# Talk:Rockstar 101

WHY HAVE YOU DELETED THIS ARTICLE???!!! RYAN SEACREST CONFIRMED ON AMERICAN IDOL IT WAS RIHANNA'S NEXT SINGLE! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

first of all do not use capitals... that's shouting and its not required. Second of all for a song (or single) to recieve a page it needs more than one national chart and extensive coverage as we as a release date. At the moment it has neither a release date nor single cover (official one) nor extensive coverage as a single. Therefore a whole page is not yet required. 3-4 sentences whill suffice at the album's page.Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For a song to be notable for its own page it needs:

to have charted on one national chart (at least)
have extensive independent coverage from critics etc.
have a confirmed release date (this song doesnt even have a radio date)
have a single cover
Since this song has none of those and there is only one source stating its release as a single (allegedly it was confirmed on american idol though there are no sources to confirm this the page has been redirected to it's album. Any reversion of this edit would be in breach of WP:crystal, WP:notability (music) and lack verifiable information. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It HAS got a confirmed radio release date of May 18, 2010 on mainstream pop radio in the U.S.
Plus, why is Speechless by Lady GaGa an article if it hasnt got a release date?? This is not fair because Rockstar 101 by Rihanna has been confirmed for mainstream pop radio release in the U.S. for May 18, 2010 but no it hasn't got an article has it?!! Make up your mind wikipedia! If Speechless is kept then a Rockstar 101 page should be created! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation with the Speechless (Lady Gaga song) article is very different: that song was listed on notable charts of three different countries, and was reviewed in several notable publications, which makes it pass community consensus for notability of songs. None of this is true for this song. The Wikipedia community has very much made up its mind, and detailed the criteria at WP:NSONGS. It's not easy to apply them objectively, or "fairly" as you called it, but I am certain that if you brought both articles to a community discussion at WP:AfD, the Gaga song would be found to pass those criteria, and the last incarnation of this article to fail the criteria.Also see WP:Other stuff exists. Amalthea 18:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Iluvrihanna24, Lady Gaga to these people is like a "God", so there's nothing to do, let them believe they are right and continue with their usual bias. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't listen to any of the artists that are popular today, and I concur with Amalthea. The difference is that Speechless charted, and this has not. Once it does, the redirect can and probably should be undone.—Kww(talk) 18:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course the song fails WP:NSONGS. But if it were an article of a song by Lady Gaga or another singer... would be another story, if you know what I mean. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate situation: I agree that people edit-war against redirects, and do so preferentially for some artists. I redirect articles like this one, and usually take them to AFD if I encounter resistance. Some artists seem immune at AFD because they have such a large fanbase that you can't get people to think objectively about the situation.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That has a name... bias, no? Like that and another nice people. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you find a case of him undoing a redirect of an article that actually failed WP:NSONGS before you go further. If you can, then WP:RFC/U is a more appropriate spot.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
For their bias enough to intervene in these cases. You defend each other... unbelievable. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If you believe him to be biased, it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide a piece of evidence. If you can't provide evidence, it shouldn't be difficult for you to stop making accusations.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so... and if it is to defend, automatically assuming bias on your part, stop the conversation there. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
As you've mentioned those involved in reverting the article i will say this. I've previously reverted this article because WP:NSONGS clearly states that notability is more than just about charting or recieving independent coverage. It clearly states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". No what i don't understand is why people can't seem to comprehend the fact that charting or having a video filmed does not make a single notable. Lady Gaga articles like Speechless (Lady Gaga song) have an extensive volume to them. This really has nothing to do with preferring one artist over another. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the way you think, and I respect, but as stated earlier, some people don't allow the song to be considered without notability on Wikipedia. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I do understand your frustration and i respect your point of view. It is unfair how the current guidelines do leave it down to interpretation. If you look at the talk page of WP:NSONGS i did try to campaign for clearer guidelines but was shot down miserably with not ONE other user supporting the idea to clarify the guidelines. I suggest you create the article at User:Vitorvicentevalente/Rockstar 101 and add to it as more information becomes available. Then let us know when you think its notable and we can let you know and advise you accordingly.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But I know the criteria for notability of songs on Wikipedia, and I'm not thinking to recreate the article because I created it in another Wikipedia language. I am against cases of bias, since the comparison that was made in this discussion. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

