Jump to content

Talk:Rihanna

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 205.121.21.34 (talk) at 15:21, 24 April 2019 (Rihanna loves her family. Her life revolves around her cousins (Addy, Aiden, and Avery Drew) Unfortunately they live in Utah so she does not see them often.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rihanna loves her family. Her life revolves around her cousins (Addy, Aiden, and Avery Drew) Unfortunately they live in Utah so she does not see them often.

Template:Vital article This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jameilla. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgmoyer1998 (article contribs).

Rihanna

I think Rihanna's autobiography could be enhanced by adding more details into her early life. Rihanna was born in Barbados and went through an abusive father...so I think that is also a big thing in her life that has affected her.

I think there are also some unnecessary details- as in her small tattoos on her body. I do understand why it would be in there but don't really think it's necessary unless there is more of an explanation on them. And why she got every single tattoo.

The positive part of this Wiki site is that there is a good amount of content telling her story of getting signed. There is also a really good amount of details in pretty much every section. Like explaining her jobs, awards, and details in what she really does.

Negatively, the organization of Rihanna's profile is kind of everywhere. Even throughout the details, it can be spread apart a lot better. Or broken down into paragraphs at least.

Yes sure Ana jerie (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown discusses abuse of Rihanna: 'I felt like a monster'

R&B star Chris Brown has talked about his past abuse of ex-girlfriend Rihanna, who was left bruised and bleeding after Brown attacked her in February 2009. Brown was arrested following the incident, and was sentenced to community service and domestic violence counselling, plus a restraining order. In a new film documentary, Chris Brown: Welcome to My Life, he goes into detail about the abusive relationship, saying he “felt like a fucking monster”. He said that he had intended to marry Rihanna, but that he lost her trust after he lied about a sexual encounter with someone who worked with him, that happened prior to their relationship. “She hated me after that. I tried everything, she didn’t care. She just didn’t trust me after that,” he said. “From there, it just went downhill because there were too many verbal fights, physical fights as well. Mutual sides... We would fight each other. She would hit me, I would hit her and it never was OK. “There was always a point where we’d talk about it like, ‘What the fuck are we doing?’” he continued. “Like, ‘I don’t like you slapping me.’ If I go on stage I got a scratch on my face and I gotta explain it like, ‘Oh, no I fell.’ If you got a scar or a bruise you gotta put makeup on. I’m not ever trying to put my hands on any female.”

Discussing the specific incident he was arrested over, he said it came about after Rihanna became suspicious of texts he had received from another woman. “She’s fighting me, and I’m like: I’m telling you the truth, I swear to God, stop it. She hits me a couple more times, and it doesn’t go from translation: sit down, I’m trying to tell you the truth. It goes to: now I’m finna be me, and be evil... She tried to kick me... and I really hit her, with a closed fist, I punched her. When I saw it, I was in shock, I was like, fuck, why did I hit her. She spit blood in my face – and it raised me even more ... She grabbed my nuts, and I bit her arm.” Referring to the picture of her injuries that circulated the media afterwards, he said: “I look back at that picture and I’m just like: that’s not me. I hate it to this day – that’s going to haunt me forever.

In a 2009 interview following the attack, Rihanna said she “fended him off with my feet”. She added that Brown allegedly threatened to kill her, “to scare me”, and that “all I kept thinking was, ‘When is it going to stop?’” She characterised their relationship as “dangerous”: “The more in love we became, the more dangerous we became for each other, equally as dangerous.”

He should feel like one Ana jerie (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna's ninth studio album?

There appears to be artwork, a track list, a title, and even actual digital downloads. Why is there no information on this album, titled "BOOM.", here or on any official sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaOkami (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Ana jerie (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I personally don't consider {{Infobox officeholder}} appropriate since Rihanna is better known as an entertainer rather than a politician. I recommend using {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox musician}} instead. Any comment on this? — HĐ (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019

In first paragraph, change Jay-Z as a hip hop producer to rapper first. I would like that part to be edited. Aeuro23 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Aeuro23 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ana jerie (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should {{Infobox officeholder}} be used?

