Talk:Rated R (Rihanna album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Eek.

Hi there, guys. I was reading this article, trying to find information on a certain track. As I was reading the article, I noticed something - this article needs help! The grammar and punctuation are somewhere between "off" and "totally, totally, totally wrong." If you want an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at my rewrite of the lead vs how it was half an hour ago. Now, I'm going to try to continue it, but I have -quite a few- other projects. Just as an example of the problems, "number one" is never written "number-one," though top ten may be written "top-ten." Putting two apostrophes together, like this is not an appropriate substitute for a quotation mark (that being "). When discussing music charts composed by a magazine, for example, the Billboard Top 10, there is no need to write Billboard Top 10. Just write Billboard Top 10! Silliness. As a final example, it's stupid to write "(song x) managed to reach position 4 on the (Whatever) top 10." Just write "(song x) reached position 4 on .."&etc.! Using the term "managed to" makes it sound like you are suggesting that it is for some reason surprising that the song reached that position. I assume that is totally NOT what the original poster meant, but that's what it sounds like, and it is easier to avoid that implicated violation of NPOV. So, those are my major qualms. I have been told that I am overly critical of poor spelling/grammar/punctuation. I think that makes me a benefit to Wikipedia, if we're trying to be as professional as possible I have rewritten the Lead, as I said, so that the casual reader will not spot poor English. If I have the opportunity to continue working on the article, I will, but, if not, I certainly hope that someone else can help. I will leave another comment if I get another chance to work on this. If not, as I said, I hope someone else can help. Paging all picky grammar fanatics! Cheers, 24.152.235.191 (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok A.jerie 13:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)

Confirmed Songs

The Wait is Ova is not a confirmed song, hence no source. Remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.117.155 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Amalthea 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wait Is Ova is gonna be the second single of the album si it is a confirmed song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.225.47 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

In Poland CD will be release on 20 November Official Universal Music Poland source: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.9.247 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Album cover

The current album cover was confirmed here: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1624888/20091027/rihanna.jhtml Amalthea 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wait is Ova Release Date

I translated the source for "The Wait is Ova" being the second single and it states that it is due for a release in November of 2009 before the album is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

this is meant to be the first single off of he rnew album, as russian roulette is to promote the new album, which will be called the wait is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.116.120 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rated R Genre

In the Glamour Interview Rihanna says that the album is like Lil Wayne meets Kings Of Leon, so I think that the Genres of the album can be R&B/Pop the elementals genres of rihanna, Hip Hop cause she says that is more urban, and for Kings Of Leon I think that can be Alternative Rock or just Alternative music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.24.192 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Now That I hear the album leak, I confirm that is kind of right the genres that I say before: R&B, Pop, Hip-Hop, Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.139.10 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2/13 songs with a guitar intro dosen't make it a rock album. 81.106.148.147 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I took Off the Hip Hop part because it`s stupid to say this album is Hip Hop. Mos Def`s Ecstatic is Hip Hop, Anything Flo-Rida does is Hip-Pop At Most but can be considered Rap so how is Rihanna`s music going to be considered Hip Hop? LarryTheGreat (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You two last are wrong, more songs have guitar than just 2, and she is raping on the album but is not like Grime or Rap-Pop or something like that, is Hip Hop, the R&B i agree R&B will be always the base of Rihanna's albums, and Rock I don't think about Rock-Rock is more like Alternative Rock...or if you don't think about Rock is like Alternative Music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.225.15 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The genre is Pop/R&B with influences of Hip-hop & rock (what should i say?? it's pop-rock! we can't even call it rock, that would mean that we don't know what rock is.....) many sources state the same thing so please stop changing it! MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• The album is Hip hop, R&B and rock [2][3]. And these liars are saying that Metacritic AllMusic and say the album is pop/R&B, but they are manipulating information, for both sites the album is R&B. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not talk to you that way! ok?? yes the album is R&B!! but rock & hip-hop are only influences! what can't you understand? Allmusic is the better source because it only reviews albums! IGN is just some internet page, not specialised in music!! you're the only one here manipulating information here! it's clear that you have an obsession that this album is rock & hip-hop (to make it look "bad" or whatever your intention is....)!! i can see that you don't even understand those genres of music! MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that you have an obsession that this album is Pop, but it's not. It's Hip hop and R&B, rock is increased by the singer and The Guardian also talks about the album's hip hop and rock and hip hop. You also manipulate my words, because I never said that the main genre is rock music. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok but it's still R&B as the main genre not hip-hop! it only has ELEMENTS of hip-hop! if she says that it's classical music or punk or hard rock, it's her vision, artists say many things that are not always true! MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 22:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is to AllMusic, but not for other sites like IGN and Rap-Reviews. Previously, I had no sources, I put, I pray that the work is respected. In addition, she wrote and produced the album, is a personal album, A VIDEO-FILM OF HER LIFE! Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dont forget the two dubstep songs on the album, produced by Chase and Status. 75.111.63.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

