Talk:Loud (Rihanna album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

single release date

only girl is being released to iTunes on sep. 13 source : http://rihannanow.com/news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewqand4 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's That Chick

Who's that chick is a bouns track on LOUD! check on mtv for the interview when she is talking about matt kemp & katy perry...one of those articles or neither —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.193.59 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please mention something about this song, its supposedly on the new album, which would make sense, as it fits with the whole theme the album is trying to achieve. Its produced by david guetta, so if you want to mention that. Theres also a video to it, which is very pop themed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.66.99 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Supposedly" is not "confirmed". Yes, a video obviously leaked but that does not mean that this track will definitely be on the album. Many times, songs that leak like this end up being removed from the track list by the label or moved to "bonus track" status. We all know the video leaked, but there is NO confirmation from the label that this is an album track. Obviously the label didn't even want the video released in the first place. Blogs and fansites reporting the video leak does not mean that this is a confirmed track. - eo (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they put money into filming a video for it, says to me that the song will most likely be on the album. But yet again, that's considered personal research. I added a section called "Possible Tracks", since the label said the track listing is not final, and the song "Cheers" is not confirmed by her label, moved it to possible tracks. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ending-start (talk • contribs) 11:03, 18 September 2010

FYI, sections like "possible tracks" should be, and usually are, removed. This is not the place to speculate. They are either on the album, or they aren't. - eo (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This song has nothing to do with LOUD, its a song for a Doritos Late Nite campain --173.87.253.2 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

To all contributors of this article, we need to find more reliable sources. There are a lot of Blog sources and they don't count as reliable sources. Online articles are more appropriate. ozurbanmusic (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.253.172.94, 20 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Confirmed tracks "Only Girl (In the World)" "Cheers" "Who's That Chick" 96.253.172.94 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Obulosly (dont know how to spell) Only Girl IS a confirmed track... Cheers is a recorded song, but we dont know if they are gonna be on the CD, Who's that chick is for a Doritos commercial, and another rumored song, called What's My Name is having the Video recorded, but it MIGHT be for a Kodak commercial or a B-Side to Only Girl.... but What's My Name still isnt confirmed :D --173.87.253.2 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PARENTAL ADVISORY EXPLICT CONTENT. LOUD has the label on I-Tunes but not on the cover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.193.154 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"What's My Name" video shoot

Rihanna is currently filming a new video for a song called "What's My Name." A clip can be seen here: http://www.twitvid.com/SCPA6. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be used as a reliable source. WP:TWITTER. - eo (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this, it comes straight from her mouth. [1] She announces that its the second video and second single off the album. Is this reliable enough or nahs? --Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not use YouTube as a source, because of copyright concerns. Yvesnimmo (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this ref? [[2]].respond quickly please.Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No; that is a gossip site. And there is no need for anyone to "respond quickly": :Wikipedia is not a contest. I suggest reading WP:RELIABLE for assistance in figuring out what is a reliable source and what isn't. Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, ya mad fucking strict! it came from rihanna's own fucking mouth! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.85.68 (talk • contribs) 19:46 28 September 2010

http://rihannanow.com/story/news/rihanna-shoots-video-whats-my-name-upcoming-album-loud ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 23:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to design and maintain your own personal fansite for Rihanna you're certainly welcome to, but if you want to edit this encyclopedia and contribute constructively and adhere to policies and guidelines about reliability and verifiability, then you'll have to wait until the appropriate sources are available. If it bothers you that much, then no one is forcing you to be here. It's really that simple. - eo (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you're talking to that other person who sweared, but why has it been removed? It's confirmed via her OFFICIAL SITE. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

If it is confirmed on her official website (or Def Jam's) then why isn't that being used as a source in this article? I see YouTube, unreliable blogs like RapUp, Justjared, etc. The only reliable sources I see are MTV, Billboard and iTunes. Seriously, why is it so difficult for people (especially those who supposedly care about Rihanna so much) to just hang on until we have an accurate track list? It really is getting beyond ridiculous now. - eo (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I, too, question the reliability of Rap-Up; They have been unreliable on many occasions. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there are a number of "confirmed tracks" on the page right now, all with rap-up as a source. I left them there for now, but it would be nice if I wasn't the only person removing unsourced song titles from this page. I vote for WAITING until a confirmed track list is released by the label. - eo (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A listening party or advance preview is not confirmation the tracks will be on the album. The label could very well pull them off at the last minute. Shall I go ahead and remove those tracks? Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you guys stressing it so much? Does it bother you. Those songs were played at a listening party. Sure, they might not be on the final track listing, but when hasn't songs confirmed to be on an album, not been on the album? ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 22:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A listening party doesn't mean the songs are confirmed to be on an album. Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It also doesn't mean they won't be. I honestly don't see any harm in it AT ALL. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 22:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about "harm", whatever that may be. And to answer your previous question, Madonna's "Liquid Love", Timbaland ft. Jay-Z & Justin Timberlake's "Laugh at 'Em", Van Halen's "Numb to the Touch", etc. Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that way to me. But whatever, the track listing will probably be announced soon anyway. And I wasn't asking a question, I'm aware of those types of things. It's never been a problem before, that I've seen. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK here is the deal, in case anyone still isn't clear about it: it's not about stressing, its about verifying the information. If anyone is stressing, it seems to be the people adamant about "being the first" to add any and all information into the article, whether its confirmed or not. And in my 5+ years of editing experience, this happens every single time a very high-profile pop music artist is about to release a new album. And every time, half of the information that "fans" throw into an article is wrong: whether it's an album's title, or fake cover art, or a track list, or a music video, or a list of producers, or a release date... you name it. When Britney Spears's Blackout and Madonna's Hard Candy albums were coming out, I had to put the articles on full protection because of the chaos; the names of the articles were probably redirected 100x because fansites kept giving different album titles, and everyone claimed that their source was the correct source... you would have thought I asked frantic edtiors to sacrifice their firstborn, they were so upset that they couldn't edit it. That is what I am trying to AVOID here. No one wants to lock this article down, including me — that's a totally lame, last resort. If everyone is so confident that a track list will be confirmed "in the next few days", then surely you're capable of waiting it out since it's not such a big deal? It should not be the responsibility of a small handful of editors to risk 3RR on a daily basis and constantly have to monitor this one article if everyone would just cooperate and make sure their contributions are reliably sourced. - eo (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I've seen it lots as well. I just don't think it's that big of a deal to include songs that were previewed at a listening party. That's all. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 15:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Songs that are previewed at a listening party aren't necessarily songs that will be on the album, so why would one even include it in this article? It's clearly not a confirmed track, then. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nathantheawesomeguy, 6 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Single 3: Who's That Chick? Single 3 date: TBA

Official tracks: ... 'Who's That Chick?'

Nathantheawesomeguy (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna herself announced official tracklist

‘Loud’ album tracklist:

S&M

Loud

Only Girl (In The World)

Urrbody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.192.54 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What’s My Name?

Cheers

Talk To Me (feat. Katy Perry)

Demons and Angels (Love The Way You Lie Part II) (feat. Eminem) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.192.54 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

California King (bed)

Raining Men

Who’s That Chick (Bonus Track)

Ice

Fading

Red Night (feat. Jay-Z & will.i.am)

Man Down

Black Butterflies

Straight Up Beautiful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.142.252.15 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Source? Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Trip To The Island —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.170.10 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

-One of the songs is not on the List.. u can listen the interview and u will hear that Rihanna announces one song called Straight Up Beautiful that is in the album..

http://www.capitalfm.com/music-showbiz/music/music-news/rihanna-launches-new-album-loud-london/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.187.211.200 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Who's That Chick!?