oh my god why do you keep deleting the page now!! it now has a video clip which obviously proves it is a song! she wouldn't just release it for no reason would she!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:NSONGS You should read it. TbhotchTalk C. 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This page has an official video being released tommorow on VEVO. It is being realesed to radio on June 1, 2010. This should be an article. Thankyou Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
For the last time a song being released doens't make it notable. It must chart or recieve awards. Either way there must be EXTENSIVE independent coverage and enough information to form a detailed article. There is no such information available. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You might like to create a temporary sandbox page for a potential article, ie for Iluvrihanna24 create one at User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101. Copy-and-paste the last revision with content, and add to it, and if and when the song charts or receives any awards, copy-and-paste back here. Adabow (talk)  09:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I really think it should be an article now as on Google News, all over it, there are posts about the video which is coverage by critics. A radio release is confirmed. A music video has been shot. What else? User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101. I have worked really hard on the article. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the existance of a video, or even a song, does not make the song notable. Irrespective of the artist, you need to ask why is it notable? Does it pass WP:NSONG? However, I do think that some people have been a little prompt in deciding whether it needs to be a redirect, on the evidence given it will be an article, the only question is when. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article deleted when the results of the deleting discussion were "keep"???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.192.19 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC) 

It wasn't, see WP:Articles for deletion/Rockstar 101 (rihanna song). Amalthea 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen... and it WAS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaveren (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Technically, the result of that discussion was "redirect to Rated R (Rihanna album)" and salt the redirect.  This amounts to the page being blanked and the redirection markup being placed on the page instead.  The history is still visible to all users unlike deletion where the history is only visible to admins.  Amalthea dutifully followed the consensus therefore and redirected and then salted it.  This page was fully protected against an edit war in the meantime and left as a redirect awaiting the outcome of the debate.  BTW, consensus on WP does not count votes but looks at the weight of argument (hence "!vote" rather than "vote": most "keep" !votes in the debate were pretty weak while the "redirect" !votes were pretty strong  --Jubilee♫clipman 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly think that the article should now be re-opened as ot has just charted on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play Songs chart. 
Thankyou
82.19.248.157 (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it either on her Hot 100 chart history or her Hot D/C chart history or indeed any of the other charts.  We can keep an eye on those pages, though, and if it appears we then have confirmation; before that, we have nothing...  Patience is a virtue  --Jubilee♫clipman 01:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The June 19 chart won't be released in full until tomorrow morning (Thursday), but Billboard does give a "sneak peak" at some of their charts earlier, and this is confirmed: [1] - eo (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What's the best version of the article we have had? I've lost track. Personally I'd restore it right away, to avoid some duplicate work. Amalthea 10:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think iluvrihanna24 has a sandbox version. - eo (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, some versions: 1 2 3 4 5The first one is the most recently deleted one, and the one with the most material. Unless there are objections in the next few hours I'll move that one here (and the old revisions out of the way first, to avoid a garbled history). Iluvrihanna24 can then merge material here if anything is missing. Amalthea 10:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I will. But make sure the article is called just 'Rockstar 101' as I know another page was made called 'Rockstar 101 (Rihanna song)' which is wrong as there is no other song entitled Rockstar 101. Also, I think my article should be used as I worked extremely hard on it and added many reliable sources. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Geez, this is a copy&paste attribution horror. I'll merge it all together, and get back. Please don't touch the pages in the meantime. Amalthea 12:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
← As it turns out the Rockstar 101 (Rihanna song) version was developed from your sandbox version User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101, which was in turn developed from the content of Rockstar 101. All of that was done via copy&paste, which left a huge attribution mess.All cleaned up now. Amalthea 12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So... what now?  How do we restore the page?  I have looked at the histories of the three pages involved (User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101 deletion log, Rockstar 101 revision history and Rockstar 101 (Rihanna song) revision history) and can't make head nor tail of what to do to restore the "correct" version (whichever that is).  Where is the version that Iluvrihanna24 created?  Even if we do restore the page, can we cite enough reliable sources to prove Notability?  I am not sure we can, yet, but we should be able to use the Billboard charts (rather than the previews) in a week or so.  Why not wait until we can actually prove notability beyond doubt?  What's the rush to get this article up?  --Jubilee♫clipman 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
By removing the redirect from the top of Rockstar 101, which I've just done. As indicated, many of those versions were part of the same revision chain and developed on top of each other. Luckily they weren't worked on in parallel, so they are all in here now (except from an old development at Rockstar 101 (Rihanna song)).I for one am in no hurry at all, only wanted to prevent that yet another version is started, which would be a waste of energy an make the version history even more chaotic. Personally I don't care; if there is objection to restoring the page yet, then feel free to undo me (once! No edit warring.) and begin a discussion here. Amalthea 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Aha!  That make sense now.  I was just calling attention to the various issues.   I'll leave it to others to decide what to do with this page now and carry on with other things  --Jubilee♫clipman 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does it say for radio add dates that the song is being released on June 14, 2010 because there is no source! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I want this picture to be added in as the cover [[2]] if the creator of this page allows so. I want it because this cover has the 'R' symbol which is oficially supposed to be on all the Rater R singles' covers. I want the opinion of others also about this image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedwaheedhussain (talk • contribs) 10:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 

