews)
  3. “Music Video” section :: Add photo: Rihanna in silver paint on the set of the music video.
  4. “Music Video” section :: Add subsection “Synopsis”: Short description of the video.
  5. “Music Video” section :: Add subsection “Awards”. cuz' video have many nominations & 4 wins.

Please explain your opinion about these changes (Especialy users: Chasewc91, Aspects, Binksternet, 331dot, IPadPerson. So WHY U dislike my changes???). Υμβρελλα (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of material you are talking about, I'm guessing. Your suggested text is filled with original research, which isn't allowed, and brings too much of an adoring tone to the article, which is not neutral. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Binksternet. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Where u found original research, which isn't allowed & adoring tone here??? “Synopsis” section? It just only facts about video. Υμβρελλα (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Most of your interviews, the info about the visual effects, and the meaning of the video are all completely unsourced. You need to cite reliable sources that verify your information. And the part about Rihanna's "sexy outfits" and how the "video looks very beautiful and effective" are exactly the kind of adoring, non-neutral tone that is not allowed here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
How about other changes (items: 1, 2, 3 & 5)? Why u dislike them? Υμβρελλα (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Aspects, SO, why u dislike items: 1 & 2 ??? Υμβρελλα (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Screen capture in “Music video” section

I think this screenshot should be in article because:

  • It need to illustrate section, to make section more understandable.
  • I remember at least 2 screenshots from other editors that been in this section around 1 year. (2007 - 2009 years)
  • This screenshot have been in this article around ½ year. Υμβρελλα (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This explanation does not address the concern given, WP:NFCC#8. Per that you must demonstrate that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". 331dot (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And last, you saw this image 100 times, but only now decide to remove it. Why? Υμβρελλα (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Link 6 (http://www.defjam.com/site/artist_news.php?artist_id=586&news_id=103239) is a dead link, I have found a working link below for the same content, can you please fix this, thanks

http://umbrellapayrollcompany.co.uk/2014/11/25/rihanna-launches-new-single-umbrella-featuring-jay-z-worldwide/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.242.87 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 November 2014

Review/Expansion

I think this article could be put into GA review or being expanded. It was elected a good article EIGHT years ago, and watching this by now, it did not meet the GA criteria. Unless a expansion be made, the article can not be listed as good anymore. Music01 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Umbrella (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Umbrella (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) 00:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Umbrella (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) 02:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Umbrella (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) 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Umbrella (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) 15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Genres

I've looked at the article and the genres are in the infobox's coding but aren't showing up on the article when it’s finished, can someone look into it please? 82.132.220.220 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a special provision that guarantees no genres are shown in this infobox, a measure meant to stop genre warring, first implemented in September. If genres are to be shown, it would probably wise to first establish a consensus for that here on the talk page. Huon (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Huon for pointing that out. I had looked at this earlier with some degree of bafflement. I updated the documentation for the template {{infobox single}} to indicate how the mechanism for suppressing genre is implemented, without commenting on the reasons why. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

In my opinion, much of the content of the Legacy section should appear in another section of the article. I believe we should move the whole segment that explains why Umbrella is a milestone in Rihanna's career. This is how I would summarize the actual Legacy section:

The legacy of the song Umbrella is the success of Rihanna as a singer.

This feels redundant to me. It is also oddly reminiscent of one sempiternal causality dilemma.

If I were to define legacy in the arts, I would say that it is how an artist, or his work, becomes engrained in the mainstream culture and leaves an imprint. It is the process through which a creation outgrows its creator's realm of influence, and starts to exist autonomously. Ultimately, a legacy is achieved when other creators reinvest the original work into their own.

I think we should move all the content included between Umbrella is widely acknowledged as the song that propelled Rihanna" and "you knew your life was about to change" to a different section of the article. I thought of two possibilities, or maybe someone has a better idea altogether.

  1. We could create a section titled Repercussions or Impact to explain the importance of the song in Rihanna's career.
  2. We could also integrate it into the Reception section. We could either add it right after the actual content of this section or create a sub-section.

Does anybody feel the same way? AleXMetz∆°°˚TALK 05:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Umbrella_(song)/Archive_1&oldid=1142781623"