Who's That Chick WILL be on the album, Rihanna even said in an interview the other day that it was the only song her boyfriend didn't like from the album, along with several people who have heard the album (JustJared, PopJustice) and it was mentioned as an album track. So it should be added on here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.6.130 (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources. According to MTV News, "The leaked song "Who's That Chick?" won't appear on Loud, but it's also fairly uptempo." Yves (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it will be on the album. There's a Universal Music Canada booklet on Scribd that I just read and in the Rihanna - Loud section it says that one of the key tracks will be Who's that Chick. It also explains everything about its Doritos campaign. http://www.scribd.com/doc/38894762/UMC-UNI10-44-Nov-16th-2010 SmadaLeinad (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A press release from Def Jam records clearly says Rihanna features on David Guetta's "Who's That Chick" which is taken from his new album One More Love. Additionally after the false tracklisting posted earlier we should treat it as caution. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Eminem Collab

Eminem has been confirmed by several websites including a Video of Rihanna stating that he is on This Album with a Sequel to "Love the Way You Lie"--Bend2pa (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Those websites are not reliable sources. We cannot use fan sites or gossip sites or blogs. Yves (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Rap Basement, and MTV??? Then Rihanna saying in a video That it is gonna happen???--Bend2pa (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rap Basement is a fan site, so "No.". MTV is only reliable if not reporting a rumor, or not reporting from an unreliable source. Videos are usually not reliable sources. Also, a collaboration is not a source that it will be on the album. Yves (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(un)Confirmed Tracks

Well, someone added this unconfirmed tracks into article, like collabo' with GaGa or Bubble Pop. Sorry, but MTV is just speculating . Also this back cover is for sure fake, maybe not many of u saw it...but it was made by some amateur. Check it out: http://plixi.com/p/50540258 There are few mistakes, on the right side like: "gruop". Also i think that catalog numbers arent identical. Well this cover was uploaded by some brazilian guy. So please change the tracklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G0LD!3 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Thank you. Yves (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Loud in Germany

Loud will release in germany on 12, november not on 16, november .

references:

http://www.amazon.de/Loud-Rihanna/dp/B00428ZRFE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287434043&sr=8-1

http://www.rihanna.de/releases/detail/product/165237/0/loud/ Yannick16695 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fading" Enya Sample

The song "Fading" contains a sample from Enya's song "One by One". Can someone please verify this? I can't find any good sources. Nickyp88 (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The following celebrity blog mentions that that Enya song was used in "Fading": http://blog.starcam.com/post/Rihannae28099s-Loud-is-a-Let-Down.aspx

There is also a thread about this at the Official Enya forum, but it can only be accessed by forum members: http://unity.enya.com/index.php?showtopic=19731 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganaModron (talk • contribs) 08:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Schven99, 16 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I've provided the code so as to add a review, to the already existing ones. Currently there are only 10 there so it should work fine, however if one gets added the numbers will have to change. Thank you

| rev11 = The music cycle | rev11Score = (2.5/5)

Schven99 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, thank you for the request but the normal convention is ten reviews. I will see if there are any less professional reviews which can be replaced with this one though. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts the reviews already included are of professional standard. Nothing is added by using this review. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cover

I am writing to complain about the reverts on the cover. Maybe there are some rules about the resolution and quality, but the current quality looks awful. We should try to find some concensus about the quality of the image. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

Edit request from Doc555, 17 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Writer C.Ivery on Rihanna s Cheers song is Actually Chris ivery husband of Ellen Pompeo

Doc555 (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. That may be true, but as Ivery doesn't have his own page, I'm not sure what you want to change there. I don't see any reason to add a wikilink that redirects to Pompeo. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Debuts on charts

the album debut at #6 in Dutch Albums Charts please add the information in the page http://dutchcharts.nl/weekchart.asp?cat=a --206.248.66.250 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. (mikomango (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

UK Charts

the album debuted on the UK R&B Albums at #1 source

Happy to help. (mikomango (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Album cover quality

The album cover is of very poor quality. And we know that it has to stay with low resolution, but that's too much. Pedro João [talk] 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from RyanBurleson, 22 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please include this album review:

• Consequence of Sound link

RyanBurleson (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done there are already 10 (the maximum allowed) thorough/professional music reviews. the Consequence of Sound review is not required. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Charts

The album debut at #3 in Scotland Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.66.250 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to do what I can. (mikomango (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Charts

The album debuted at No. 2 on the German Albums Chart. It can be noted that it's her best charting album since Good Girl Gone Bad reached No. 4 for 3 weeks sourcesource--79.216.162.77 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to, but your sources aren't working for me... when I click on them I see no references to Loud. Maybe it's just me though? (mikomango (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

The first source shows the simile with previous Rihanna albums (I wrote that GGGB was 3 weeks at No. 4) so you can see Loud is her best charting album and the second source (both official links btw) gives the new chart position of Loud. I hope my explanation was understandable... --79.216.154.71 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I finally see what you're saying!!! My bad! It took me a little second to literally find the name "Rihanna" on the page. Sorry about that!!!(mikomango (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Thanks hun!!! Sorry it took me so long! LOL :-) (mikomango (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Charts

The album debuted at #1 in US R&B/Hip-Hop Albums link Also debuted at #26 in Czech Republic link The album debut at #18 in Denkmark link Please add the information to the page Thanks

--Rudeby88 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude!!! (mikomango (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Another chart position

The album debuted at No. 1 on the German Downloads Chart... Please add this source--79.216.184.118 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure...I think download charts aren't allowed. You should ask Yves...(mikomango (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Also

The album moves to the #4 in Belgium (Flanders), #2 in (Wallonia), #6 in Spain, #15 in Sweden and #3 in Austria and France source --Rudeby88 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks pal!!! (mikomango (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Raining Men

Raining Men is the 3rd single and will be sent to Urban stations on December 6th. Source: http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=12/06/2010&Format=5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.79.82 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Source doesn't mention it's a single. Yves (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

When you're sending a song to be added to radio it means it's a single. Don't get smart with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.79.82 (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. Lady Gaga's "Dance in the Dark" got sent to radio and it's not a single. Same with Taylor Swift's "Today Was a Fairytale". And so many more songs. Yves (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it should be removed from infobox and we should wait to see if the label promote it is a single. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree...let's wait and see, guys! mikomango (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. It's already been confirmed that S&M & Raining Men are going to be joint singles, with S&M being sent to Pop and RM to Urban, but I know you won't believe me without a reliable source and even though RihannaDaily IS a reliable source you won't take it so I'll just wait and smile when I get to say "I told ya so!" :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.79.82 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to you being able to say that. :-) The crazy thing about Wikipedia is, we've ALL been on both sides of this argument before! lol!! mikomango (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • Raining Men is not an official single, it's a promo/buzz song sent only to US Urban radios! Could the authors change that info plz??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.101.80 (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Certifications

In Canada the album was certified Platinum Source--Rudeby88 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome!!! mikomango (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Loud was certified Platinum on Europe source: http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat_month_20110110.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.248.185 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• In Sweden and Italy Loud is certified GOLD -> http://www.fimi.it/temp/cert_Gfk_week1011.pdf

-> Source for Sweden is here -> http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/

Mexican Charts

PEAKED AT 17 http://mexicancharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Rihanna&titel=Loud&cat=a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.164.133 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yay RiRi!!! Thanks boo! :-) mikomango (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Showdate the Netherlands

LiveNation announced a Loud Tour show at Gelredome in Arnhem, the Netherlands today on November 9. Can someone add this date please? Source: http://www.livenation.nl/event/23033/rihanna-the-loud-tour-2011-tickets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.154.162 (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's already there, dear! mikomango (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It says Gelredome XS in this entry. According to TicketMaster, both floor entrances are in use, which means the entire Gelredome will be used, instead of just the XS version. Can someone please remove XS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.154.162 (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oct 6th 2011 02 Arena

She added another date to the 02 http://www.seatwave.com/rihanna-tickets/season?AffID=0000&awc=1547_1292069528_cc147289922d25c29d1e429787bdc24c calvin999 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

US Charts Source

The source listed for the US charts is this page. Is this correct? This confuses me, it shows how much she's sold in this past week, putting her at #10, but it doesn't actually display the initial charting of #3. Who listed the US charting? Is this correct?--mikomango (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. That site is definitely not reliable. Use the official Billboard site here. Yves (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm scandalized. Who did this/how did we let them get away with this? LOL, it's been fixed--mikomango (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Prepare Your Sandbox for S&M!