Consensus

There should be some consensus reached among editors about the genres on the album. Editors are welcome to comment. Can refer to the dispute between Dan56 and Vitorvicentevalente at the noticeboard for background. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't read the thread at the content noticeboard, but I'd agree with Bookkeeperoftheoccult when says: "Since the article states: "Primarily an R&B/Pop album..." I'd say leave it at that in the infobox. The rest of the article can discuss other genres in prose.".
So I suggest just that, which might have been proposed above as well: R&B, pop. Amalthea 09:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Obviously strong elements of hip hop and rock are present but sources support that this is primarily pop and R&B. Chase wc⁹¹ 03:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well yes A.jerie 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Wait is over

The page needs to be re-created. For one it has a music video, also an artwork was released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelB722 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Was this page written by a Rihanna stan?

I swear this page is all like "Oh, she's had such a hard year, so this album is about all her trials and tribulations, and people need to understand that". All this page needs is some loser going "LEAVE RIHANNA ALONE!!! *SOB* *SOB*". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then re-write it. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 07:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe this was written while I was in the middle of my copyedit... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

PROFESSIONAL MUSIC MAGAZINES like SPIN & BILLBOARD should be kept at the review section in the infobox!! PLEASE STOP DELETING THEM!! (MariAna Mimi 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Says who? Their reviews are subpar compared to the ones that r there now. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Says this here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites see???? SPIN IS LISTED as a prefered review magazine and so is Billboard!!!! DO NOT DELETE THEM!! (MariAna Mimi 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

It does not say anything about it being perferred. The Chicago Tribune's Greg Kot is a professional critic, as is USA TOday's Steve Jones. Their reviews of the album are more comprehensive than Billboard's and Spin's, whether negative or positive, or mixed. Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait Your Turn

Wait Your Turn has not been confirmed as the third single in the U.K. in 2010 or anywhere else. Okredgreen (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was originally going to be the second single but they chose to release hard instead. Since it already has a video released I assume it will be third but I can't find a source. 75.111.63.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

This is stupid!

Is anyone actually in control of any Rihanna-related articles?! Someone has changed the certifications around, and then people are writing that the next single is either Hard, Rude Boy, or Wait Your Turn but no-one actually knows what is it. i suggest someone just puts that it is unclear because on the 'Rihanna chronology' it says it is Rude Boy but then on the Rated R page, it says it's Wait Your Turn!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be cleaned up by now to always name "Hard". Amalthea 09:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really A.jerie 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Overly positive

The commercial performance section is overly positive. Rated R is not as great as Good Girl Gone Bad, yet you wouldn't know it by reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.179.249 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improvement? Amalthea 09:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Find some more mixed or negatvie reviews and add an even account. Jayy008 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rude Boy

I've just removed the information that "Rude Boy" will released as third single February 8. The sources given were [4][5], but in my strong opinion those aren't reliable enough by far. We've been wrong with every single of this album before, in parts because we used dubious sources like this. Not sure what the issue is, if the production company keeps giving rethinking their decisions or if everyone just picks up rumors and reports them as facts, but I very strongly think that we at least need to wait for some respectable source to pick that up and report it. While this is possible and could of course be true, it's just as possible that this is merely the old rumor resurfacing.
Amalthea 11:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