Doesn't appear to be the official cover, very very likely fan-made, so it can't be used. Amalthea 10:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please check this image. [[3]] It maybe the cover. Please reconsider them even if you are not satisfied because the Rated R's special "R" is on these images. Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It can't get more fake than that. Any image you'll find on blogspot.com and nowhere else can't be used, since it is unverifiable, and most probably incorrect. It should be displayed on the artist or the label's official page, or at the very least on one of a few reliable retailer pages. Blogs are no good. Amalthea 15:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
So is the present cover the correct one. Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is; it clearly states in its title "Rockstar 101: the remixes" Adabow (talk)  06:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This cover [4] seems to be from a reliable source. Adabow (talk)  07:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I swear people are getting away with vandalising this page! First someone deletes the charts section and says it needs expansion and then this! Why at the top of the page does it have 2 attention signs when there is no need. How is the intro too short? iIt's the same length as any other single introduction! stop being fussy wikipedia!! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't call good-faith edits "vandalism"; you surely know how unfriendly that is. Also, it'd be nice to know what you mean by "and then this!" If you mean the things you mention next, those "attention signs" are banners that have been there since June 30. I get the feeling you don't realize the usefulnees of the revision history. Maybe see Help:Page history, if you haven't already.
The intro wasn't being criticized for its length, measured in words, but for its perceived shortcomings in summarizing the article. I have just added a couple of lines about the video, since the article's largest section is the video paragraph. I also added a line about the critics' remarks, although I found it hard to summarize what seem to me to be disparate comments, without any positive or negative conclusion.
As regards the Charts section, all we have is one peak from one chart. It's premature to add another chart in the assumption that the song will make it; we have to wait. That leaves the section pretty darn short, and therefore subject to expansion. A table isn't appropriate though, because there's currently only one chart for it. That may be a sign that the entire section should go away (which touches on the second banner mentioned above). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can people stop reverting my edits because they are fine! I took out the information history of the chart performance and put it into a new Chart performance section lie any other single article! It shouldn't have the chart history in the Charts section it should just have the charts it charted on in the table! 82.24.227.215 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh look! Someone's done it again what a surprise! WHY DO YOU KEEP REVERTING IT! IT NEEDS A SEPERATE SECTION!! and don't tell me off for shouting because i'm annoyed and i'm trying to get my point across and no there is no other way of doing it before you say that! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Iluvrihanna24, 82.19.248.157, 82.24.227.215, I3eN_10-11, and any other accounts you may be using:
Please calm down. I do not want to write another long treatise on how I think you should behave, because I'm at least as tired of writing them as you are of reading them. I do feel compelled to respond, though, because our paths cross so often (even when you're signed on as just one user).
You are apparently upset about the reversions, and it's not clear to me whether you understand the reasoning behind them. This is another sign that you may not ever see the edit summaries other users provide, which would explain a lot of your confusion and difficulties. Do you simply go to each article's page and look for things you'd like to change? Or do you use your watchlist to look at revisions other editors have made? Take a look at yours, if you haven't already done so. If you haven't added anything to your watchlist, then maybe you would benefit from looking at this article's Revision history. This is where other editors would see your edit summaries if you sed them, and where you can see theirs. Does that help?