There is a clear consensus that {{Infobox officeholder}} should not be used in the Rihanna article. There is a consensus to use {{Infobox person}} instead. There is no consensus owing to lack of discussion from most participants about whether to embed the ambassador position submodule in {{Infobox person}}, so there is no prejudice against discussing this further.

Cunard (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should {{Infobox officeholder}} be used in the Rihanna article, which claims that she is the incumbent Barbadian Ambassador-at-Large? — Newslinger talk 00:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from HĐ

I disagree with the usage of {{Infobox officeholder}} at this point. Rihanna has been globally regarded as a high-profile entertainer (say, singer to be more precise) who always appears on the upper positions of the US charts for the majority of singles released since her 2005 debut. Meanwhile the title "Ambassador-at-Large" has been newly created by the Barbadian Government in September 2018, and it feels like an honorary title to recognise Rihanna's effort in popularising Barbadian identity rather than holding an official political position. That said, I suggest using {{Infobox musician}} or {{Infobox person}} instead. I also look forward to hearing others' comments, especially from the user(s) who brought forward the template Infobox Officeholder in the first place. — HĐ (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just start with whether or not this is the kind of ambassadorship for which the officeholder infobox would apply based on other examples and reasonable criteria. HĐ asks, is this an official political position or just an honorary title? That sounds very reasonable to me. Even though this kind of test may be a bit arbitrary, it's a good way to go in keeping with the spirit of this site as far as being consistent and having good reason why you're doing something.
Well, this article from the Barbados Government Information Service says "Government[sic] has appointed international pop icon, Robyn “Rihanna” Fenty, as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, with specific responsibility for promoting education, tourism and investment for the island."
Later on it says "Rihanna was appointed as one of Barbados’ Cultural Ambassadors in 2008, undertaking promotional work on behalf of the ministry with responsibility for tourism. However, this expanded role takes into consideration her multidimensional achievements and global influence across a much broader range of areas."
This sounds official enough to me in that the government of Barbados is appointing Rihanna a specific title and ambassador role. In fact, it sounds like she was promoted from what may have been a less official capacity to what appears to be a more official one. And so fine, yes. Rihanna is an official ambassador of Barbados.
And so what might be her title? Officially, apparently, it is "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary", whatever the heck that means. Can we find examples of other similar Ambassadors of Barbados? The Order of Barbados is not much help because most links on that page are dead. And if you finally get to the Orders, Decorations and Medals of Barbados page, you'll find that still most links are either dead or fortunately Internet Archived. And there is even a link back to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Barbados. And so... I guess it's really up to us?
Wikipedia also has a Ambassadors of Barbados page. What might we find there? Apparently, a small but sure list of normal boring ambassadors. What are the titles by which they are referred? Well, we have the very well-unknown Sir Lionel Alfren Luckhoo. He doesn't even deserve an officeholder infobox, or anything to acknowledge whatever the heck he was knighted for. At least Elton John has a person infobox, as indeed he is merely some person who happened to make a catchy tune here and there.
What about the definitely-not-infamous Edward Evelyn Greaves? "High Commissioner of Barbados to Canada ( from July 2008)[sic]"? Maybe they did not call him ambassador on paper, but clearly he made the list. Also, he is worthy of the officeholder template. But note that there is no honorific suffix or prefix. What? There he is working officially on behalf of representing Barbados and no one is calling him His Excellency? What a total rip-off...
And so, excellent though Rihanna may be, "Her Excellency" may be a bit... inappropriate. For this site, anyway. Unless anyone who I anticipate will be so zealously attempting to restore her "title" on this page expresses any similar interest towards other de-throned ambassadors of Barbados, such as James Cameron Tudor, the founder of the country's Democratic Labour Party, the man who made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George mind you—you see where I'm going with this. I doubt there is anyone insisting on calling Rihanna "Her Excellency" who also gives a darn about any of the people who have actually represented/created Barbados being memorialized with such titles. And so, I say to treat her like the other ambasssadors of Barbados on this site, unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise.
Just for one last comparison, consider our dear late friend Shirley Temple Black, who was indeed a famous actor for much of her young life. In fact, most everyone only knows Shirley Temple as an actor, if not a non-alcoholic beverage. However, she was indeed officially appointed as an ambassador by not one, not two, but three presidents (see slide 9 of 17). And so, she definitely gets the officeholder infobox because it appears she switch careers later in life.
Rihanna, in contrast, is still a famous musician, entrepenuer, etc. No one really associates her with politics. Still, I do not agree that this should be used as criteria for whether or not that infobox is appropriate. Just like Elton John is much more notable as a famous musician than a typical boring person, but the person infobox is still appropriate for his article. A more simple and less biased criteria would involve determining just whether or not the infobox can apply to the subject.