3 sources say the same thing....i dont think its just a rumor......and its very likely cause hard was only released in the U.S.....and then it was reported that Wait your turn will be releaeed on Feb 8 in the UK...but then they changed it to Rude Boy......and by the way when u say "weve been wrong with every single of this album before" what do you mean?.......everything is correct... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.93 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

*None* of those two sources is a reliable source, thus we fail verifiability, one of our core policies, and take part in spreading the rumor. And yes, step through the old versions of this article to see what singles we thus far claimed. I believe the first one was called "The Wait is Ova", which turned out isn't even the title of the song. Then according to us (and of course there always were "sources" where we got that from), both "Rude Boy" and "Wait your turn" were already supposed to be singles.
Seriously, am I the only one worried about this? Any other opinions? Amalthea 00:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We can remove the sources and say that citation is needed? 1111tomica (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?
The issue is not that I don't want those pages linked to. The issue is that I don't trust them, and that policy does not trust them (read WP:VERIFIABILITY, which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars). The proper way of dealing with information that is not supported by reliable sources where there is reasonable doubt whether the information is accurate is to remove the information, otherwise we fall back to speculation and become an even less trustworthy resource than we already are.
Wikipedia is not the news. Even though it's great that we can react quickly to new developments, first priority is always to get it right, not to be the first to know.
That's not alone my opinion. If it's helping, don't take it from me, here's what Jimbo Wales said about it close to four years ago:

“ There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. ” — Jimbo Wales, Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information

Amalthea 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well than we should remove the information saying that "Rude Boy" will be released as second single internationally and wait until 8 of February and see what will happen, or if we find a trusty source we are going to link it with the information. This is my opinion and I agree with Amaltea. 1111tomica (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CalvinNelson4 has already removed it. Amalthea 14:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But its not fair...numerous articles on wikipedia use these sources for forthcoming UK singles....and how are they not reliable?........here is the third source i was talking about [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.88 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not about fairness, it's about not spreading rumors. And radio1.gr is one that I know was wrong several times before, including once before with a Rated R single. Amalthea 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually on this [7] source I don't see rude boy scheduled for 8th of February :S 1111tomica (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All Access and FMQB now also confirm it.....and they are 100% reliable sources......so...stop it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.91 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One of those pages claims February 8, the other February 9. Neither page even contains the word "single". Amalthea 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

6 words - FOUR SOURCES CONFIRM THE SAME THING .

2 words: bandwagon effect.
Unreliable sources tend to copy from each other, without additional fact checking. A thousand blogs claiming the same thing doesn't make it true. And no, they don't even say the same thing, and only one (!) even mentions anything about "single", the others talk about radio airplay and things "impacting". Amalthea 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you really know NOTHING about the music industry....and i have to teach you......ok baby girl, when a song is chosen as a single, the first thing the label usually does is sent it for radio airplay; make it "impact" radio...get it now..and one other thing All Access and FMQB are not blogs...and when was the last time you saw a song that is not a single "impact" radio?....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.88 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The last time? "Wait Your Turn", from this album. Was listed in some sources with a very similar look to the ones you have, and has even charted, but it hasn't been released as a single. Which shows me that only very few sources can be trusted to get this kind of information right, which is our first priority (see above). And all those sources, surprise surprise, are still mum about "Rude Boy", since they know to wait for a reliable confirmation to avoid damaging their image. Apparently, we have no such concerns. Amalthea 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But Wait Your Turn was NEVER EVER schedueld to "impact" radio.......let alone by highly reliable sites like All Access and FMQB....and wait your turn was only listed like for a minute in the Forthcoming UK Singles websites, and then changed to Rude Boy......and now all access and fmqb list rude boy as well....so....its obvious that rude boy is the next single 100%... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.85 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that "Wait Your Turn" was listed at [8], with a release date, for a significant time, and I believe that wasn't the only source (but I'm not going to dig through page histories now). It was later changed, you're right. From what I read above, it too claimed that "Rude Boy" would be released as a single next, while at the moment the only forthcoming Rihanna single it names is again "Wait Your Turn", so they changed their opinion again.
I do not know any of those websites. The impression I get from them, based on my experience of fact-checking references here for quite some time, is that they can not be considered reliable, i.e. that they do not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that one of our core policies, WP:VERIFIABILITY, requires. To the contrary, I'm sure they live from always being among the first to know, and accuracy necessarily suffers from that.
There is still no official word on it, and still not one reputable source is confirming it. That leaves two possibilities. One: This is all based on some rumor which is picked up and repeated by pages that specialize on centralizing those rumors. Two: This is all based on reliable internal knowledge that hasn't been sanctioned for release yet (thus absent from reputable sources), but has still been provided or leaked to the sources from above who don't care about such restrictions, which in my eyes makes them inherently unreliable.
I indeed know squat about this industry. But I do know we've been wrong with every single of this album before, where it too appeared to be "100% obvious" to many. Amalthea 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, another gossip website, celebrity-mania.com, is now reporting it as confirmed, but still not one reliable source, as far as I can tell. Amalthea 11:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsure as well A.jerie 13:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sales