Whoever did the S&M article (that was eventually removed, as I recall) - Rihanna recently tweeted that she'll be shooting the video for S&M in early 2011. Just putting that info out there for the people who worked hard on the S&M Wiki only to see it removed. Just hoping that you saved the edits in your Sandbox! :-)--mikomango (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tour dates

I don't think that the tour dates belong with the album article, if these tourdates really are confirmed, a seperate page for her "Loud Tour" should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmagicvamp (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A page for the tour is not yet required as the tour is not yet notable. A page simply list dates is not considered appropriate. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The dates actually have no relation to the album, do you see tourdates for tours on other album pages? If anything the dates should either go on a page for the tour, or the page on Rihanna herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmagicvamp (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's because the tour is named after the album and is in promotion of it. It makes more sense to include here. Once more information is available to make the information more notable then an independent page would be worthwhile. Think about it logically, would it make sense to redirect the information from The Labyrinth (tour) to Echo (Leona Lewis album)? No. Also Other stuff existing or not existing is not a valid argument. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

--91.154.96.184 (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC) It gets too messy whit tour dates and information on the same page as ther albums, and too long, a separate page for the tour is better, and its no difference if its connected whit the album or not or .....Tours will have there own page!

When there is more information, not just dates, then tours become notable for their own pages. But when dates are the only info available then independent pages are not notable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide sales

The album was sold 2,1 million times so far... Would be please add that? SOURCE--79.216.153.186 (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That source is on WP:BADCHARTS, so that should not be added.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Charts

The album are #1 in Scotland please add it.--Rudeby88 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)source

Mistake in Commercial Performance

UK is not a continent (haha), but a country, please change that! --79.216.175.92 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, fixed :) G0LD!3 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

End of year charts

Loud is No. 39 in Germany in 2010 source--79.216.174.128 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Loud is no. #23 in Australia is 2010 [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.170.240 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Loud Tour

--91.154.102.95 (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I think the tour that is set to support rihannas fifth album Loud, Loud Tour, should get its own page.

see the comments I made above. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Raining Men Single?

Why is Raining Men listed as the third single, on Rihannas discography page Raining Men is listed as a promotional single. I think ist not a single, because she talking about releasing S&M as the third single?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.99.243 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Because what the artist says and what the artist does are two different things. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, singles are not entirely the decision of the artist, but also the record label. Yves (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Add stockholm second date...

Rihanna will be performing in Nov 1 and 2 of 2011 in Stockholm.. add the tourdate.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.48.170 (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Certification

Why was it removed from the article? Last time I checked it was a platinum certification... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.205.148 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Loud North American Tour Dates

Will someone please add the Loud North American tour dates to this page? Thanks :-)--mikomango (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

UK Albums Chart

I am finding contradicting information concerning the chart performance of Loud in the United Kingdom. The Official Charts has it listed as reaching a peak of number two: reference 1, reference 2; while Chart Stats has it listed as reaching a peak of number one: reference 1. If I am correct, The Official Charts is the official website for the United Kingdom's charts, thus should be used in the article (which sources The Official Charts but lists a peak of number one) as well as her discography (which uses Chart Stats). Thoughts?? — Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 07:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why has Raining Men been removed as a single?????

It has radio adds, release history, and it charted. It was released as a single. Why has it been removed? calvin999 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved and Loud (album) retargeted to Loud JaGa^talk 19:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Loud (Rihanna album) → Loud (album) —, a page named a disambiguation page Loud (album) should not redirect to a sub-disambiguation page such as Loud (Rihanna album). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Support move there are no other names for it. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Retarget the redirect to the disambiguation page. The Timo Maas album used to be called "Loud (album)" until it was renamed, and the redirect retargeted here. So, "Loud (album)" should target Loud instead. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as there are 3 albums entitled Loud (Loud (Rihanna album), Loud (Half Japanese album) and Loud (Timo Maas album)). Loud (album) should be retargeted as above and tagged with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Tassedethe (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Of which Rihanna's version of the album is the most notable. Although I'd argue that Rihanna's album should exist at Loud (album) with a hat note for the other albums... its conceivable that Loud (album) could become a disambig page for three three albums of this title. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Rihanna's album got well over 300,000 pageviews last month, compared to 251 for the Timo Maas album (the 1981 Half Japanese album article is brand new but it is barely notable). Anyone typing "Loud album" in the search box is almost certainly looking for Rihanna's album and shouldn't be purposely and unnecessarily sent to a disambiguation page. Station1 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Rihanna's album was just released, it's been well under one year. Do we move the just released material to primary all the time? (Move Avatar (film) to Avatar ?) 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No, not all the time. But in this case, with approximately 999 out of every 1000 readers wanting this article, it seems to me like it should be primary for the forseeable future. Station1 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Far too early to decide that Ranna's album is the album by that name. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Singles

Digital Spy has just announced that "California King Bed" will be released as the albums forth (not fifth) single. "'California King Bed' - produced by The Runners - marks the fourth cut from her fifth studio album Loud". Share your thoughts below i just thought i would bring this to the editors of the album attention. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Raining Men" was sent to radios so it counts as a single. "California King" is the fifth single no matter what these sources say. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I must say, it's a little bit stupid. Every net source says that California King Bed will be the fourth single and here on wikipedia is listed as the fifth one. Why don't we give "Raining Men" status, as a promotional single, because by my opinion that's what it really is ... ? Tomica1111 (talk)

Because your opinion is not a WP:RS... If a song is sent to radio it is a single end of. if the label then decides to call it something else tough... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

California King Bed is the fourth INTERNATIONAL single. US Singles: Only Girl, WMN?, Raining Men & S&M. International singles: Only Girl, WMN?, S&M CKB. CKB is do be released in the US at a later date. calvin999 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The infobox/article should reflect the OVERALL number of singles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Raining Men was added on radio only, therefore it doesn't count as a proper single. THINK. If it was, don't you think Rihanna would have made a music video on it by now?? She always does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.135 (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR... go and sit down... This is a single. Labels have to pay to send songs to radio. That's exactly what happened here! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 11:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just reporting here at the Talk about a small improvement edit I made with the edit summary "Radio Only > Radio...Thus no complaint in cases where a video exists as it doesn't matter to the single creation."—Iknow23 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
After many discussions at WT:SONG, a consensus has been reached that a 'Radio add" date can 'create' a 'single'. However the template formatting displays "Released:" but the industry does not call Radio a 'Release'. We are attempting to resolve the reporting of Radio date HERE. Also feel free to review the considerable material prior to the subsection given in the link. Please contribute and thank you.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Raining Men (song) didn't have much promotion from the label. If this became a single, it would have a music video or something. Another thing is, Rihanna never made any announcement that this would ever be a single like she usually does before she releases singles. Never from her website or even her news website announced any release for Raining Men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared martinez gwapo (talk • contribs) 07:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does it state that those things have to happen? Mary J. Blige released "Someone to Love Me (Naked)" a week before any announcements. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In the discussions at WT:SONG, no one claimed that a Music video is 'required' for a song to become a 'single'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Singles update request

The singles section has not been updated! S&M has peaked at #3 on the chart! Not 53! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.113.195 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

California King Bed

Why isn't there an article for this single yet? --92.20.37.207 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

because it doesn't have a release date and per WP:NSONGS its not yet notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We need significant coverage in independent reliable sources for the article to warrant its own article. And yes, a release date would be useful. Yves (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's had two live performances now as well. calvin999 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for replying.--92.20.37.207 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

California King Bed

The article says it is going to be a single. Do we know if she is gonna release it and make a music video and when? Arjoccolenty (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Certification

The album is 2x Platinum in Europe now source. Why is this article still closed? --79.216.180.169 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • LOUD is also certified GOLD in SPAIN now -> http://promusicae.es/files/listassemanales/albumes/Top%20100%20albumes%20(PUBLICAR)_w17.2011.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.5.208 (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

URGENT ATTENTION NEEDED

There is a small problem with Loud singles. It has been officially announced that California King Bed is the next single from Loud but Man Down is being released on Rythmic chart instead on May 3, 2011. Source:[4] Shoud we make an article for Man Down now? Don't forget Man Down even charted on R&B/Hip-Hop songs chart at 72. Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is "Only Girl (In the World)" listed as eight #1 single, and "What's My Name" ninth?

Why is "Only Girl (In The World)" listed as Rihanna's eight number 1 single when it was her ninth? Regardless of release date, "What's My Name" reached #1 on November 20, 2010, while "Only Girl (In The World)" reached number 1 December 4, 2010. It says so on the Billboard website. http://www.billboard.com/song/rihanna/only-girl-in-the-world/22819947#/artist/rihanna/chart-history/658897 Billboard.com even states that it's her ninth #1 in this article: http://www.billboard.com/news/rihanna-s-only-girl-rebounds-to-no-1-on-1004130511.story#/news/rihanna-s-only-girl-rebounds-to-no-1-on-1004130511.story The Singles section should be changed to reflect this. I did it once and didn't include these citations because it was already stated in the next citation, but the info was still removed. It might also be worth mentioning that it was the first time in history an artist's second number 1 got there before the first (which is states in the second Billboard link.