And so... whew... in conclusion, I am convinced there is no good reason to doubt that her ambassadorship is official, so the officeholder infobox is fine, although it should probably be a submodle within a parent person Infobox. I advocate the removal of the honorific prefix and suffixes unless someone can find someone of similar ambassador office in Barbados who is referred to as such. From my research, I've been lead to believe that Barbados ambassadors do not tend to get such titles, so there is no reason for Wikipedia to officiate her as such.
It would be very appropriate for the title of Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary to be attributed to her on this page, since that is what the government has officially titled her. That would be the appropriate value for the office attribute for the infobox. However, I am not opposed to Barbados Ambassador-at-large, because among the other ambassadors listed there, even though most have the 'at-large' in their official title, some have their country's 'extraodinary' title, and so I am willing to count what some counties call an "extraordinary" ambassador as one in the same 'at-large' category. Ender and Peter 17:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: What is the benefit of requiring a specific parent infobox? Why is it not enough for the main infobox to simply be relevant? Other infoboxes can be imported into the parent one, as the musical artist one is here, so that you can use any that happens to be relevant. They are only to help organize relevant info about the article subject. They in no way are declaring what the subject's primary or main existence is. A person can have a variety of interests and pursuits, and be well-known for a handful of things. Again, isn't Shirley Temple mainly well-known as an actress? How many people even know that she was an ambassador? And again, aren't Elton John and Paul McCartney more than just persons? Bruce Springsteen's page is another example. Note how the parent Infobox is the person one. Again, this is entirely appropriate, just as a parent infobox of person, musician, or officeholder would be here. Ender and Peter 06:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This issue can be resolved under a simple WP:WEIGHT analysis, where such a test renders the inclusion of the infobox inadvisable in two distinct ways: 1) as has been noted at length by others above, using this infobox (which indeed is not even the proper infobox for her formal designation in regard to this position) is massively out of step with the main thrust of the subject's sources of notability, and 2) It would seem to misrepresent the nature of the position itself; while we must be careful not to engage in WP:Original research as to the exact nature of her position in terms of what we do say, there is sufficient sourced information here to make it clear that this ambassadorship is not truly about formal diplomatic activities and rather more about promotion--I hesitate to use the term P.R., because that sounds more dismissive of the role than I would intend, but her function seems to very clearly by about tourism and image, not communication, diplomacy, and coordination between state entities. While I would not advocate for adding that analysis expressly into the article, it is a clear enough conclusion (particularly when combined with the other weight issues) to make the use of this particular infobox inappropriate for this subject at this time. Snow let's rap 05:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: It does not seem like WP:WEIGHT applies to this issue, because that policy talks about what kind of weight to give to minority viewpoints. It sounds like you're talking more about the article subject's notability. In this case, there's no good reason to dispute the announcement of Rihanna's ambassadorship. Now, it's true that it looks like this role is very different than the kind of Barbadian ambassadors that are designated to specific countries. It is hard to say what exactly her duties are or if she has to report to anyone, etc. I am not sure if it matters all that much in regards to acknowledging her official role, because it is significant that there is a source directly from the country's government that was acknowledged by other news sources as legitimate. I don't see how it is up to us to decide how official her role/title is, other than accurately portraying what that particular government does. The most neutral thing would probably be to use the person infobox like other musicians up here, but I'm okay with any parent infobox that is relevant. I do agree that the previous title that the page had was unfounded. Maybe even "Ambassador-at-large" could be replaced by the actual title she was given just to avoid confusion, although again I'm alright with what is currently there because there are other ambassadors in the list for that article that have a title similar to Rihanna's. Ender and Peter 06:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps there's been some confusion as to the meaning of my comment. I'm not opposed to mentioning her ambassadorship in its entirety--I take it as a given that it is relevant to the article. I'd even go so far as to say that I think it definitely needs to be mentioned in the lead; whether or not the position ultimately is more symbolic and not really at all predicated in formal statecraft, it's still a position of some remarkable note. I was merely addressing the much more narrow issue presented by the RfC: whether to use that specific infobox (and I guess implicitly, there is a question of whether to mention the position in any variation of an infobox, but I hadn't thought to speak to that before). On that matter, while you are correct that the question interfaces with issues of notability, WP:WEIGHT certainly is the single most relevant policy and test, as any element of an article has the potential to misrepresent what the most salient details of