Talk:Confessions on a Dance Floor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RIAA under-certification?[edit]

The album has thus far achieved Platinum status from them. According to Nielsen Soundscan however, it's sold around 1.7 million copies in America, which surely merit's a Double Platinum award from the RIAA as it's shipments must be closer to two million. filthyralph (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sales[edit]

Not that bothered myself, but the 8mil is pretty old (the album was still very high in the charts when that figure was released, and the IFPI stated more than 6 mil in the first 5 weeks of release alone) I read 12 mill in some places, but I think that's a bit too much (though, the data DOES come straight from WB).

http://www.absolutemadonna.com/charts/albumstats.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.66.213 (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wb link says 8 million copies sold and is date April 2008.PhoenixPrince (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

31 Jan 7 question: Isnt COAD her 2nd album 2 not have a title track?[edit]

In the Trivia section is this:

  1. The album is Madonna's first studio album since her eponymous debut album to lack a title track. Bedtime Stories can also be technically included as the title track on that album is actually called Bedtime Story.

Her debut album Madonna/First Album( what is is called in Europe) didnt have a title track, so then isnt COAD her 2nd album w/ no title track?208.58.196.156 18:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bedtime Stories also didn't have a title track. So it'll be her third.

I found that "Push" has similar melody to "Every Breath You Take"...[edit]

I analyzed the two songs very closely and indeed "Every Breath You Take" and "Push" have similar melodies/lyrics...72.130.198.232 02:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's because "Push" borrows from it. I tracked down some kind of reference for the statement. Thanks for your contribution, but keep in mind that Wikipedia has a rule about no original research. Thanks. Jkelly 04:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I just heard an interview with Madonna and she said that that song did not influence her song at all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.28.212.100 (talk • contribs) .

The lyrics of Push and Every Breath You Take are very similar... Anyone can deny that, including Madonna... But still it is proven that the melody is relative to Every Breath You Take 72.130.198.232 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

do we have a link or a source pointing to this statement? the lyrics and melody may be "similar" to EBYT but we probably should not mention that there is a direct correlation without a source. actually, the same should go for the Stardust, Jacksons and SOS Band references. the only sample that is creditted anywhere is the ABBA one. -- eo 20:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I reversed to the correct song notes. The ABBA sample is the ony one. --Red-Blue-White 22:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RBW! I re-added the wikilinks. Also, in the "Push" description... it looks like a word was accidentally left out of this sentence. Did you add this to the article?
Madonna's borrowing was done without notifying Sting, who did not after being informed. Errr... Sting did not.... what? care? laugh? throw up? you get the idea. -- eo 22:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm not responsible for the Sting part in the article...) Sting is one of Madonnas best friends. Obviously she wouldn't steal from him. Parts like "Every move I make - every step I take" (or similar) are not unusual in English lyrics. (Listen "Together again" by Janet Jackson.) --Red-Blue-White 22:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that - all I meant was that it seems as if there is a word missing from that sentence. Didn't know if you knew what it was  :-) -- eo 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the missing word - but I found the Fox article: [1] --Red-Blue-White 03:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame the non-native speaker. The unintelligible sentence was probably my bad. Jkelly 04:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. These two songs sound NOTHING alike.

That Fox article that was referenced isn't proof that Sting had an opinion on the track at all - they told him that Madonna had "sampled" his song (which means uses part of the recording", he was justifiably surprised because a sample always requires permission, then he said "Good for her". Clearly, he hadn't heard the song and when he did, he would have realised immediately that there was no "sample" in the song. If anything, the line in the chorus "I do it all for you" sounds like Madonna's own "Like A Prayer" ("you know I'll take you there").220.236.81.177 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks disorganized[edit]

Could you probably clean up the article a bit? 72.130.198.232 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave it a shot. Jkelly 16:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tables[edit]

just explaining a change I did on this page... please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts regarding the tables for chart activity:

  • please do not separate US charts from other countries
  • boldfacing of any chart number (especially number ones) is discouraged)
  • please no use of "#" symbol to abbreviate "number"
  • the iTunes chart really is not a major or "official" chart of any country