Does anyone know what other countries make up the 1,013,000 copies sold worldwide? I have added up all of the countries fiven: Australia, Poland, United Kingdom and United States and they only equal 791,648. So where is the other 200,000 odd copies coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Those countries represents an 80% of the music industry. So if we add the other 20%, we get 1.000.000 copies.--HC 5555 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Platinum (RIAA)

RIAA has certified Rated R as a Platinum album.--HC 5555 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is true. I wanted to add it but i didn't know how. For everyone doubting this search on the RIAA website for Rated R. It will have gold first then right under it it will be platinum which is the new certification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.74.230 (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sales and Certifications

Nobody has put what this weeks sales for the United Kingdom or United States were?? And why has someone deleted the sales part of Certifications? Now nobody knows how much the album is selling! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I see they were removed because they weren't showing numbers beyond the implicit sales from the certifications, and actually the certifications can already give an impression how well this album sold. If you have a reliable (!!) source for sales in a particular country you could add that one back, but in my experience, those sales figures tend to be just changed by editors without stating a reliable source, and very quickly deteriorate into little more than noise.
In addition, I don't really see the point in adding weekly sales figures of all (or any) countries if there isn't something particularly extraordinary about them.
Amalthea 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Remixes

Should the remixes section be moved to the promotion sec., b/c it is a promotional effort more than it is part of the album's track listing? Dan56 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Weekly sales

1) There are no references or evidence towards the weekly sales of the album in the UK or the U.S. 2) On the BPI Website, it says the album is Platinum so the weekly sales must be wrong because it is only on 240,000 so far and Platinum is 300,000. 3) I'm going to delete it if that it okay.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sales

Alright, this article says it has sold 1.3 million copies worldwide, and I believe it. But E! news erroneously reported the sales figures as 4 million copies worldwide. Where did they get their figures from? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1.3M figure in this article is the sum of the sales figures in the 'Chart positions' table. I don't know where E! gets its information. I doubt their editorial requirement for confirming information from sources before publication is as stringent as that at the New York Times, and you know what trouble the Times has had recently in enforcing that policy. Of course, I don't know why you believe their number is erroneous, or even have a source for the numbers in this article. I'm glad that the discrepancy bothers you, though. I wish more editors were bothered by it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no reference for the worldwide sales of 2,000,000 copies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

UK Chart peaks and reversion of unsourced figures (Feb. 2010)

This is an ongoing topic, but I'll mention it here in case anybody wonders about my edits.

I have reverted some changes recently to the Chart positions table for the UK. The article previously showed a peak position of 16 for the UK Albums Chart, and a peak of 4 for the UK R&B Albums Chart.

The source cited for UK Albums Chart is http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/albums/ (no accessdate or other info), which currently shows Rated R at 31. The source cited for UK R&B Albums Chart is http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/rnbalbums/ (no accessdate or other info), which currently shows Rated R at 7.

These sources clearly fail to support the respective claims of 16 and 4 as peak positions. The sites appear to offer no option to access chart histories. The number 4 could be completely made up (although I have other ideas about that below); I therefore feel obliged to disallow (i.e., revert) any edits that change the previous numbers.