In any case, the reversions have happened, for reasons I won't go into here, but now you can discuss them. I remind you of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Now you are here, which is great. But you are so upset that you have taken steps which not only don't encourage discussion, but actively discourage it. How much discussion and consensus do you expect to achieve with section headings like "What the hell?!" and "LEAVE!"?
Remember to stay calm, don't forget to breathe, and consider taking a short Wikibreak. When you are ready to edit again, remember to assume good faith and that this is a collaborative effort. If you do not want to collaborate, or if you are not ready to have your work here edited or even deleted, then you should not be editing here, no matter how much your contributions are appreciated. Don't let the stress get to you; it's only Wikipedia. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 Not done The chart performance has been merged to the charts section because per the Manual of Style it is improper to oversectionalise an article. Two sentances do not belong in their own section nor does 1-2 charts. If you feel like your edits are being undone all the time why don't you check the page history find out who undid your edit, look at the edit summary and if your still not happy just leave a small but polite message on their talk page e.g. "Hi, yesterday you undid my edit to Rockstar 101 and I didn't understand why. Could you please explain this to me so I know for next time" --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
She's/he's getting upset because you're fussing over this page. If they are doing it wrong ask someone else to keep tabs on the user as your attention cannot be construed positively and it is clearly agitating them. I don't really see that you are impartial as you've been offended by their words as you're talking about acting in good faith so clearly you feel like you're being taken the wrong way and/or are being talked to in a rude way.--Manboobies (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I swear wikipedia you are just picking on this article! you've put loads of citations in the charts section! why?! you don't make this much fuss with any other article! i changed the 'two weeks' bit and added 'it has peaked' but you just keep reverting it. It's like you've got one copy of this page and you're just sticking to it if anyone changes 1 thing! 82.24.227.215 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the source for the genre, and nowhere on it does it say what genre the song is. Ending-start (talk · contribs) 00:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"...  Carried by deep bass beats and dupstep samples..." ( i think it does ) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1  | talk2me 03:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
where is hip-hop sourced? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed as many dead links as I could, but I really need help with this article. Does anyone want to help improving this? The fights over this article are epic, I don't want to step on any toes in my attempts to improve.--mikomango (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there really a guitar solo? I listened to this song many times, but I couldn't hear anything like this. --Slay555pt (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.popeater.com/2010/05/26/rihanna-slash-rockstar-101-video/
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=rihanna+rockstar+101+rap+up&pbx=1&oq=rihanna+rockstar+101+rap+up&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=131l4226l2l4354l15l14l0l0l0l0l274l2342l3.4.6l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=be1e0db4a93549ed&biw=1680&bih=814
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1639954/rihanna-channels-slash-rockstar-101-video.jhtml
http://www.mtv.co.uk/news/rihanna/203070-rihanna-performs-rockstar-101-on-american-idol
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/s91/american-idol/news/a213142/rihanna-excited-at-american-idol.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/nov/19/rihanna-cd-review
http://top40.about.com/b/2010/05/25/rihannas-riveting-rockstar-101-video-released.htm
Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