-- eo 23:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

chart trajectory question[edit]

Just curious to know which version of the album is being tracked for the iTunes chart? I noticed they are tracking the mixed and unmixed versions of the album seperately... at one point they even occupied positions 1 and 2. Has iTunes combined the two? And since the iTunes chart is updated daily, how is the weekly rank being determined? -- eo 17:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too little information[edit]

there's too little information on the album in this section. Sure we can do better? Maybe a line on its huge international success? Who cares if it's part of a row of 10 albums debbing at #1 in the US? Maybe it's more relevant to this album to say that it has the world record of #1s ever (38) and that it sold 2M in two weeks in Europe.

A bit more abouut the songs would be welcome too

#1 in many countries?[edit]

I think this page should be thoroughly revised. It contains inaccurate information. For instance, in a country such as Lebanon, there are no official sales charts. Thus, it's absurd to affirm that this album reached number one there. This makes me question whether the album did reach number one in most of the countries that have been listed (40, you say?).

Read the Guinness Book of Records next year- both Hung Up and cOAD enter the book as the greatset chart toppers ever- COAD with 42 number 1s and HU with 41... Also HU enters the top 10 best selling singles of all time (best selling ever since Candle in the Wind), the Confessions tour enters as the greatest grossing tour for a woman of all time (and certailnly the greatest grosser per concerst) and fastest selling tour in history. Not bad, 5 world records in a year... Maybe they should enter her as the gretest record breaker in a year ever- that would make it 6... Also the total sales is about to be updated (though engociations with the IFPI and WB are still on the table whether to enter 'in excess of 200M albums' or 'more than 300m records' or 'between 325 and 340 million records', whichever, it's gonna put an end to old disputes).
COADF reached #1 in 29 countries... [2]. The paragraph above sounds like it was written by a Madonna sycophant. She's not God. BGC 13:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again- that is from a Ruter bulletin, which reads 'debbed at #1 in 29 countries' and is dated 3srd April. Check Reuters. Also, magazine articles are NOT facts- in fact, there is a list of #1s and add up to 41. If you want you can check chart by chart!!! Once you've counted them, then you can still quote Billboard article, and that would not mean much would it? Whatever Billboard count/dsay/report/copy from other articles (see below)it went to #1 in 41 charts- that is written IN THE CHARTS (1st hand source), a journalist may get numbers from anywhere, or even make them up. If we say it went to #1 in 41 charts and there are 41 charts where COAD has been at #1- that's a fact. Just go on each chart and chek...
Can we stop taking everything a journalist say as a fact? Unless it's an official bulletin, journalists can write facts, as well as rubbish, opinion, old data, utter nonsense. especially when the source is not given. OK, in this case Billboard's source was traced, and it is ok 9but very old!), but it seems that everything a jourbnalist writes is teh word of god!

!?![edit]

What part of LEBANON HAS NO OFFICIAL CHARTS don't you get? How can we report this page to a senior editor?

Lebanon does have a music chart, that is based on Britain's BBC Radio 1's chart and here's the online link. It's still running despite the war. It's Lebenon's Radio 1 Chart.[3] No need to shout and be rude. Lebenon does have a music chart, actually it has more than one but this is the most popular, COAD and HU have topped all charts in Lebanon anyway.

'Reception in the United States'[edit]

Is this really necessary?

And, if so, could it be cleaned up? The prose is rather juvenile. PatrickJ83 05:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Once again, fans will destory this article, saturating it with words such as "impressive" and "modest" which do not belong in an encyclopedia (unless it is quoted from an expert). See NPOV. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll clean it up--hottie 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sales[edit]

I read 10M here for COaD, I thought it was 9M shipped. Is there a source for 10M? Not that I don't trust it (it was 6.3M 5 months ago...) but would like to see a source.

Once again, Madonna's Looney Ass Fans have inflated album sales. "COADF" is still at 7 million sold worldwide. It has not been certified 8x Platinum.