Now, I want to be reasonable. I'm assuming good faith and actually believe that the numbers 16 and 4 are coming from somewhere. The question is really just, from where?

I've blanked the value 16 rather than knock it down to the cited 31, because I think it may well have actually been at 16 once, and we just don't have a reliable source. I've also opted to leave the row for UK Albums Chart in the table, hoping that somebody will happen along with a different source. I have changed 4 back to 7 because that's what we can prove.

Now, whoever thinks that 4 is the right number for the R&B chart can bring in a citation explaining why they believe that. We change out the refs, update the number, and I stop yelling at my screen. Same thing with the number 16 for UK Albums: Say why you think it's 16, and we're done. It's that easy. Or that hard. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I know people just make up stuff but I just looked on the BBC website and i understand where you're coming from. There is no previous weeks to prove that it was 16 and 4 because there are no archives which is really annoying. But believe me, two weeks ago it was at number four and sixteen, i have been keeping up to date with it! I know you wren't going to believe me because anyone can just make those numbers up, but there are right, seriously! I just can't prove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I don't mean to suggest that I know you are a lying vandal (or a vandalizing liar); in fact, I presume there is a reason that people are adding the numbers that they do. It's just that the numbers are supposed to be verifiable, and folks making changes do so all too often without even an edit summary, much less a reliable source.

I'm left in the same boat as you, taking a sort of opposing action, by reverting changes because (as you say) "I just can't prove it!"

Hoping somebody will get fed up with the constant reversion and dig up a source. Or they could buy so many Rihanna albums that she moves constantly up in the charts, where people will write about it. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So now User:CalvinNelson4 has quietly (silently, one might say) replaced the ref we previously had for the UK Albums Chart, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/albums/, with a new one, http://www.chartstats.com/albuminfo.php?id=14562, showing a historical table and, yes, a peak value for Rated R of 16 on 05/12/2009 (its debut). Yay! Unfortunately, this source not only fails to indicate any authority (it's titled simply "Chart Stats" and reveals nothing about its author or sources), it also fails to indicate which chart it purports to track. The only hint that it might be some UK chart is the format of the dates, which appear to me to be the British style.

So for the time being I can stop reverting additions of 16 where the BBC source gave us only 31 lately. I only wish it hadn't been so much work to get to this point, besides the fact that our sources are still pretty flimsy.

And it's disappointing to me that so many editors of this article are so afraid to actually communicate, either on a Talk page or using even a minimum of grunts and handsigns in the edit summary. All folks do is edit silently and revert silently. Where's the sense of community? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

THANK GOD!!! I HAVE FOUND THE OFFICIAL UK CHARTS COMPANY WEBSITE WHICH PROVES THAT RATED R WAS '16' ON THE 29/11/2009. SEE I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH: AND EVEN THOUGH I CANT PROVE THE R&B CHART, IT WAS FOUR AND IT IS 6 AT THE MOMENT. LOOK ON RADIO 1 IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME! HERE IS THE LINK FOR RATED R ------> http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_albums_last.php?week=12&end=29/11/2009%20-%2005/12/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.69.246 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to SHOUT. Or pray, even. (Although you could sign your posts to a Talk page with four tildes ~~~~, like everyone else does.)

Remember, it isn't the truth that we concentrate on here, it's verifiability! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, ChartStats is for use on Wikipedia. If all of you bothered to read Chart guidlines here: Wikipedia:Record charts then this wouldn't be neccessary. It peaked at #4 on the R&B chart. here so I will make the changes. Unfortunately the link requires subscription to Musicweek.com as that is the only place to find an archive of it. In turn the link for the R&B chart will not be clickable I will write it like this "Music Week search results. Rihanna "Rated R" UK R&B Chart peak position #4." and I will keep an eye to make sure nobody changes it. Ref's life this are allowed! Jayy008 (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Genre's Hidden Message

