Template talk:Rihanna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pop music (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Rihanna page.

WikiProject Rihanna (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Rihanna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rihanna on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Wrong info[edit]

I'm posting here to avoid any war edits. "Tide is High" by Kardinal Offshall is NOT a Rihanna single, the single features "Keri Hilson", not Rihanna. So please donot add wrong info in the template, wjoever you are. --"Legolas" (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

YEAHX Jagoperson (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Template style[edit]

OK, can we have some kind of a rational discussion about the two styles of the template that are in dispute? Edit warring is not going to resolve this. The template is protected for one week. Amalthea 13:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I think that the template style that I have constructed is better because...:

  1. The style is better
  2. It shows which album are the singles from
  3. Makes it bigger and more articulate

By my opinion this kind structure should be present, or if not than the classical: the template should be parted Rihanna and Rihanna singles . Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It can't be like that - it's too unconventional. Either we leave it as it is now or make a Rihanna singles template (which will probably get deleted). GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do u think that it's unconventional? Look at the template again. It's like you have the Rihanna and Rihanna singles split template in one. I think that my option is best for now, but ok let's vote. The users that are interested in the template should vote and by theirs (and our) decision to design the template. Greetings! 1111tomica 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's unconventional because it goes against the Wikipedia convention of such templates. And you can't do a vote; read WP:NOTAVOTE. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The debate is opening again. I am choosing the style with which I modified the template or this one. 1111tomica (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, seeing that we are lacking in input, and that it was just split again, here's what I think: I like the structure by 1111tomica. We apparently are at a point where a finer structure with the singles is beneficial. Splitting out a singles navbox is, in my opinion, generally a bad alternative, since the bulk of the articles will just get two collapsed navboxes at the bottom. In fact, with e.g. The Beatles' "I'm a Loser", where the navbox is already bursting at its seams, the singles are simply not linked to in the navbox at all, and navigation is only provided via the albums and the discography. Having the singles grouped by album is by no means unprecedented, there's for example Template:Anastacia. Using sub groups is actually a very nice enhancement, in my opinion, and in this case absolutely doable since we aren't lacking in vertical space. A bit unconventional for navboxes of musical artists, but absolutely an improvement that trumps consistency, in my opinion, one that I'd like to apply to some other navboxes as well.
    The only thing I'd change is to remove the years or at least the links behind the years, since those link targets are not strongly related to Rihanna and aren't useful for context in the navbox. Amalthea 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I note that two accounts who have objected to this structure, GaGaOohLaLa and Bravedog, turned out to be sock accounts and were operated by the same person. Amalthea 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

mmm... Really? And what we do now?! 1111tomica (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Products.[edit]

Rihanna has a couple of products. Her umbrella's from Totes. and her new fragrance "Route 22". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27ivan (talkcontribs) 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

New template design.[edit]