a subject are, especially if said element has is placed so prominently as an infobox; the policy is not merely about comparing competing views on a given topic--though that is, as you identify, another major implication. WP:Notability, by comparison, is much more concerned with whether we cover a topic and, if so, in what type of format (i.e. independent article or not). But it is a confusing area for editorial nomenclature, because the type of weight we are talking about is often described in terms of "the source of the subject's notability". Anyway, if you are inquiring of me whether I think we could work the title into another infobox without it unbalancing the article's coverage, I would have to give that some more thought. My initial thoughts merely reflect support for the emerging consensus that the particular infobox the RfC inquires about it not particularly appropriate in these circumstances. Snow let's rap 07:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: I really appreciate your response. Ah, so you're interpreting "due and undue weight" in the sense of whether certain information should be made more prominent or not, or how it should be explained/featured, after accepting that it is true. It's just that the examples in WP:WEIGHT all to speak to the veracity/verifiability of a claim, whether or not we should accept something is verifiable enough to talk about here before even debating how it relates to the subject's notability, and whether minority viewpoints should be considered on equal footing with more popular ones. However, I think I understand your point in regards to whether or not the information is relevant to the article. Well, at any rate I would say that that topic and WP:Notability are under discussion here for sure.
Anyway, regarding which infobox should be the parent one, the one "placed so prominently" as you say. Would you agree that it would be a good idea to just make it person in accordance with other popular musician articles as shown above? That seems to be the most neutral and consistent solution. Just like other popular musician articles up here, the main one can be that and we can embed any other relevant infoboxes. So again, using Elton John as an example, the parent would be person and we would embed musical artist and officeholder, which could just be at the bottom if there is concern about it being more near the top. If it's alright to mention this in the lead, why not that box? It's already mentioned in the article text under an appropriate section. But if anyone was scanning Wikipedia for Barbadian ambassadors, of varying official capacity, this info in such metadata is very useful.
Tell me though, what is your view of the infobox on Shirley Temple's page? Indeed, she had a true day job as a US ambassador, but does anyone even know that? Do you consider it appropriate for the officeholder infobox to be the parent one on that page? Does a certain amount of time as an ambassador warrant such a parent infobox even if the subject is most well-known as an actor or should another one be used? Ender and Peter 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because she's obviously known as a singer, As others have mentioned there's nothing in reliable sources to confirm this but even if there was I still don't see the need for the infobox. –Davey2010Talk 16:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: It would make for a much more productive conversation if you and others could more directly address my points. Again, what do you say about other articles on this site where the subject is well-known as a musician but the musical artist infobox is not the parent? It would help if you would speak more to the use of the person infobox in accordance with other similar articles. Also, others have not claimed that there are no reliable sources to confirm that Rihanna is an ambassador of the type claimed by the articles. No one has refuted that. The discussion has been more about whether or not this information is notable enough to mention here, as there was dispute of how "official" this is. There is not particularly strong dispute regarding this because no one has refuted what I've claimed and there seems to now just be a conversation about how this information should be mentioned. I maintain the infobox structure I've articulated, and I'm very curious to know if you or anyone else can explain why this page's infoboxes should not be structured like Elton John, Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, etc., which once again involves a parent person infobox with other embedded relevant infoboxes, especially musical artist and also officeholder in this case. Ender and Peter 05:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Enderandpeter Please stop badgering everyone as you've so far badgered everyone who's !voted after you, Not to be rude but I'm not going to spend 1-20 minutes of my life reading through your walls of text, You !voted Yay and I !voted Nay so instead of badgering everyone you should allow consensus to build. Please don't ping be again, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 12:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me sir, but this is a community, not a democracy where everyone throws up a yes or no vote and that's the end of it. It is a place of discussion and where consensus is reached. That requires conversation and directly engaging each other so we actually understand our positions. The pinging feature is simply a way for someone to see a notification of a reply. Your ping of me just now was not at all obtrusive. By the way, why would you ping me and then say I should not ping anyone? Ender and Peter 15:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you took some time to read the text above, you'd realize that there is very little substantial disagreement and that you have mischaracterized the dispute. I urge you to take a moment to understand the arguments so that we can have a productive discussion. Ender and Peter 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on possible consensus