Sorry about my mistake. "Only Girl (In The World)" reached number 1 two weeks after "What's My Name," not one. My bad. Corrected previously stated Nov. 30 date to Nov. 20 per the Billboard and wikipedia pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2010_(U.S.) http://www.billboard.com/song/rihanna/only-girl-in-the-world/22819947#/artist/rihanna/chart-history/658897

Certification

Loud is Platinum in Germany now source--79.199.19.100 (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Its now being added.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

California King Bed - Radio Adds Date

CKB will be sent to Top 40 (Pop) radio on May 31st.

http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.80.110 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Man Down cover

The cover used in the article is fanmade. Please remove. 84.113.151.242 (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Surroundllc, 6 May 2011

and features a 30 minute DVD presenting a making of the album titled "Loud in the making" that was directed by Brad Palmer and Brian Palmer

129.44.57.105 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Denmark

Loud is No. 3 in Denmark, not No. 6 ;) ! --79.199.49.238 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

LOUD is also certified GOLD now in Denmark. SOURCE: http://www.hitlisten.nu/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.11.123 (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Raining Men

Raining Men is NOT an official single, and it even says that in the article on Raining Men. It was just added to radios, not released there, so there it should be deleted as a single from Loud.. Fail.; --Aquabender (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It was released in the US as the 3rd single. It got radio release history and it charted as a result. calvin999 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No its not. neither is man down. they are promo singles. not US singles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebagain (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Promo singles are released in promotion of something. In the US because Airplay accounts for 50% of a song's chart position, if a song is sent to radio its counted as a single. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Radio date = Single creation per consensus at WT:SONG but it is not called 'Release'. It's really 'sent to radio', 'impacting radio', etc but NOT 'released' to Radio because the industry does NOT call it that.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get how you guys be so ignorent and say because it charted it's a single, songs that appear on album, unreleased songs, and promo singles can chart as well, due to sales. basically it was sent to promote the album "Loud" nothing else! Ifiwere (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-read the conversation, no one has said a charted song is a single. We're talking about release dates and radio add dates. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

O2 Arena

You've spelt O2 like 02 it's the letter O not the number 0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.178.124 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done calvin999 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-release

Should there be a section on the re-release of LOUD or is it too soon? Muthamonster (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any info on it yet? Release date? Single? Title? Tracklisting? If you have a valid source then I don't see why you can't mention it. "The album is expected to be re-released" or something. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna has only said on twitter that the LOUDera is not over and she will re-release Loud in the fall, but I don't think that is enough info yet. Muthamonster (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Japanese Album Chart Position

The link provided shows that Loud was #1 on the Japanese Western Artist Album Chart, NOT the official Oricon Japanese Album Chart. Unless an official Oricon source can prove that Loud was #1 on ths official chart, she should not be cited as #1 in Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I just saw that too. It doesn't say anywhere on the official Oricon Wikipedia page that it went number one. That is very misleading as it is a huge achievement for a western artist to reach number one on the official chart like GaGa and Madonna have. That needs to be changed or taken down. The peak on the official Oricon Japanese Album Chart would be more relevant. Muthamonster (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

US Sales

Week by week US sales shouldn't be there!! Calvin is being annoying by reverting everything I do when really it shouldnt be there! It's just useless information of a chart sales run!! PD.Baker24 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being annoying, you are. You're removing bulks of information which is apart of the US commercial performance. Like I have said countless times before, this article is waiting to be Peer Reviewed by an experienced outside editor, and he or she will decide what doesn't need to be kept in the article, not you. I don't want edit wars going on with you other it will compromise the eventual GAN review as it can be failed for that. And I don't appreciate you removing information which me and a friend worked hard on for weeks and weeks without discussing it here first, just like you didn't discuss your Man Down move, and look at the disruption that caused because you didn't do it properly. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 15:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvin999, simply no. That an article is "awaiting peer review" is simply meaningless, and that peer editor's opinion is of no more value than anyone else's. Articles are not frozen awaiting review, and you can't revert other editors using that as a motivation.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not reverting everything he does. But after I have merged my sandbox, he has come with all guns blazing changing everything I have worked so hard to improve. When he is making such drastic and large removals and edits, he should say it on this talk page first, and wait for discussion which involves more people than just himself. he has also been reverting me as well, so don't me out to be the sole bad person here. Surely you can see where I am coming from. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 15:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think WP:CHARTS#Chart trajectories should be followed here. Am I right Kevin? Novice7 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly the relevant guideline, and would imply that week by week chart positions and sales figures are not to be included. Calvin999, that's simply how it works. When did you invite project-wide examination of your sandbox before you merged it in? Why did you have less responsibility to get consensus prior to changes than PD.Baker24?—Kww(talk) 16:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK guys, just calm down. All we ask for you (Me and Calvin) is to wait for the peer review from a "profesionalist". Everyone had a chance to improve this article, that was 1/3 from what is now, but with lot of work Calvin and I did what we did (User:Calvin999/Sandbox3). So all we are asking for you is to be patient and wait for the review. Thanks ! Tomica1111 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am calm, but that doesn't mean that the answer isn't "no". All editors should feel free to edit this article without concern for any pending reviews. It even says that on the template that announces the article is awaiting peer review.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't want to seem rude, but why don't you peer review the article, and we can do your suggestions on the article? Tomica1111 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers (Drink to That)

Hi. I know a number of users on here has been adding sources that are not considered reliable. Is Digital Spy considered a reliable source? Here's the link:

http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a331476/rihanna-announces-new-single-cheers.html Xavier (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)MR.Texan281

"Cheers" will be sent to top 40/mainstream radio on August 2, 2011.

http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases Xavier (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)MR.Texan281

 Done. I'll get on this. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The main page has CKB listed as the "sixth and final single", which is clearly false since Cheers is getting a single treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.69.184 (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay give people a chance to changes things. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a cover of Cheers, confirmed by Rihanna on Twitter; http://twitter.com/#!/rihanna/status/95682028816703488 & http://lockerz.com/s/123707123 . Just in case you would need it for the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.248.81 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Singles

