Talk:Birthday Cake (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Birthday Cake (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 20, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 15, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Rihanna's "Birthday Cake", said to resemble a real-life quickie, lasts just 78 seconds?

Background[edit]

Critical reception/Composition sources[edit]

DYK nomination[edit]

Audio sample[edit]

Could someone upload one please? CalvinWatch n' Learn 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Some reviews[edit]

— Status {talkcontribs 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Remix[edit]

I guess the remix featuring Chris Brown shuold have an own article because this article with the interlude and the full length song is very confusing. And the section of the remix is large enough for an own page. Ilikeriri (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No. This article follows the same layout as Party (song). AaronYou Da One 18:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have already split the article, as if Ilikeriri is right about splitting it! The remix section is large enough to have its own article!! ~ --Chi-Town 21:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Calvin[edit]

Calvin there was nothing wrong with that edit, please don't be annoying again. The interlude charted on the digital songs chart, I know what I'm talking about and it doesn't appear you do. A release of the remix hasn't been released so how can it chart on digital songs without a digital download? I stated that in my edit which you called over explaining. Also I don't know why you reverted my edit removing Radio Songs from the chart table because it shouldn't be included.

Can you please go back to what you were because you are just always THERE to revert every one of my edits and you aren't giving me a fair chance. Please. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being annoying. Did you not see that it is still there? But one sentence was just wrong, so I removed it. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because that is just a plain insult. According to WP:USCHARTS (which you clearly have not read) it clearly says that Radio songs can be included in the chart. So who you saying doesn't know what they are talking about now... AaronYou Da One 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well its not included on any other Rihanna article. And can't you see? You have moved the Digital Songs info into the Remix article when it isn't the remix charting as it doesn't have a digital download. Don't just move pieces of info people have written when it is right where it is. I considered putting it into the remix section but then i used my brain and worked out it doesnt have a digital download to chart, which once again is what I put in the sentence you removed for no reason. Can you just answer this question for me: why are you always THERE after I edit a page can you just go and pick on someone else? There is nothing wrong with my edit.PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"it's not included on any other Rihanna article" is a poor reason. "S&M" has it. Don't lecture me on how to do things. It's not me who got blocked from unstable editing and still hasn't learned. How do you explain putting "Birthday Cake" as "Birthday Cake" ? I am always there because I have every Rihanna article on my watchlist. AaronYou Da One 18:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Good to see you "quietly" decided to revert my edit because you can't admit you were wrong here. At least apologize to me then instead of just reverting it without telling me. You know you were wrong. I think this is your main problem. You think because you have it on your watchlist that no one else cares as much as you, well I've got news for you they do - I do! I don't undo every edit you do, do I? And don't reply saying "well there not wrong" because you know neither are mine. Just leave me alone (asking again and again) and let me edit in peace. I'd understand if I was vandlazing but I am not. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't revert it. And Billboard combines BC and BC Remix, so it can go in either section actually. You don't un-do every edit I do because mine don't need undoing. I'm sorry, but wherever Rihanna articles are concerned with your editing, like anyone else's, I will be there. You're not vandalizing, but your edits are not the best. You haven't learnt from your block at all. AaronYou Da One 19:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh my god, I don't care if I'm insulting you: you absolute liar! I am not having this! What do you call this then: [1] You absolute liar! You reverted it when you realised you were wrong after Jivesh told you. Oh my god I have lost all respect for you, as if I had any to begin with. I am reporting you. Don't you dare act as if you are bigger than me the way you are acting. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Jivesh reverted me because I asked him to! The edit you just pointed out was a move from one section to another, NOT a removal. You need to learn to not be so brazen with your edits. You want me reported? Someone who works hard on here every day, has 27 GAs, reviewed 34, 7 DYKs, has articles currently nominated for GA, FA, FL and GAT at the moment, over 14,000 edits, biggest contributor to the wikiproject. Yeah, you are really picking the right person to report... AaronYou Da One 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversions[edit]