Please check out my light-blue-highlighted comments above. I was hoping to have a further discussion on that possible solution for this issue. This section is just to make a little more room for that particular conversation and other related ones. I'm hoping that HĐ, Newslinger and anyone else more invested in this issue will expand more on their arguments.

The issue with the section above is that there are a lot of people leaving a vote and then leaving comments, which is a good start, but no one is trying to defend their position. Snow Rise is the only person who has provided a useful response in getting anywhere close to a consensus, which is a word that is a synonym with "agreement", in that he mentioned being open to talking more about incorporating the officeholder template. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like we have all too much disagreement on dealing with this issue. To be very clear: The point of these discussions is to come to an agreement.

We may not even be entirely convinced of each others' position, but the goal is to decide on an approach that makes sense for this articles and others like it.

In the following section, it would be very helpful to post bulleted topics that pertain to a specific proposed solution. For instance, if you think the officeholder template should be replaced, please say what it should be replaced with and why. Try to summarize your proposed solution in a single sentence for the heading but feel free to provide as much description/extrapolation as necessary. Also, most importantly, you should only post in this section if you would like to follow up on others' responses and would like them to follow up on yours:

Proposed Solutions

  • A "person" parent infobox with other relevant infoboxes embedded (musical artist, officeholder, etc)
I've already laid out my position, so I look forward to responses regarding this possible solution. Do you still think that her ambassador position should not be mentioned at all on this page? Or that it should be mentioned in another way? Should "musical artist" be the parent infobox or would "person" be appropriate? Please address any refutations of my points above in this section. Ender and Peter 16:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her ambassador position should be retained; it's part of her work albeit of smaller significance compared to her reputation as an entertainer. I suggest using {{Infobox person}} as the parent infobox with details regarding her music career/ambassadorship included in the module. I am against using {{Infobox officeholder}} as the parent infobox because it emphasises Rihanna's Ambassador title, which is completely unnecessary and out of context to her reputation. — HĐ (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It's a relatively minor role, of somewhat confusing status. There is no need to clutter the infobox with it, even if we do include it for individuals whose role as an ambassador is a larger part of their activities or notability. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NoCOBOL: You know, I can't help but to indeed agree somewhat regarding the confusion on the status and role. I think it is difficult to dispute the notability of this particular status, whatever it is exactly, especially if the Barbadian government made such an announcement. I think I also agree that maybe it is resulting in too much clutter, because if you look at other regular Barbadian ambassador pages, they don't have these kinds of details. I'm really not sure what kind of standard the person who added that info was working on. And so, I can't help but to advocate removing the monarch, predecessor, and primeminister attributes, but for the sake of compromise, and since it is information worth mentioning for the subject's relationship to that country, it would be wise to keep at least the office and term_start info. Such information deserves to be prominent because it is quite a significant achievement when your country of origin bestows this kind of honor to you, and to them it appears to have true merit. The article is certainly improved and not diminished with such information, but you are right that there is no need for all that detail, until there seems to be good reason to add more info (someone else is appointed, the role is expanded, etc.) Ender and Peter 18:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox person. This seems to have been the infobox in use before the ambassadorial box was substituted and it serves perfectly well. As to whether to include her ambassadorial position in the infobox through an embedded module, my first inclination is that it is not strictly necessary and possibly would overemphasize the role in relation to her overall notability. That said, I don't think either scenario is going to break the article, whether the embedded box is included or omitted in the parent infobox. If it does appear in the infobox, I think it would help in keeping the information balanced to include it following all of the information relating to the subject's musical career (that being without question the major and vastly most significant nexus of coverage of her both in reliable sources and by this article). I'd suggest to Enderandpeter, as the main proponent for inclusion of the module, that suggesting this order of elements as a part of the middleground solution might help improve the chances of endorsement by consensus. My own !vote here can be considered a weak support--for the sake of moving things towards consensus--if the ambassadorship element is placed towards the tail end of the infobox. Snow let's rap 21:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on the implemented solution