I understand that some editors are wishing to expand this article perhaps for GA purposes. However, too much information has been added to the sections especially the single's section! There are individual articles for information about the singles' videos etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just see how the single section looks here - The Emancipation of Mimi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1111tomica (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with placing a bit of information on the music videos in the singles section; as long as they are brief and to the point. The same can be found throughout several other high quality album articles.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Lil. Just summarise the song - release date, featured artist (if any) and a very brief discussion of how it did on the charts. See The Fame, Here I Stand (Usher album), Ready (Trey Songz album) for more examples. Two paras should do it, even with seven singles. —Andrew_stalk 09:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, there is no set rule for this. As an example, take a look at Confessions on a Dance Floor. It honestly is a matter of opinion.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to go with Lil and Adabow. Five paragraphs? And, TEOM has only two paragraphs. Novice7 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well having a huge singles section, it's just for not or having rules. LOUD had 3 MEGA singles, so that information it's actually needed so could people understand the success of them. I see nothing bad or eventually a problem with it. Tomica1111 (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's bad. The singles maybe very successful, but you don't have to include each and every information regarding it. For example: "At the 53rd Grammy Awards, held at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on February 13, 2011, the song won the award for Best Dance Recording.[102] It was the first time Rihanna had won an award in this category, despite being nominated in 2008 with "Don't Stop the Music"[103] and 2009 with "Disturbia".[104]", " Music critics praised the song as some of Rihanna's best vocal work to date. They also praised its romantic nature of the song, as well as its sexual tones. However, there was some negative criticism towards Drake's lyrics which included a sexual innuendo about the square root of 69.[108]", " The music video for "S&M" was co-directed by Rihanna and Melina Matsoukas,[126] who had previously directed the music video's for Rihanna's singles from her previous album Rated R, "Hard", "Rude Boy" and "Rockstar 101", and was shot in Los Angeles during the weekend of January 15, 2011.", "It was banned in several countries, whilst also being restricted to nighttime only TV rotation, due to the explicit content of the video.[128] The video was also flagged for inappropriate content by users on YouTube, restricting viewership to registered users over the age of 18.[129] The music video faced another controversy when allegations of plagiarism surfaced, which resulted in Rihanna being sued, involving the video's striking similarity to past Vogue Italia photo-shoots ranging from 1995–2002 by David LaChapelle, with RadarOnline reporting "In a side-by-side comparison between LaChapelle's previous work and screen captures of the Matsoukas directed music video, the similarities are indisputable – with nearly identical sets, scenarios, and styling."[130]" I have italicised the statements, which I feel, are unnecessary here in the album article. Novice7 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that I actually took a look at the article, yes the singles section is way too long. Its basically giving a 25% coverage on each song article in one section. If you would like to mention the music videos, it must be brief. I mean, "We Belong Together" achieved more success than any of Louds singles, and still only warrants a small portion of the two paragraphs. When I made my original statement, I did not check and notice that it was over five paragraphs long. Try to eliminate a good 40% of that. If you'd like, I'm sure one of us can do it for you.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks, I will do it. Tomica1111 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The section has been shrunk a bit now, and I have removed chunks from Only Girl and S&M, and Tomica has removed some parts which flowered it a bit. I think the paragraphs are of ample length according to each song and it's success/information. It only looks like a lot because there are 8 songs mentions, and not many albums have 8 songs to talk about as singles/notable songs, especially when three of them have been so successful as well as having some controversy to talk about. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 14:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, totally agree. Tomica1111 (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It still happens to be far too much. In giving you advice from experience, this will never make it to FA or even GA with all that extra misc info.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to reduce it, later, and man I don't mean to be rude, but since you hate so much Rihanna and her voice, why are you so interested in editing her articles? For ex. I don't like Gaga, so I don't care about them ... Tomica1111 (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have further reduced the Only Girl, What's My Name?, S&M and Man Down paragraphs. Please bare in mind that the third paragraph talks about Raining Men and S&M, and that the fourth paragraph talks about CKB, Man Down and Cheers. The Confessions on a Dancefloor singles section is about half as long and talks about four 4 singles, so it makes sense that the singles section here is about twice as long talking about 8 singles. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 13:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Answering to you Tomica. True, I do not like Rihanna, but unlike you, I still want the best for all Wiki articles, especially because I know that a friend of mine, Calvin, worked very hard on this and truly wants it to go far and be the best it can be. That is why. For that very same reason I will probably reconsider my oppose on her Project page. If you guys really want to better her discography, and feel a project is necessary or helpful, then I don't think its fair I try and stop you.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I really appreciate that. Btw thanks for your vote. I just want to see this, maybe it will change your opinion a little bit. Btw I cut some of the singles information, I don't really think It can be taken other info. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) The singles section is looking better btw. Its a cute video ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Loud Removed from iTunes

I know I don't have any sources here and whatnot, as it hasn't been mentioning by the media (yet), but the album was removed from iTunes WORLDWIDE. Then about an hour later, it was put up again removing Love the Way You Lie, and you can no longer buy the album as a whole, just song by song. Would this be worth mentioning? (If properly sourced of course). status ϟ ^talk 05:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, It's still not available. What's wrong? I think that maybe ITunes has some issues. Tomica1111 (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna on Twitter : OK #RihannaNavy there's a glitch with the album being replaced!Everything will be back 2 normal within 2-3hrs! #CHEERS has not lost its spot ... Tomica1111 (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlisted Writing Credits in Album Booklet

According to ascap.com, Rihanna co-wrote "Cheers (Drink to That)". http://ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=881853548&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=25&start=1

For some reason, she isn't listed as a writer in the album booklet. The ASCAP page for "California King Bed" has disappeared, but it listed her as a co-writer for that song, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.0.136 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I found a cached ASCAP page for California King Bed: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3mzJrHs2-50J:www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm%3Frequesttimeout%3D300%26mode%3Dresults%26searchstr%3D882816514%26search_in%3Di%26search_type%3Dexact%26search_det%3Dtswpbv%26results_pp%3D30%26start%3D1+site:ascap.com+%22fenty+robyn%22&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.0.136 (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New Version?

According to Amazon Germany a new version of the album will be released on September 9th. — Status {^talk_contribs  21:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Still, there is not enough information, to put it. But, it could be a useful source in future. Tomica1111 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'l be starting later today. Its a nice sized and very informative article, nice job guys. I'll tell you though, there is still a lot of work to be done, especially the references, so be handy so you can get all these things done in a week.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you Nathan for accepting this. Wou I'm ready for the challenge, I hope Calvin is too :P. Tomica1111 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Nathan. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  No problem guys :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

References

• Starting Alright guys, we are going to be starting with the references. I'm going to list a number of issues, and examples of how they are to be fixed.

• (For the "works" parameter. Nothing aside from printed sources (newspapers, magazines etc.) should come out in italics. Hence Ref #1 & #2 are wrong. Similarly, ref #4 is a printed source, because its a magazine, so it should be Vibe, not Vibe (magazine).

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Ref #3 needs fixing

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• For the MTV or MTV News sources, the work is either MTV, MTV News, MTV UK, and the publisher is Viacom. Also, like Vibe, it shouldn't appear as MTV (UK and Ireland), just like I don't write Loud (Rihanna album), I write Loud. So it should be MTV UK

•  Doing... Calvin• ^NaNaNaC'mon! ...  Done I cleaned the MTV references Tomica1111 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref #10 - Rap-Up is an online magazine, just like Slant Magazine and Stylus Magazine, so you don't italicize it. Its a simple thought process, you'll get used to it after encountering the same sources often :). If there are sources you aren't sure of, look at The Emancipation of Mimi, as it has over 230 references and a variety of printed and online sources. ust control+F and search if the article has the same magazine or source and copy the format :)

•  Doing.... Yeah I know, it wasn't me who wrote the Background and recording section, and I didn't check the references. Some Rap Up ones might still need to be addressed. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Rap-Up is not an online magazine anymore, its a printed source. And printed source takes precedence over its online counterpart. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also, don't overlink things in the references. Link it the first time you mention it, not like with #5 and #9

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• When titles appear as all capitals, like #11, you write it out normally, not like that. You capitalize every regular word, other than a, and, etc.

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Know the difference between the Cite web and Cite news templates. Cite news is for all printed newspapers AKA LA Times, NY Times etc.
• Reference #16 should be cite web, not news

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Reference #17 doesn't have a publisher, Wenner Media

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• The Allmusic sources are poorly formatted. The work is Allmusic and the publisher is Rovi Corporation. Also, you have it as Cite news for some reason.

•  Doing... Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

•  Done Tomica1111 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Instead of "dutchcharts.nl" its Dutch Top 40

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Instead of ifpi.orf, its International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Then, a lot of sources are either not formatted or done really poorly, AKA #s 36, 41, 70, 78, 79, 119, 120, 132 etc.

• Have done 26, 41 and 70 so far Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!
•  Done Tomica1111 (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• 240, 241 - why are they RIANZ. Spell it out

•  Done Tomica1111 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• 151 is Entertainment Weekly and Time Warner, why do you have it as "Music-mix.ew.com"?

•  Done Tomica1111 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Lastly, a lot of sources are questionable in terms of respectability. Simply, what makes #s 83, 88, 89, 155, 163, 227, 259, 260 etc.