Hi Calvin, you reverted my edit, which I thought corrected your bad grammar edits you made a few weeks ago. You reverted it to the bad grammar sentence: The following week, it ascended to number 17.[46]In its third week on the chart, the song ascended number seven. I changed it to ascended to number seven. The edit you made does not make sense. Also I removed the use of the repeated word ascended. To be honest, come on there was nothing wrong with my edit. Please revert back because you are making yourself look silly reverting good grammar edits. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My non-inclusion of "to" was nothing compared to what you did. You spoke about it ascending from 17 to 7 without when the previous sentence said 56 or whatever. You then flicked between using the past and present tenses, which makes it jarring to read, when I had written it in the past tense. So yes, there were several things wrong with your edit. I'm please, making myself look silly? How funny. Reverting good faith edits means that while your edit was appreciated, it was not entirely helpful. Aquaint yourself with what it means before you write your own interpretation of it. AaronYou Da One 10:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You never reply to a statement, you just dont answer the question. Why wont you address what I told YOU? You have made a mistake, you need to revert that edit because you are putting bad grammar on Wikipedia. What is your problem?! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I did answer. And why are you so obsessed with reverting? Why would I revert all your mistakes just so I can add "to" to the prose? Where is the logic? You don't need to do that. I've simply added "to" in in an edit. Simple. AaronYou Da One 10:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is Art work for the song[edit]

http://therealpopcult.tumblr.com/post/21754661820/birthday-cake-by-rihanna-airplay-update-for#permalink-notes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braina90 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue[edit]

I've reverted the statement about the song being about "Rihanna's desire" - all the sources say is that the song is about the general desire. Saying it is about "Rihanna's desire" is a large leap and a WP:BLP issue if not strongly sourced. The sources later in the article don't say that either. Please, if someone feels necessary to re-instate it, provide a citation in the article and quote the relevant passage here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

this song is not an official single[edit]

Birthday Cake remix is not a single because its not on itunes... i think its a promotional single... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.104.57.143 (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Birthday Cake (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 04:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Original interlude[edit]

Composition and lyrics
  • "1:18 (one minute, 18 seconds)" >> "one minute and 18 seconds" (spell out numbers less than 10 and avoid redundancy)
     Done AaronYou Da One
  • "your younger fans need more SUBSTANCE." >> a [sic] is needed after substance.
     Done AaronYou Da One

Hahc21 14:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Remix[edit]

  • First paragraph is too long. Consider splitting.
    The bit about Nicki, Demi, Katy etc. was actually WP:OR, I don't know who added this. But I've removed it.

General comments[edit]

  • With the actual length of the article, the lead should be longer to properly cover all the article body.
    The first lead covers the interlude, and says Brown is on the remix. The second lead covers the remix. AaronYou Da One 11:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahc21 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

More comments
  • When you split the article, you added a cover to the remix. What happened? That cover wasn't official?
    Can't have been. Looked it though. AaronYou Da One
  • Maybe, this was the image i saw on the article: [2]Hahc21 16:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Made some fixes on 'Chart performance' of the remix:
  • "tonumber" >> "to number";
  • "Airplay Honor gainer" >> "Airplay Gainer honor again"
  • The 'other remixes' section is too short. Why don't you consider merging it with another one?
     Done AaronYou Da One
  • Also, the first paragraph of 'Development' seems to fit better on Background, since it's specs about Aguilera and tweets, mainly.
    Hmm okay. AaronYou Da One

Hahc21 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Okay. Everything has bee addressed.

Verdict[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

Hahc21 16:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AaronYou Da One

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.


No picture spamming, please[edit]