So, I was recently so bold as to basically do what is described above, in that the person Infobox is restored with an embedded officeholder with less info in line with what we can verify and without inadvertently setting a precedent for labeling Barbadian ambassadors that is not in use on other pages on this site. It was very clear that person was the original infobox because whoever replaced it with officeholder simply swapped the template name and added attributes for it without accounting for the unrelated person infobox attributes. And so, you will notice that some infobox data is listed in a different order than before. This is because the person infobox arranges the attribute data in a specific order, whereas the officeholder infobox was just showing the unsupported person data in the order it was given.

The officeholder info is at the bottom instead of the top. You'll notice that it says Infobox ambassador because the template docs suggest using a supported alternate name for the template that is most relevant to the position.

I also removed "diplomat" from the "Occupation" list because the official nature of this role is in dispute, so it seems wise to just explicitly say what this role is, and that it started on a date. The "Incumbent" label is added automatically by the officeholder template.

And so... man, did I learn about Infoboxes today. I can't help but to think that this puts the article in a good state. This ambassador role, however official, is worth noting in metadata. Since no one is rushing to add her name to Wikipedia's list of Barbadian ambassadors, I guess no one really cares all that much anyway.

For anything I've asserted, I am happy to be shown counterexamples or proven otherwise. I would hope that those who voted "No" (if we ever hear from them again) are at least satisfied that a more appropriate parent infobox has been restored. I don't see how the presence of the ambassador metadata lowers the quality of this article. It only improves it. I suspect it was more of the unnecessary flourishing of additional info, especially those questionable honorifics, that made people think that such labeling was wholly inappropriate, but I I hope that this is a good compromise.

If I accidentally changed or removed anything, please correct it. And of course, please share your thoughts. Ender and Peter 20:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I could have read the Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary article section originally shared by Newslinger (whom I also thank) which would have given me a better understanding of that title's history and use. I'm glad to understand now, though. If "plenipotentiary" means "full authority to represent the government", then that sounds like real governmental authority. Ender and Peter 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019


In the top paragraph where it saids 2000s century, century should say decade because the 2000s was a decade not a century.144.178.7.20 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 01:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life

Rihanna was born to Monica Braithwaite an Afro-Guyanese, retired accountant and Ronald Fenty an Irish, warehouse supervisor. Zeké Nel (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

Under the 2015-2018 section, please change where it says The Weeknd supported Rihanna on her Anti World Tour as he cancelled, so only Big Sean supported the tour in Europe. Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/the-weeknd-drops-out-of-rihannas-anti-world-tour-a6948306.html 31.205.252.219 (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Roadguy2 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Change the infobox photo as newer ones are available which represent her better. The photo is too similar to the one used on her discography. The page needs to look more refreshing to read, rather than a dark picture. 2A02:C7F:B655:E400:85BB:D978:CDA9:2FE4 (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Danski454 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Could someone change the infobox to a more recent photo please as these are available. Unitedfenty (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Photos have to have the approved license and be appropriate for the article. So for now, the one from 2014 has that. Trillfendi (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Danski454 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Rihanna now resides in St John’s Wood, London, please research to make information more accurate as parts of the article are outdated. Unitedfenty (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Could someone delete parts of the “See Also” section as some of the links are now dead and makes the page look messy or less serious because they are red. Unitedfenty (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I don’t know why people put uncreated articles there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has edited this page so the section in question had these dead links although she is in these articles. The text 'number-one' should remain in links otherwise they may be broken when an edit like this happens again. Iggy (Swan) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

I've noticed that Rihanna's lead image has been changed persistently. So i have decided to make a voting

¿Which image do you choose?