• Changed reference no. 155, will do the others later ... #83, I can not find other source about Loud sales in the UK. Probably I have to remove it? ... I can also not find sources for #88 and #89, about when "Only Girl (In the World)" impacted the US radios. Also as I said source #155 is changed. Changed source #163, with two sources from Rap-Up. Removed the source #227, about year end on the German charts. While the sources for NZ certifications. What's the problem with that cite? They are used in Rihanna discograpy. However, I changed the source certification for "S&M" and "Only Girl (In the World)" with a searchable dates from the database, however I can not find a date when "What's My Name?" was on the charts and was certified Platinum. The last time that was on the charts is 7 February, 2011, but then was certified just gold :S. Comments?  Doing... Tomica1111 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Read here about UK sales - It turns out the usage of Ref #83 is okay. It was poorly referenced so I didn't see the publisher or anything. You wrote Ozap, but PureMédias is the publisher, a French news wevbsite. This one is fine. See, thats why sources have to be well formatted ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you can't find alternate sources for the deemed unreliable ones then they will have to be removed, including the prose. Btw, I'm disputing the removal of PopCrush, because it has been used in Cheers and was deemed reliable. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also think that the reliability of Radioscope should be re-investigated. It is used in the Rihanna discography, which is a FL. Tomica1111 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would go through each reference. Maybe you guys can split them. After this (these are found in almost every reference) then we can move on to prose and other things. Good Luck! I have this page watch-listed, so comment here for queries or concerns! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have done most of them, but's 2:40am and I want to be sleeping in my bed instead of typing in my bed now! haha. I have literally only addressed the reference numbers given here Tomica, so there are probably still Rap Up and MTV etc. references to fix throughout the article. Obviously I will continue tomorrow. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 01:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry about time - I'm very patient guys. I know this is a long article, so if a week isn't enough (it probably won't be) then don't sweat it. As long as there is progress, I wouldn't oppose for a 2-3 week nomination. So really, don't kill yourself! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry I will work today on the issues, I will change the others later. Tomica1111 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Read here about UK sales - It turns out the usage of Ref #83 is okay. It was poorly referenced so I didn't see the publisher or anything. You wrote Ozap, but PureMédias is the publisher, a French news wevbsite. This one is fine. See, thats why sources have to be well formatted ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I re-formatted it. :) Thanks. However, what about RadioScope? Tomica1111 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding RadioScope. We usually only use official certifying agencies for certifications, in this case the RIANZ. Try finding the certifications there, I'm sure you can. If you need help, as a fellow Zealander User:Adabow, I'm sure he can help you navigate it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• RadioScope is the only place to find all certs from mid 2007 in NZ. RIANZ only lists the certs if the song/album is on the charts the same week. RadioScope collects the sales data and forwards it to RIANZ,[5] so it is reliable. —Andrew_stalk 22:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, there you go. I guess he was stalking so we didn't need to ask :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I asked him :). But he was great and answered here. Thank you Adabow ;) ! Tomica1111 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that the only thing that needs to be done now is changing Rap Up to Rap Up ? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

References 2

• Round Two Sources - Still a lot of work Calvin.
  • Inconsistency in dates

•  Done Tomica1111 (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• • The first three are already problematic
  •  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Why are #12 and #13 different?
  •  Done I don't get why (Devin Lazerine) is in brackets for the first but no the second though. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!
    • Simple. One is accidentally "{{Cite news" isntead of "{{Cite web". Cite news shows the publisher in parenthesis, while the other doesn't. As I said, many are wrong in this sense, as only printed newspapers use this template.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Why are 21 and 22 cite news and italicised? and why both linked?

   Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  • 35 should be italics "its a mag!", 36 should use cite news, 39 is poorly formatted

    35:  Not done Musicnotes is a magazine?. 36:  Done. 39:  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

    • Sorry Calv, made an error in numbers. #36 should be cite web and italics. #35 could be better.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 45 has wrong publisher and should be in italics

    Who is the publisher then? Because it says that Independent Print Limited is the publisher on the The Independent article here Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

    • Tribune Company--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  • From 177 and on, they are even worse. As I said, there is still much to do. Please ask if you don't know, but there is a formula, so just apply it to every source.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry, but what's with the whole formula thing? :) Tomica1111 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

    • Pretty simple. First, know what source you are citing (newspaper, online, magazine etc.) and choose "Cite news" or "Cite web", the fill in the url, the title (All major words begin with capital letters. If title is all caps then don't place it that way), is there is a known author, do last=, first=, then the work= (which automatically italicizes the work, so if you don't want it, then like the opposite place little lines on each side to have the effect, Allmusic), fill in publisher, date if known, accessdate. That's about it :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

      • Familiar to me. But, however thanks for explaining. Tomica1111 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I do have a set formula I use, but obviously people are still allowed to edit this article and they have different ways of formatting. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand, I had that issue as well, but you'll find that once the are all perfect, you'll effectively be able to monitor small changes and either fix them or revert.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done ... I re-formatted all references from 177 until the end. Nathan you should check them, and let us continue with the review. THIS REFS are so BORING :( ! Tomica1111 (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the bore of it Tommy, and I will, but you guys still have not completely fixed them. There are so many inconsistencies. In 221 and 222, Billboard does not appear in italics. Why does 35 use "Cite News"? #45 is still not fixed. 49 and 50 are wrong. Tommy, I suggest you and Calvin split the references, and do them right! Instead of doing some each, and getting confused and over-looking many of them, you do 1-135 and he do the rest.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deal, I will do it until 135. Tomica1111 (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly Tommy, if there are ones that you don't know, I'll do them. List me the ones when your done, or I'll try and tighten them after you've finished :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure Nath, if there are some "unknown to me" , I will tell when I'm done ;) ! Tomica1111 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So Tomica, you have done references 177 to the end, and are doing 1-135? If so, I will do 136-176 if you want. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you can do them. Also you can check from 177 till the end, as maybe there is some mistakes. Tomica1111 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I reworked all the references from 1 - 135. I only found trouble with the HipHopDX publisher. There are two - Cheri Media Group & Complex Media Network and I don't know which is the real. Do you know Nath? Tomica1111 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I re-formatted all the references, and I'm at least 90% sure, that they are fine. You can check them Nath, and I hope we will continue the review. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Tomica I've had a lot on my mind. Where are you up to re-formatting? I'll do the rest. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem Calv, I have done for you :). I'm done. Now we just wait for Nathan to continue with the review. Tomica1111 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you are making this really difficult. There are loads of inconsistencies with the references. Some are still with Cite web or News when it should be the opposite. Some are linked several times (we link first time only). Some are un-reliable sources (Pop Crush, Sohh!?). Before we get to anything else, and I'm sure this will annoy the hell out of you, I need good references. You're at about 75% of the way now.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll sort them out Nathan. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC) But i will probs do it tomorrow because i am seriously hungover at the moment! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

Haha "The Hangover Part III". Don't worry I know that feeling ! :) Tomica1111 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha, and I'm high at the moment :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you guys are getting there. Things to point out. There are inconsistencies with dates (2011-08-19; August 19, 2011). Choose one and stick to it. Why are the publishers in 1 and 2 in parenthesis? Why is 4? Why is 30? 31? 36 should be (ts a newspaper!!!!!!). #45 is still wrong publisher (I told you its Tribune Company) and should be in parenthesis. I'm going to fix the 15 that are wrong. Pay attention please :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know how to reference them and have a particular style of formatting I stick to, I just can't see which ones need changing. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note - This is going to wind up resulting in a fail guys. We are almost three weeks in, and there are still so many ref issues, let alone prose and everything else. I mean, there are so many inconsistencies, some in capitals and others not, some missing accessdates, and loads of unreliable sources #s 91, 178, 180, 208, and so many poorly formatted ones. Unless there is going to be some God-send change, this will result in a fail before Friday.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  Have done quite a lot. I only have 3 sections left. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  Ready when you are :) Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Round two

Lead

• The lead needs some work, here are my main concerns:
• I think you should switch content from the first and second. Try and keep each paragraph focused. One will discuss background and who was involved with the project, while the second on its musical styles, genre choices etc.
• Be careful with mixing tenses: "Loud focused more on up-tempo and pop related genres, ranging from dance-pop to Electro-R&B, and marks her return to her dancehall roots" -> focused, marks
• The third paragraph needs to not focus just on the US and UK. Try and seem less biased and shimmy it down and add info for other countries as well
• "Upon its release, Loud received positive reviews from most music critics, who complimented its upbeat material and Rihanna's performance." -> this sentence doesn't fly. We need like two solid sentences of actual commentary on why the album was praised (maybe strong infusion of several musical styles and Rihanna's improving vocals) while criticism for etc.
• The last sentence is far to long and repetitious. Mention the first three singles regarding their chart performance, then go into the tour. Don't list chart position for seven singles
• You mentioned she earned 10 #1s faster than Mariah Carey. This is not found in the body of the article

  Done all Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. Nice switch for the first two paragraphs. he third paragraph is way too detailed. You don't need to give us quotations on critical analysis, write it in your own words, but not vague things like "Rihanna's performance"
• Loud was a commercial success internationally -> this is puffery. We let the sources and facts do the talking. The album achieved high peaks on charts in etc is fine
• That Grammy fact is kind of just thrown out there. Is that the only Grammy? Only major award? I suggest (depending on what it won, I'm not really sure) a sentence that it won several awards throughout the music industry, or not to mention it at all
• The last bit "less successful in" is just trivial and extra--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Media