http://idolator.com/5516061/rihanna-grade-rockstar-101-video
Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

not sure if this is needed, so I will put it here.
The video received its UK TV premiere on 4Music on June 13, 2010.
Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  16:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rockstar 101/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Spiceitup08 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 10:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Will start soon :) --FeuDeJoie (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  17:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Lead

the song - The...
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
fourth overall single, fourth single overall, from
Not sure what you mean by this? This isn't in the Lead. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
and was written - new sentence
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
The song met with negative to mixed reviews from music critics - Doesn't read well, maybe change to mixed at best or something.
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
and criticized the inclusion of featuring Slash on the song, calling it an "afterthought". - and criticized the inclusion of Slash on the song, calling it an "afterthought".
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
As the video did not feature Slash in the music video - did not feature Slash.
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
in the attire of a rock star - In rock star attire,
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
personality, as well - New sentence - As well...
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
first and only time live - only televised performance.
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  13:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Background and composition

"Rockstar 101" features a guitar performance by British-American musician and songwriter and former lead guitarist of the American hard rock band Guns N' Roses, Slash.[1] - This needs to be moved to the end of the section, with the credits.
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
It really doesn't say much about the composition, it discusses theme but has no information on structure, is there anything on Musicnotes.com that you can add? Or maybe any critical responses relating to the composition?
There is nothing on Musicnotes.com, that is always my first port of call when writing about the composition, but there isn't anything. I can request that they do one for Rockstar 101, but they might not do it. (They did for Cheers (Drink to That) on my request, though). There isn't anything related to the Composition in the reviews either. The most I could find was what genres the song incorporates, and what genres the Remixes incorporates. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  14:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

negative to mixed reviews by music critics - Rephrase, doesn't read well.
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Start new sentence. - Leah...
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
The ET review really says very little, could you expand the review?
That is literally all she says about the song. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
The LA times review, is too long, I'm not saying remove the information but maybe you could rephrase what she is saying and take it out of quotation. This critical response is exactly what I mean could be added to the composition section, you could merge critical reception and composition into one section? Just a thought.
 Done What do you think? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Popmatters is just a website right? So should it be in italics?
It isn't italicised here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Plus... Can you expand the response, it is very short and adds little to the article.
 Done I have added in a few more reviews, but surprisingly not many of the album reviews had anything written about the song. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Love the Bill Lamb review, but generally it is a mixed response from critics. In the section responses are predominately positive.
Positive? They all say negative things about the song, hardly any positive. "aggressive", "one of the weaker songs on Rated R", "end the streak of three consecutive top 10 pop hits from the album", "difficult to see "Rockstar 101" endearing itself to a wide spectrum of pop fans listening to the radio". I think mixed is most appropriate. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  14:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Chart performance

best selling singles - remove this.
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  14:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally the section is pretty good!
Music video

Scens - Typo?
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
as well as in a snow-forest scene. - Huh, it doesn't really link to Fannie Schiavoni you need to move it!
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
predominantly guitar strings - remove this, parts of a guitar sums it up.
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Live performances

for the first and only time live - Again state it is the only televised performance.
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
black flying v guitar - quote marks issue!
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  14:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
References

12 and 22, italics issue.
Nielssn Media - Typo
17, 18 and 19, whats with the multiple quote marks?
19, you need to fix the reference.
23, you don't need to include capitals in title.
 Done But check them again please. I added in new sources before I changed these, so you order of references here is now different. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  14:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Overall
It's actually quite a good read, aside from the issues i've picked out. If you dont understand something I've written or want to contest anything, write on my talk page. Ta --FeuDeJoie (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking, the Lead is quite short, so do you think I should make it into two paragraphs instead of three? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  14:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a detailed look in a bit, but I think the lead should remain three paragraphs, it is easier to understand, para 1: Background and composition, para 2: Reception and para 3 is about promotion. I don't think there is any need to change it. --FeuDeJoie (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Im looking through and the only issue I have is the music video, I don't believe it should have subsections, they are too small. Change it and I think were done here!:) ...PS good job you messaged me. Almost forgot! --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  12:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

When did the artwork change? There is no record of it in the history for this article. It used to be the one with "The Remixes" written on it, but now it's a proper single cover. Second opinions please! I've never seen the current cover before, and the old one (which seems more accurate because the digital remixes were released instead of just the single) seems to have been deleted? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It changed at 17:10, 24 October 2011. Look at the File history of the image; apparently Status changed the file directly, and so didn't (have to) touch the article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen that artwork before. And my main point is that the digital remixes were released to iTunes, not the song itself, so technically this is the wrong cover to be using. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  10:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The cover is directly from the iTunes Store. It was released digitally as a single, but is no longer available. — Status {talkcontribs 16:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If it is no longer available, I think the remixes cover should also be included as an alternate cover, but you deleted it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  16:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't delete it, I just uploaded over it. And besides, what does that matter? For example, the cover for "Woohoo" was never used commercially, but it was uploaded onto Nicki's official site, so it's used. The covers are barely different, but this one is without "The Remixes" and the explicit tag; both of which should not be present in official single covers for infoboxes. — Status {talkcontribs 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's the same thing really. Even though the single was not released and isn't on iTunes, The Remixes artwork is still on iTunes. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!  17:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rockstar-101-The-Remixes-Explicit/dp/B008F4LDJU/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1341253855&sr=1-28
Here's the link to amzon.co.uk add to release history please?!.

 Done — Tomica (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The source cited for the metal genre states "guitar hero Slash provides a fuzzy backdrop of metal ambience". That sounds more like an tingey influence than a complete categorisation of the song into the metal genre (which is confusingly and somewhat WP:EASTEREGGily linked to heavy metal music but piped to "metal"). Adabow (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)