  • Option A
    Option A
  • Option B
    Option B
  • Option C
    Option C
  • Option D
    Option D

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

In the infobox, change the order of occupations so 'songwriter' is placed before 'actress'. Although she hasn't written all her songs, Rihanna is better known as a singer and songwriter than she is actress, shown by over 80 songwriting credits compared to less than 10 lead/support acting credits.

Source: http://repertoire.bmi.com/Catalog.aspx?detail=writerid&keyid=982825&subid=2&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25 92.236.39.157 (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It’s really not all that important, but ok. Trillfendi (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

My edits with the lead

Apparently my cleaning up/trimming the lead has led to several editors disagreeing over what content should be included. I received some comments that it should be four-paragraph long since Rihanna has had a monster career. To justify my edits, here are my explanations (feel free to reply here, instead of triggering an edit war):

  • My mantra of Wikipedia editing: everything serves the reader of all backgrounds, not just fond admirers of Rihanna or experts on a specific field; therefore a Wikipedia article should include essential information instead of an A-Z academic paper. This is also what I have done with most articles I've contributed to, and what I did with the article's lead
  • For the very first paragraph, which is very short by now, I included only overall information of Rihanna (what she is known for, what occupations she holds). This provides readers with a glimpse of Rihanna's career and influence.
  • I removed Rihanna's process of gaining a contract with Def Jam (the Jay-Z/Rogers) bit. Too specific for the lead; I changed to simply this: "She moved to the US in 2005 to sign with Def Jam to pursue a music career".
  • I shortened the previous revision instead of elaborating on respective albums from 2005–2012. My wording may not be the best, but it is better than explaining specific genres of each album (Loud was a collision of hip hop, rock, soul, reggae, not just pop; Talk That Talk and Unapologetic are essentially pop/R&B/dance). This sheds light on readers that Rihanna's music is primarily pop/R&B/dance (per AllMusic).
  • Achievements: I disagree with the inclusion of "of the 21st century" or "of all time"; these are subject to gradual change, and the achievements should be of longevity/fixed quota only (nine Grammys, 12 BBMAs or similar matter).
  • The rest of the lead is of essentially similar content.

— HĐ (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Unitedfenty: — HĐ (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unitedfenty: Okay, so you reverted my edit but on different grounds. Your revision's flow is not linear at all (born in Barbados → signed with Def Jam → recognized as a pop icon → successful albums (?)). I wish to talk here, but you keep reverting my edits without constructive discussions. Please feel free to reply this time, HĐ (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is PERFECT now, it doesn’t have too little or too less information or false information like it did before such as ‘she moved to the US in 2005’, which is irrelevant as her birth place hadn’t even been mentioned yet, as for the image it makes it look more professional, rather than a screenshot from some promotional shoot. It DOESN’T need any more editing but I know someone will because ya’ll petty (not just you but other users as well), AND it doesn’t mention anything about the 21st century. If we are going to compromise on this, at least keep the process of the contract bit and merge paragraphs together as at the moment the page looks a little messy. Also, I keep trying to reply but everytime I do, you have to create an edit conflict, same with when editing and I add an explanation. Pinging @HĐ: Unitedfenty (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unitedfenty: What do you mean by "irrelevant"? I clearly included that she was born in Barbados before moving to the US to pursue a music career; this can be found in the body. As explained above, the contract bit is too specific for the lead (Do you think readers are interested in how did Rihanna gain her first contract? Or they're more interested in a glimpse of it?). If you re-read your revision I believe you'll find it confusing to read as well because it does not follow a linear consequence. Regarding the photo, I have no concern at all (how is the current photo not "professional"?). — HĐ (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rihanna&oldid=893940444"