In case it's not clear: adding pictures to highlight speculations isn't tolerated on Wikipedia --Loginnigol (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not spamming. How you've even come to that analogy I have no idea. You are the only person who has ever had a problem with. Accept that you are wrong. Okay, thanks.  — AARONTALK 15:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Offtopic pic posting is spamming. There's no way round it. Last time I checked this is a Rihanna song page. But the picture yer trying to insert is that of Christina Aguilera (an artist that has nothing to do with the song as far as facts are concerned --Loginnigol (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm reporting you for edit warring, vandalism and removal of content. The is a piece of prose dedicated to Aguilera.  — AARONTALK 18:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reported you for vandalism. Instead of making your case here in the talk page and trying to convince - instead you resort to insisting on highlighting unsubstantiated trivia and speculation above and over verified facts. --Loginnigol (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
But it's not me who is vandalising...  — AARONTALK 11:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop reporting each other for things and talk. It's a content dispute. It's an edit war. It's clearly unaccepable behaviour on both your parts, and if it continues I will block both of you. Start a discussion with other editors, attempt to persuade them to your point of view, and come to a consensus about it.—Kww(talk) 01:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Great desicion - thanks Kww. Hopefully now cooler heads will prevail and we have a decent discussion here first and foremost. I don't even need a massive consensus. It's enough for one person/editor to state one valid reason why an artist's photo should be on a page that has nothing to do with that artist (as far as relevant facts are concerned) but everything to do with another artist. Doing that is like replacing Barack Obama's photo on his wiki-page with a picture of a Kenyan birth certificate. --Loginnigol (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not your place to set a threshold, Logginol: you were just as wrong to remove the picture as Calvin was to restore it without consensus.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, no. The picture has always been there, so me restoring it perfectly valid. There doesn't need to be a consensus. No one else has ever had a problem with it, only this user. He is warped and is coming out with rubbish like the Obama thing. I reported him first with valid reason, then he has "reported" me with no valid reason. It's not me who has crossed the 3RR, it's not me who removed the picture without justification in the first place, and it's not me who is in the wrong here. I did stop reverting after the second time, and have explained to him several times why he is wrong. The picture is to be restored. If no consensus can be provided for it's removal, then there doesn't need to be one to add it back in. Listen: For a consensus to be reached, the picture needs to be in the article so that people can see what they are commenting on. It was always there originally, and it shouldn't be removed until a clear majority votes that it should be removed. Those are the rules.  — AARONTALK 11:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid Calvin999 is right in this case that the picture needs to be here so that people know in what context and how it is being used in the article if they come to a consensus on this. And Logginol, you removed something and got reverted, your immediate action should have been to discuss it per WP:BRD. None of this would have gone out of hand like this to 3RR. And frankly, I really don't dig your reasoning also. What spamming? Is this stuff being whored throughout the article and at every instant an image is used? No. Just the visual depiction of tan artist considered for singing in the track. And that too backed by reliable sources. That is not spamming, you should read WP:SPAM for a change and then frame your reasonings. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Christina Aguilera in the remix background section: Keep or Remove?[edit]

--Loginnigol (talk) would like the picture to be removed from the Remix featuring Chris Brown Background section, as he is citing it as "photo spam" and not relevant to the topic. Please come to a WP:CONSENSUS and explain why you have chose either as your decision.

  • Keep - For the past 12 months, no other editor has had an issue with Aguilera's picture being included in the article. There is a piece of prose dedicated to why a picture of Aguilera, which I included during the process of improving it for GAN. It was heavily reported that Aguilera would be a featured artist on the remix because of information released by Rihanna via her official Twitter. Several reasons by media outlets were given as to why it could have been Aguilera. If a person or thing is mentioned in article prose, then a picture is allowed to be inserted. This is evident in lots of other articles (No WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nonsense replies please). It shows who Aguilera is for people who do not know, and it adds media to this article. It is not "spamming" the article. Spam is when, according to it's Wikipedia article, "the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, especially advertising, indiscriminately", which is not the case here. Photospamming is actually a term which does not exist. There is no valid reason as to why the picture should be removed.  — AARONTALK 12:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know what "heavily reported" means, but there's only one gossip site referenced for the speculation. Even it it wasn't trivial, then the picture would still be overdoing it. Some Twitter static and a few tabloid pieces do not warrant the insertion of this picture; "it shows who Aguilera is etc" is not a valid reason to include it, and adding media is not a reason to do anything. Does it make the article better? No. Simple. BTW, if you can use "heavily" to modify "reported", then someone can make a compound verb "photospamming". I know what the editor means by it and I think you do too. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Platinum/first interlude to go platinum[edit]

It should be noted that it went platinum and is the first interlude ever to go platinum via billboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.248.23 (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Source please. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Birthday Cake (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)