"Stop removing "hip hop" and "rock", Rihanna herself described album in this way", last time I checked it doesn't matter what a music artist labels them self, saying something like that is like saying "Britney Spears describes her album as heavy metal herself so it must be the genre". Would it be okay for me to reword this? I know it's just a hidden message to warn editors but it's bothering me haha.--Babyjazspanail (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as whatever you replace it with doesn't lead to mindless editwarring over genre I think it's cool for you to change it. (Disclaimer: I'm not actually as interested or informed on her genre(s) in particular or musical genre identification in general as others here might be.) Ideally, we'd have some actual sources for whatever genres are shown to the article's readers. Such sources might include Rihanna herself referring to her new thrash-metal sound (or whatever). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for your reply. I'm going to reword it "Rock and hip hop are referenced genres, please do not remove them." Sounds more proper. --Babyjazspanail (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actual world sales

I'm confused about what to believe is the real worldwide sales of the album. On this source which is under 'Commercial Performance' New Universal era promises scrutiny for L.A. Reid, it says that the album has sold 2.5 million copies but on this source, when all of the totals are added for each week since its release, it adds up to just over 1.7 million [9] Someone help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, personally, I don't trust either of those source. The United World Chart (from mediatraffic.de) is listed as deprecated at WP:BADCHARTS, and the New York Post is, well, the New York Post, a sensationalist tabloid. If I had to pick one of these two sources, I guess I'd go with the Post, esp. considering the context of the story, but I'd just as soon leave all sales figures out of the article.

As for the http://www.mediatraffic.de/previous2.htm URL you provided, I don't see any sales figures on that page. I consider your addition of the individual weeks to be OR, so it doesn't look usable, but it seems that you may have just made a mistake or missed some reporting somewhere (like before it charted, or in countries without charts). I certainly don't feel comfortable using the 1.7 million. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here's a source where the album first made its appearance : [10] and then theres a link at the bottom which says next week and it goes all through the weeks to today's week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

At the start bit it should have a new sentence stating that 'Rude Boy' has been at #1 for 3 weeks running because it makes it seem like russian roulette was as successful as rude boy which it definately was not. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I really think something should be said about Rude Boy because it is a really big hit! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Rockstar 101" next single

Apparently, "Photographs" is not the next single. Rihanna posted a picture on Twitter today of her with Travis Barker on the set of the "Rockstar 101" music video. http://twitpic.com/1f6ct6 And the fact that she performed it on American Idol just adds to the fact. --Sdoo493 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've said it before on Rockstar 101's talk page and i'll say it again... without a source for a concrete release date, single cover or critical reception as a single the song is not notable for its own page. Additionally Photographs might be released internationally... Some users are saying that it has been added to UK radio. Anyway without any official confirmation (Rihanna's account on twitter is not officially verified) neither song should be added to the infobox. Radio1.Gr is not always a credible source as its a greek website and often gets radio and cd dates confused with download dates. WP:notability (music) clearly states that songs must chart on one national chart and recieve extensive coverage from independent sources. Neither song has recieved either extensive coverage nor at least one nationally recognised chart.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.rap-up.com/2010/04/12/rihanna-shoots-rockstar-101-video-rehearses-with-travis-barker/ --Sdoo493 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a circular reference because RapUp sources the twitter source above.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

uhhh no it doesnt. It sources Nikki Sixx's twitter. --Sdoo493 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the thing is the song has no release date and multiple twitter sources but still no official statement saying that it is actually going to be released. There are conflicting sources because both "Te Amo" and "Photographs" were also (and are still being called) singles. There is no harm in still waiting until the sitauation is much clearer. There's no need to jump the gun.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think now that the video for Te Amo has been shot and a preview for the Rockstar 101 video has been aired (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ZqixkMroE), we have the facts necessary to prove that 1) Rockstar 101 is the next US single, 2) Te Amo is the next worldwide single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.75.33 (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI everyone, since I can't edit it myself, director Melina Matsoukas directed the video for Rock Star 101, not Anthony. Melina confirmed it via her Twitter today. So someone with access please edit, thank you~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.158.211 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Hip-hop is a genre on the album, But rock really isn't (Rockstar 101 is'nt really rock) and I'm not sure about dubstep. --Louis Taylor (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing more than speculation. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the reviews all state that the album is laced in Rock. Rockstar 101, firebomb and G4L all have rock elements. The crux or core of the album is R&B/Pop and Hip Hop. Chase and Status are dubstep producers. Their contributions in ALL of the reviews are called dubstep. I dont see the issue.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid In Love