I have combined the Rihanna and Rihanna singles templates into one, more functional template. The problems with having the previous two were that the Rihanna template was only used on a handful of articles, just the album articles really, so there wasn't much point in having that one. It contained redundancy which wasn't needed. The Rihanna singles template contained nearly all the info that was needed apart from just a few things such as music video, films, perfume etc. The template I have just designed and am using on Rihanna articles is still the Rihanna template, but with both of the previous templates merged together. This is no different to that of Katy Perry's and is very similar to Lady Gaga's. There is no reason for it to be reverted, especially without giving a valid and justifiable reason. AaronYou Da One 15:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to those who care to comment, a similar discussion. In summary, Jivesh boodhun cited the lack of number of works besides albums and singles as a reason to combine the templates. 1111tomica argued that the two separate templates is a more organized system. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys! I hate giving 3RR warnings to constructive editors, but things are getting silly here. Could you all please discuss your differences and resolve them before editing the template again? Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We only did it 2 times this time actually. — Tomica (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tomica. Templates can be handed out even if an uninvolved editor sees this conflict as potentially becoming a large-scale one, breaching 3RR. That's why it says "in danger of". :-) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Ooops. I think that voting is the best way to resolve this. Until then, the templates should stay in its "older" edition. — Tomica (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
People can't vote on something they can't see Tomica, so you're not helping. AaronYou Da One 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I know how these things can get out of hand, so I'm trying to do you a favour. The page history tells the story; Multiple reverts in the last couple of days over a content dispute. Technically Tomica is in the clear, but splitting hairs won't get you far if an admin comes along with the block stick. You're all in danger of being temporarily blocked. Most admins don't like handing out needless blocks, so it would be good if you could demonstrate willingness to discuss and reach a consensus. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That could happen if the template could just stay here, then people can see it. How can people vote on something that they can't see? AaronYou Da One 18:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Your preferred revision is the one that is current. I was going to revert back to Tomica's original revision until consensus, but left it as I didn't want to join in on this. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
But how could people comment on it if you revert to the other one? Do you understand what I'm saying? AaronYou Da One 18:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
They can look back at earlier revisions. Just post links and you're good to go. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh god... It's ugly and unusually bulky... The previous style was hurting no one. | helpdןǝɥ | 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts; the proposed version is obviously bigger, but I don't see that as a problem when it is a collapsed box on the article pages. Certainly it's not the biggest I've ever seen. It merges in the singles template, which is a good idea, but maybe it would be better as a template within a template (See Template:The Beatles for example). Otherwise, if the dispute here is simply about aesthetics, does no-one have an alternative layout they prefer? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How about like this? It's a lot less bulky. Till I Go Home (talk)
Rihanna has (should have by my opinion) only two templates {{Rihanna}} and {{Rihanna singles}}. Beatles have like 5 or more, so the collapsed version there is fine. I would like to ask all the users who place their opinion to vote on one of the versions. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I did that to {{Prince}}. But I'm not sure Rihanna has enough articles to be able to do that. — Status {talkcontribs 04:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Restore to the previous version. The current template appears bulky and uncomfortable to navigate with. Till I Go Home (talk) Tbh, I changed my mind. Looking at other templates, this one actually appears really small and vacant. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with IHelpWhenICan and Till I Go Home. It's messy and just too big. Pancake (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The original Rihanna template is not worthy of having it's own template. There was nothing in it. There is no need for two templates. AaronYou Da One 13:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Six albums, a video album, a video, two films, seven tours and a book and perfume is nothing (not counting the re-directs)? It can descent be there. Also the discography, videography, songs and tours. — Tomica (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Well guys, we had a discussion which was opened for like one week. I can see that three users plus me want to restore to two templates. No one apart Calvin expressed otherwise opinion. 19:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Me and Jivesh have said no. Status also said he doesn't think Rihanna has enough for 2 separate templates. Who are the 3+? If you can't think of any, that means it is 3. No one put you in charge of this. AaronYou Da One 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Well If you count you will see three users who say they are not satisfied with the huge version. I am not sure about Status though. — Tomica (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
"But I'm not sure Rihanna has enough articles to be able to do that." is hardly an oppose. 3 people want it, 3 people do not. There is no consensus to change it back. AaronYou Da One 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
We need more time. Leave a message on the talk-page of her wikiproject. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
If you read the previous comment you can see why he add that sentence. User:Escape Orbit had a suggestion for which both me and Status disagreed. So by my interpretation we are four vs two.— Tomica (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
But he also disagrees with having two templates. AaronYou Da One 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't find that line anywhere actually. — Tomica (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should be asked to evaluate the consensus. Unless it is very obvious, none of the parties should do so as things like WP:!VOTE are often violated. It's been restored to the original and should not be reverted until consensus is in favor of the compact version. Editors should still feel free to state their opinion here. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I like the version I made actually. It had everything together, but it read simply and conveniently. Click [1] to see it. Till I Go Home (talk)
  • Sorry Till I Go Home, but with all respect I have towards you, your version was even worse. The part of singles was so eye painful. :S — Tomica (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Really? I think it looked better than the first proposal but overall Rihanna and Rihanna singles should be separate. Till I Go Home (talk)
I agree with Tomica, and like how it was originally, standard and non-radical. Best, --Discographer (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I support Till I Go Home's version; I don't understand why everyone jumps to make separate singles templates when they aren't needed. The template at the moment is too bare. — Status {talkcontribs 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Couldn't we include the fields with one article entry into a "Related articles" section? | helpdןǝɥ | 19:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Another new template design proposal.[edit]

What do people think of this? AARONTALK 11:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)