• You don't have great descriptions for the samples. A line regarding its lyrics does not tell me why the sample should stay. I take it you no what I mean
• I think the samples are misplaced. One of them would be better by a section that actually discusses the song's lyrics and composition

  Done all Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Content

• The "singles" section still needs trimming. Its very bulky and hard to navigate
• You don't have to have random facts regarding the music video just thrown into the mix. Note that on TEOM, only the first two are mentioned because they are two parts of one video. the rest are not mentioned. Try maybe discussing the video for "S&M" and "Man Down" due to their controversy and remove the random facts of the directors for the others
• Be careful with "some noted" and having only one critic referenced
• There you go for now.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  I've removed all instances of talking about a Music video. But considering there was not prose about the S&M and Man Down vids with regard to controversy, I think that if I talk about them, then it would kinda undo the shortening I just did by removing the Music video lines from the other singles, so I'm just going to leave them all clear of any Music video prose. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• You missed a few above for the lead - now, there are a lot of unnecessary facts regarding the live performance sections. Additionally, the singles still needs trimming. Before we get to a major c/e, you need to crop a lot of unneeded info. All the descriptions on Rhanna's wardrobe etc should be removed; they are kept for their respective song articles. And the singles section still needs to be cropped by like 30%. Look at the work I did on Mimi for the FAC so far, there is really a lot of unnecessary information here.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I trimmed the live performances section, I guess it's ok now. Tomica1111 (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah I can still see things that could be removed. I am going out now, will continue tomorrow. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Ref 31, 56 and 128 are the same. And why isn't "Skin" (the best song) mentioned anywhere in the article? Surely some reviewer must have mentioned something about its instrumentation or what it's about? Pancake (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your ref comments are fine, but just because that song is your favorite does not mean its mention is required. It has almost no coverage.--18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously think I wanted it to be included just because it's my favorite? lol That was not the point. Pancake (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nathan. That is how it read. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it came out that way. I was just observing. I actually wanted to read what critics said of the song, but I couldn't fin anything on the page, so I had to ask. Pancake (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read a lot of Loud reviews (as part of promoting Only Girl, S&M, Raining Men, Man Down, California King Bed and LTWYL to GA) and I don't recall seeing much, if any, commentary about Skin or Fading. I think I saw one, which was very brief. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said above. You missed a few points on the lead. Aaron, I recommend you take this article to the GOCE. There are really far to many prose issues to point out. I'll wait, but I suggest you submit now. The singles section still needs trimming. They have their own articles for a reason.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical about using that because when I used it for S&M, the guy completely fucked up the article and made it impossible for it to be passed by FAC, I had to undo the vast majority of his work. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've used them three times and they have helped me greatly. Put in the request and I'll ask if Diana could do yours; she's the best at it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fail - I have waited a month for the clearly under-prepared article. This was delivered with references in shambles, and with poor prose and structure. After waiting this long, I have decided that I will not bend anymore for editors that are not deserving or appreciative of it. The article is still not GA-worthy, and I am not waiting any longer.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ktlynch A few things:

1. There should not be a list of credits and production staff in the article. This is an encyclopaedia. 2. The writing is constipated. I feel the word count could be safely cut by one-third. 3. Some of the sources are definitely not WP:RS, I saw one from amazon!!! 4. There is good real world perspective and coverage of different facets of the disc. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.46.2.6, 1 October 2011

24.46.2.6 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Edit request is blank. Monty₈₄₅ 18:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This album don't sell 8 million.

Max. 5 million and i don't think so.--186.91.134.184 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Give a reliable source ! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 10:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm proposing that the last sentence in the lead about the Grammys should be removed. Per the guidelines at WP:ALBUM and the site-wide explanation of WP:LEDE, we should not give undue weight to one organization/its accolade(s) in the lead section. The more general claim that the album earned Rihanna several accolades (affirmed by List of awards and nominations received by Rihanna) can summarize it better. Dan56 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's in almost every article on Wikipedia though? That's like saying its unfair to put "the song debuted at number one on the billboard hot 100" in the lead because it's unfair to the Indonesian singles chart...--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well an American album's domestic charting is usually the relevant commercial performance. Likewise for an Indonesian artist's album and the respective chart. In this case, Grammys dont measure/track tangibles such as sales, like Billboard and Nielsen do. They represent one collective's opinion. It's nice to put an accolade there, but why should the Grammy accolade be mentioned rather than a different organization's accolade, particularly when the album didnt even win the Grammy nomination that mentioned? Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well because it's the highest and most respected award in the music industry, you don't see artists making albums and songs specifically to win kids choice awards LMAO! It's the golden standard of the music industry for awards.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's giving too much weight to one award. The Recording Academy is pretty invested in the music industry, particularly the dying CD sales business, which explains why the better-received albums arent usually nominated for those "best" categories. Billboard and American Music awards aint no different, just less of a burden to uphold that image of being prestigious. It's sort of a questionable and criticized source. While Loud isnt a bad album, nothing else other than the Grammy nomination suggests that it was received as one of the best albums. I think more credence should be given to critics' year-end lists, but that would also be giving undue weight to a certain source. As it is, the sentence is kind of awkwardly placed; it's sort of stand-alone, not a supporting example for anything like the album earning Rihanna several accolades. It's giving undue weight to a minority view that the album was viewed as one of the year's best albums. Dan56 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, leave it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Compelling argument. Dan56 (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Calvin dw he does this thing on a daily basis to try and brew arguements and make unconstructive edits, it's best just to ignore. Dan, just drop it.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You like rules. Have you checked out Wikipedia:Civility? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm civil with editors who make positive contributions. Not those who look to start edit wars.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Assume good faith? It's recommended, even "during heated debates". Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If I revert your edits and say "Good Faith" you'll rv me, then post on the talk page your reason, and not let anybody else challenge you. That ain't good faith, or civil, that's just bad editing and being a control freak.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I just proposed this change, hoping I'd get some substantial comments. I didnt go through with this change. Dan56 (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And who are you to call me a control freak? You want to have every album article on WP to have the exact same section titles. When I said good faith, I meant being a little considerate. Dan56 (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I do believe you're the one who jumped in and changed that, and your justification was that you wrote other articles like that? I told you to look at many other articles, the majority on Wikipedia (including this one). My justifcation was that countless other editors use this style, and since the album didn't have enough info, your way would not benifit the article. Your justification was that all your articles are written this way? I mean like...--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we on the same page? I'm talking about this talk page. What I proposed here. I would have just done it, but it was passed GA, and its highly superior quality thanks to editors like yourself. The Pink Friday article can clearly use some ideas being discussed. This seems like more of a finished product. I just through the idea out there that it would be a more neutral lead without the Grammy sentence. I would've appreciated if Calvin999 had elaborated on his point, but what can you do. Now, do you want me to look at all GA articles? Who would do that? I look primarily for articles that could use help and have something I'm interested in. That's why here was just a proposal. I'm not demanding anything. I just think I have a point and would appreciate some feedback from other editors. It could come from editors other than yourself, who has already made his view clear. Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My two cents I was asked to come here and give my feedback, but simply put, it will fall on deaf ears. It looks like the two of you are bickering and without being calm and rational, things can't move forward. Fundamentally, either approach is prudent on its own merits: it is fair to say "such-and-such is a Grammy Award-winning album" and it is also reasonable to think that we shouldn't emphasize individual accolades in an overview. If the two of you can agree to that as well as agree that both of you are probably interested in the encyclopedia being better, then you can make some progress. If not, there's no point in bothering anyone else as you two can fight all day long. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's just one sentence saying that it was nominated for a Grammy, and is exactly the same in the Critical reception section. It's not as if it says who the other nominees were and who won it. If it did, then I would see your point, but it doesn't, it's already a one sentence summary. If people want civility, they should give it. I'm sick of people demanding and preaching to be civil when they need to look at themselves first. End of discussion. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:30, 22 May 2012 (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.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Loud (Rihanna album) → Loud (album) – Can an administrator please move Loud (Rihanna album) to Loud (album) cause Loud (Timo Maas album) was moved to Timo Maas article so it's the only Wikipedia album article with the name Loud.— Tomica (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense to move it as it is now the only album article entitled Loud. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per Tomica's and Calvin's reason. Rayman^{95 (talk)} 18:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is not the only album. There are also Loud (Wicked Tinkers album) and Loud (Half Japanese album). Tassedethe (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - even without Tassedethe's links to show other articles exist. NB I assume there's probably a guideline somewhere saying "if it doesn't have an article it doesn't exist"? But if there is such a guideline needs changing. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, even without Loud (Wicked Tinkers album) and Loud (Half Japanese album), Loud (Timo Maas album) would still have been an ambiguous title even as a redirect. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are those other albums more notable? No. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, they didn't chart anywhere or had a single that performed well internationally so they don't comply the Wikipedia policy. Also their articles are in bad shape, so that's the reason I nominated for AfD. — Tomica (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think charting and having hit singles are requirements for notability for albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, even if Loud is the more notable of the albums, the fact that multiple albums called Loud exist, Loud (album) should disambiguate the various albums. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• 50/50 – I initially agreed, but I just realized that there are articles with the album titled Loud. If the articles are deleted, then I will support the move 100%. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are several albums of the same title and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to titles with disambiguators because almost no one will actually type "Loud (album)" as a search term. —  AjaxSmack  02:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely in agreement with Ajax. Other albums exist with the title with or without having articles, artist disambiguation remains necessary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Loud (Wicked Tinkers album), Loud (Half Japanese album) and Loud (Timo Maas album) all exist. As somebody else said, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to titles with disambiguators. Statυs (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

