Template talk:Rihanna songs

Earlier this evening, I reformatted the template to improve readability and make it slightly more chronological. For some reason Tomica (talk · contribs) reverted this by claiming that "[s]uch changes should be dicussed beforehand". This is not the case, as this goes against the very core of WP:BOLD. This is the place for editors to air their views on why they feel the new layout to be amazing/inappropriate or something inbetween. (Original template-[1], proposed template-[2] SplashScreen (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A new template. Maybe some tweaks would have to be done to it though. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried (and failed) to get "Wait Your Turn" to be listed as "Promotional single" without getting the dimensions all mixed up (if that makes sense). Must be a way around it. SplashScreen (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decide that it's not a promo single anyway. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see a logic reason making this kind of template. First of all it's eye hurting, then it is repeated (single, songs, single, song, single, songs). I think that the only releases from the album are the singles and they should stay under the title of the album, and the songs have its own section called solely songs. — Tomica [[User talk:Tomica|(talk) 00:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So your opposition is based on personal preference, rather than something more substantial like a policy or guideline? SplashScreen (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a singles template. Not a songs template. Statυs (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case, why are there songs listed at the bottom? All that's happened here is that the information as been made more coherent in regards to each song's corresponding album. SplashScreen (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Splahscreen, you can't argue with apparent Wikipedian allegiances. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But why were those changes made? Have you seen it as an example here before? Was it approved? Do rest of X singer singles template use it? I don't think so. They use it the format that the template currently holds. — Tomica [[User talk:Tomica|(talk) 00:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Avril Lavinge's is like it, Mariah Carey's is like it, just a different way of formatting it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's quite an accusation Calvin, especially since you've been agreeing with everything Splash has also been doing. Weird. Statυs (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't try and flip it off of yourself. I don't even know Splashscreen. It's not as if I'm working on articles with him... Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't know SplashScreen? He sure as hell knows you. Especially since he accused you of being in alliance with a few users, including Tomica and I out to get him. You two also seem to have talked together before. Weird. Statυs (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They are completely different. A lot of users find them nonconstructive though. This is a classic and per my own opinion should stay like this. Btw completely agree with Status. — Tomica [[User talk:Tomica|(talk) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol, point proven. Night. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Status, can you please comment on the issues about the template instead of starting your own episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show? And for the record, I noted that Calvin was a frequent editor of the same articles as you and the he was blocked whilst the suspicious behaviour was occurring. SplashScreen (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tomica, please don't revert edits with the summary "these should be discussed beforehand", that's not how the BRD cycle works and you know it. Calvin/Aaron, please don't make insinuations of allegiances and whatnot, people are probably going to respond defensively to that and it's not constructive. Status, someone else's insinuations don't give you free reign to respond in like, that's also non-constructive. Just focus on the template issue and don't bicker with each other, it will save time. In regards to the template, I agree that the proposed revision does look a little messy, but it would be nice if the non-single songs were matched up with their respective albums. OohBunnies! (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see the point of that new change... is clearly inappropriate and non-standard compared to other similar templates. VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 15:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose - [Comment from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] - For a couple of reasons: (1) The Single/Songs subdivisions are a bit ugly and annoying; and (2) not consistent with other similar templates. I can see the point of it: you are trying to identify which songs were released as singles. As an alternative, consider leaving the old template alone, but add an asterisk (or something like that) to those songs that were singles. --Noleander (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As another RfC bot invitee, I'm going to second Noleander's suggestion of adding an asterisk to singles the singles instead of having a separate group. I would also add that the template name should probably be updated to indicate that not only bona fide singles are included. Since there seems to be no argument about the inclusion of songs vs. singles, I don't think there's any reason to upset the balance of the template contents in any way. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]