Just to let you know, Stupid in Love has been receiving airplay in Canada. :S I've heard it trice on the radio now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrollingdown (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

source?Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.chumfm.com/Music/Playlist/Playlist.aspx?type=1&sstr=rihanna&tf=18&df=0&tt=19&dt=1 CHUM FM, Toronto's largest Top 40 station. They did the same with Kelly Clarkson's "Long Shot" and Avril Lavigne's "Innocence" so I doubt it's a single. CHUM FM seems to like playing random album songs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.47.73 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Photographs is not being released in the UK

The release schedule which claims Photographs will be released on May 24th is untrue. There has been absolutely no word from Def Jam or Rihanna herself that Photographs will be released as a single yet. The source originates from Radio 1 who often have incorrect release schedules; their release scheduled claimed that Wait Your Turn would be released February 8th. Te Amo is receiving radio airplay on stations such as Galaxy FM and is climbing the UK iTunes store as a result. A source from a record label claimed that Te Amo is the new single in France, and that Te Amo will most likely follow in the UK. It seems like Te Amo will be released in Europe and Rockstar 101 in the US. Nothing is confirmed for Photographs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.134.37 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rated R (Bonus Track Version) on iTunes

Should there be a note that on the "bonus track" version of Rated R on iTunes doesn't include "Russian Roulette"? http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/rated-r-bonus-track-version/id340358470 --Sdoo493 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

that's bizarre... a bonus track version with no bonus tracks? I'm not sure... it might be an error.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

worse - there's a song missing. I'm almost sure it is an error. OAVJunior (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

SALES

check it out.. rated r now have sold 3 million copies worlwide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.28.169 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

source? Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cold Case Love

I've heard Cold Case Love three times on z100 so .... is it a single? User:RebornRocks 9:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New release date for Rockstar 101

{{editsemiprotected}} The new release date is June 1, 2010.Source. In the infobox, remove May 21 and put June 1, 2010.

Softonic (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: because per WP:ALBUMS and WP:SONGS release date = the first day you can BUY a single. However i will add the source to the singles section but NOT the infobox.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rockstar 101

someone needs to make a page for Rockstar 101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezzmon (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rated R: Remixed

There's a mistake in the tracklist of Rated R: Remixed. The Rude Boy's remix is "Chew Fu Vitamin S Fix" instead of "Chew Fu Bumbaclot Fix" - http://www.amazon.com/Rated-R-Remixed-Rihanna/dp/B003HE2BKS/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274617068&sr=8-13 (proof in the picture showing the tracklist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G0LD!3 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

+ the lenghts are missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.248.23 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The album has NOT been released in the UK the link provided is just an import, the UK release is currently unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ADD ROCKSTAR 101 SINGLE PAGE!

how come isnt there a ROCKSTAR 101 single page yet? ITS BEEN CONFIRMED AS A SINGLE, BEING RELEASED JUNE 1st 2010, AND HAS A MUSIC VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.253.33 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rockstar 101 Single Official Page

Official page of Rockstar 101 has been under our work. It's title is Rockstar 101.

Well where is it?Circusstar (talk)

Rockstar 101?!?!

Okay...there WAS a Rockstar 101 page, but someone took it down. Is there a reason WHY it was taken down?! Put it back up! There's no reason why it shouldn't exist. It was released as a single, it recieves radio airplay, and there's a music video. So put the page BACK UP! --Sdoo493 (talk) 5:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rated R: Remixed

I strongly think that a 'Rated R: Remixed' page should be made as the album has now charted on the Greek Albums Chart at number four. Also, it has charted on the Canadian Hot 100 at number 84 and the US Billboard 200 at number 153. Lady GaGa's The Remix album has a page on Wikipedia so I think this album deserves one too. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaga's The Remix reached the top 40 in (at least) 20 charts and had numerous articles written about it. Rated R: Remixed isn't notable enough (yet), IMHO. Apparently its article would consist of three none-too-impressive chart positions and... well, an infobox, a TOC, an intro pointing to Rihanna and Rated R articles, and ... that's it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also per WP:Other stuff exists, Lady Gaga's The Remix having its own page is a suitable or favourable argument for Rated R:Remixed to have its own page. Also agree with what John said above. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rated R: Remixed is #6 On Billboard Dance And Club Albums --74.46.27.224 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rated R Re-Release?