South Korea Chart

The album debut at #12 in South Korea Gaon Chart Source -- Hnj2020 (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

Another edit request by a MariaJaydHicky sock, only agreed to by other MariaJaydHicky socks.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Loud (Rihanna album)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Loud (Rihanna album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HipHopDX":

• From Man Down (song): Ketchum III, William (January 3, 2012). "Sak Pase Reveals Queen's Influence On 'Watch The Throne' Tracks, Rihanna's 'Man Down' Controversy". HipHopDX. Retrieved August 20, 2015.
• From SOS (Rihanna song): Ketchum, William E. (May 13, 2011). "Producer's Corner: JR Rotem". HipHopDX. Retrieved January 1, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Loud (Rihanna album). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Music/93764-Rihanna-Rated-R-2009/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/cdreviews/6597485/Rihanna-Rated-R-pop-CD-of-the-week.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20320917%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120052409/http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=140&p=9345&more=1&c=1 to http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=140&p=9345&more=1&c=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429054219/http://www.aolradioblog.com/new-song/rihanna-man-down to http://www.aolradioblog.com/new-song/rihanna-man-down/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HkD4d8lG?url=http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/hot-modern-ac/future-releases
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60oaaEttu?url=http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/chartifacts.htm to http://ariacharts.com.au/pages/chartifacts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216000000/http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pollstar.com/resultsArtist.aspx?ID=20373&SortBy=Date&SearchBy=Rihanna
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004055234/http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/week-ending-feb-20-2011-albums-an-early-birthday-present.html to http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/week-ending-feb-20-2011-albums-an-early-birthday-present.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511120126/http://www.cria.ca/goldplat.php to http://www.cria.ca/goldplat.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5z2VdwpxN?url=http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1G50 to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1G50
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zuQW3zPY?url=http://www.theofficialcharts.com/albums-chart/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/albums-chart/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107094350/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/cardle-at-no-1-again-eminemrihanna-take-that-scoop-2010-crowns/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/cardle-at-no-1-again-eminemrihanna-take-that-scoop-2010-crowns/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ugg4pB5Y?url=http://www.grammy.com/nominees to http://www.grammy.com/nominees
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ylYwBbT5?url=http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_urban.asp?chart=1Q40RB to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_urban.asp?chart=1Q40RB&chart2=1R40RB
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107094350/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/cardle-at-no-1-again-eminemrihanna-take-that-scoop-2010-crowns/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/cardle-at-no-1-again-eminemrihanna-take-that-scoop-2010-crowns/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104102925/http://oe3.orf.at/charts/stories/albumyear/ to http://oe3.orf.at/charts/stories/albumyear/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitlisterne.dk/yearlist2011.asp?list=Album%20100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224191326/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=&type=2 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=&type=2
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CMib4gIl?url=http://www.promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/albumes/Top%2050%20ALBUMES%202011.pdf to http://www.promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/albumes/Top%2050%20ALBUMES%202011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201210425/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20140001 to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20140001

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) 06:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Loud (Rihanna album). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715144510/http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=09%2F21%2F2010&Format=1 to http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=09%2F21%2F2010&Format=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012074402/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/take-that-marks-a-year-at-number-one/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/take-that-marks-a-year-at-number-one/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011220619/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/clicktrack/2011/02/music_exec_slams_grammys_rihan.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/clicktrack/2011/02/music_exec_slams_grammys_rihan.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pollstar.com/resultsArtist.aspx?ID=20373&SortBy=Date&SearchBy=Rihanna
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_urban.asp?chart=1Q40RB&chart2=1R40RB
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=2010&type=2

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) 08:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Loud (Rihanna album). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20320917,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714131110/http://www.mtvbase.com/news/sean-garret-pens-rihannas-next-album/ to http://www.mtvbase.com/news/sean-garret-pens-rihannas-next-album/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629203348/http://top40.about.com/b/2010/09/29/rihanna-unveils-loud-album-cover.htm to http://top40.about.com/b/2010/09/29/rihanna-unveils-loud-album-cover.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219120519/http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2010/11/08/rihanna-s-and-m to http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2010/11/08/rihanna-s-and-m/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/694HISEp2?url=http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=09%2F21%2F2010 to http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=09%2F21%2F2010&Format=9
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/694Gojnvi?url=http://top40.about.com/od/singles/gr/Rihanna-Only-Girl-In-The-World.htm to http://top40.about.com/od/singles/gr/Rihanna-Only-Girl-In-The-World.htm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69spuYVCo?url=http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=12%2F07%2F2010 to http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=12%2F07%2F2010&Format=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127070714/http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/2896510%2Cconner-rhianna-loud-review-111610.article to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/2896510,conner-rhianna-loud-review-111610.article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117111923/http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2010/11/15/rihanna-whats-my-name-mtv-the-seven-performance-video/ to http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2010/11/15/rihanna-whats-my-name-mtv-the-seven-performance-video/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127070714/http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/2896510%2Cconner-rhianna-loud-review-111610.article to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/2896510,conner-rhianna-loud-review-111610.article
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMhvi3TT?url=http://greekcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Rihanna to http://greekcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Rihanna&titel=Loud&cat=a
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMi5DfvA?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/23/2011-01-08/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/23/2011-01-08/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMiBGVVM?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/17/2010-11-27/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/17/2010-11-27//
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMiKpk4A?url=http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=2010 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=2010&type=7
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMiX2Cfx?url=http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year= to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=&type=7
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMibaILy?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-top-20-biggest-selling-albums-of-2011-revealed/?key=2012 to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/the-top-20-biggest-selling-albums-of-2011-revealed/?key=2012
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMihZTkR?url=http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st= to http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=&ica=False&sa=rihanna&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Artist%2F5wCzQgARD
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMjUhj1k?url=http://www.wowhd.co.nz/CD/rihanna-loud-cddvd-limited-edition/dp/17889783 to http://www.cdwow.co.nz/CD/rihanna-loud-deluxe-edition/dp/17889783/35171987?wid=productCarousel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111213161203/http://cdgo.pt/artigoDetalhe.php?idArtigo=5209318 to http://cdgo.pt/artigoDetalhe.php?idArtigo=5209318
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMo6tbut?url=http://www.mixup.com.mx/mixup/product.aspx?sku=602527523651 to http://www.mixup.com.mx/mixup/product.aspx?sku=602527523651
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMo9vkoj?url=http://www.livrariacultura.com.br/scripts/resenha/resenha.asp?sid=973131113141122459682224567 to http://www.livrariacultura.com.br/scripts/musica/resenha/resenha.asp?nitem=22361259&sid=2051661091298293541897653&k5=6CA2D39&uid
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CMoBrxu4?url=http://www.disctarra.com/index.php/front/detail/129 to http://www.disctarra.com/index.php/front/detail/129

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) 19:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sample credits

why did my edit get deleted??? FADING samples Enya! and a few other songs sample too! so whoever deleted my edits, you're wrong, honey. PopFreakNena (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)