Rihanna's official fansite announced that Universal Music told them that there are in plans of making a Re-Release of Rated R. Also, many producers are speaking out about A LP/EP type thing (probably the Re-Release that UMG is talking about), Should we mention that sience Rihanna Daily & Universal Music Group are reliable sources? --74.46.27.224 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please can you prvide those sources here so we can look at them first? (note that a fansite is not an official, credible or reliable source). Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

http://rihannaforums.com/viewthread.php?tid=23942 http://rihannaforums.com/viewthread.php?tid=23938 this is the forums thats part of Rihanna's official fansite --74.44.84.12 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done the forums might be part of her website (i dont know) but the people posting on them are not. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Only the first one is "Rodrigo". But the second one is a list of producers that spoke out about a re-release/new album--74.46.24.86 (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Rated R Reloaded (japanese title: Rated R + 2)
• Issued : 15 Sep 2010 (Japan)

source: http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/3864480

--210.163.19.26 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is an official announcement and details of new songs then we'll add it in. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Stupid in love, Photographs, Firebomb

Who put those 3 songs as singles, when def jam or rihanna haven't said anything at all - User:Rebornrocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.125 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter they've been removed. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Review

I think that this page should be listed for a peer review and then for a GA review. The personnel section needs expansion as it was also updated on Allmusic.com. Please post your thoughts regarding this issue. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Release date

Still don't know why the release of the album has been put on November 20, 2009, as it had a worldwide release date on November 23, 2009, as explained in the french version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.62.11 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Earliest release date belongs in the article. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

YE-charts 2010

The album is No. 59 in Germany source. --79.216.174.128 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - 2011 Charting

Rated R is on the Billboard charts right now...can we add a 2011 chart?--mikomango (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Certification

Platinum in France source--79.216.218.159 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect ref formatting

The references, used in prior text defined as:

<ref>{{singlechart|UKrandb|1|artist=Rihanna|song=Russian Roulette|date=December 12, 2009|accessdate=March 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{singlechart|UK|2|artist=Rihanna|song=Russian Roulette|date=December 12, 2009|accessdate=March 27, 2013}}</ref>

show incorrect results:

83. ^ |UK R&B (Official Charts Company) |align="center"|1

84. ^ |UK Singles (Official Charts Company) |align="center"|2

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "sc_UKrandb_Rihanna" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "sc_UK_Rihanna" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).

What's wrong? Thx --Frze (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It thinks you have incorrectly defined a named reference. Did you take a look at the help page? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Was not helpful: Where can I find something to {{singlechart|UK|2|artist=Rihanna|song=Russian Roulette|date=December 12, 2009|accessdate=March 27, 2013}}? --Frze (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I see the problem now. Swap the nowiki and ref tags around and swap the end tags around as well. It should then put the whole lot into a reference. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be so kind and do it on Rated R (Rihanna album) - I can't, I tried everything. Thanks al lot. --Frze (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to do so when I get back from work :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Answered at Help talk:Cite errors.

{{Singlechart}} is not intended for this purpose. It creates a table row, so it needs to be included in a table. It also creates a reference, so you are essentially nesting <ref> tags, which does not work. Please read the {{Singlechart}} documentation or use another method to include these references. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

GAN

@Tomica: to be quite honest, I don't see any major issues with the article. I don't think it would have any problem becoming a GA. Not that I'm necessary, but I volunteer to review the article once it's nominated. Prism △ 23:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Pedro João: Yeah, after some second thoughts, I believe the article is ready to be GA. I nominated it, feel free to accept the review and Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rated R (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.chartstats.com/albuminfo.php?id=14562
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/album_chart.php?week=20100313

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rated R (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://cclamp.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite20/Members/Formats.aspx?FormatId=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)