I didn't need an update on what Media Traffic says, thanks, I know for sure that there are at leats 2 countries missing in Media traffic counts (Germany and Italy, with a total of about 1.5/1.7M) plus another 40 countries whose sales they do not take into consideration. I was talking about IFPI/WB numbers, which are official. Please don't come back with Media Traffic's 7 something million sold- that's in 21 countries out of the only 23 that make up the ESTIMATE chart, which don't even include the whole of the EU. Shipments are a much better way of assessing sales than a website that gets second hand information from only a part of the world market, and they got it SO wrong so far with sales, that if you compare their end of year chart with the official chart (IFPI) you'll find that their chart in wek 5 hhad already underestimated COAD's real sales by 2.3Million, R William by another 2 Million, Eminem another couple of million and Cold Play by half or 1 million, I can't remember - that's official, and overestimated Greendays' by about half a million.... When the real official data came out, the credibility of Media Traffic crumbled... I would like to see where WB declared 10 million, and I would like to see people stop trying to count exact retail sales, and trust the IFPI and Record Companies, that are the ones in charge of this, rather than a website that has no official backing whatsoever by record companies, retailers, other charts, the IFPI or any artist- therefor it's just for 'fun'. True they collect data from some charts, but of the 32 charts mentioned, only 21 provide reliable data, and some do not themselves have exact sales numbers (well actually, only a handful have exact sales numbers- namely UK, US, Jap, Fr, Ca, maybe Oz- though ebven there I think exact sales are not cvounted) and ESTIMATES for all the others. Estimates can go wrong and did go dismally wrong in 2005. IFPI/WB, I want declared official facts, not guesses, their guesses are as good as mine. Moreover, I'm not interested to hear the usual story about shipments/sales- shipments are of course above sales, but not millions above- in teh end albums are shipped ON REQUEST- Record Companies do not force retailers to buy them, retailers REQUEST shipments through distributors when their stocks are running short- the difference between shipments and sales when an album is still selling well is simply the difference between empt stocks and filling ones- these are not huge, shipments all over the world take place every single day for albums, only record compaies don't update daily, and WB are actually always behind, so, if they declare shipments of 9 million (as I recall they did a couple of months ago) it means they've likely already shipped more, and those 9M are about to be sold out- or they wouldn't ship more as distributors would have no intereset in requesting them to leave them unsold. Easy market system, officially monitored, can't see why people can think record companies 'decide' how many copies to ship. If it's 10M shipped, it means retailers expect to sell them quite quick, or they would not have requested them. A few hundred K even more than a Million may be left at the end of the year as 'back catalogue' that is about it. Moreover, the first shipments are based on vague expectations, but within a few weeks the process adjusts itself. WB shipped 6.3 on Xmas week. 700K more by 7th Jan- , 9+M by April or so. Retailers are not suicidal and would not have requested 2/3M shipments if they still had not sold the first 7M. Whatever media Traffic guestimate. They don't pay the money, they don't earn it. Reatailers pay, Companies earn, the IFPI make sure taxes are paid and everything is legal - that IS the music business, Media Traffic have no role in it at all. This said, I've always said Media Traffic CAN be used as a general indicator of an album's or single's success, but it makes me laugh when people say an album has certainly sold 2,567,894.56 copies because it's on the United world Chart-NO IT HASN'T! That is NOT a fact- it's an estimate based on second-hand information and estimates (!!!!) from part (not the whole) of thye World Market. And son't read the 'official world chart' caption- there is no official world chart- they have no official backing as said before- only an end-of year official chart- that is from the IFPI. So, back to my question, has anybody got a WB?IFPI bulletin about the 10 million? Or is it an estimate?

Until Warner Bros. records says that COADF has even shipped 8 million, then COADF has shipped and sold just 7 million!. You can't just inflate album sales and certifications just because YOU think she has shipped that much more than what she has sold when it hasn't even become official from her record label yet. She has probably shipped just 7.5 or 7.6 million.

She has probably shipped just 7.5 or 7.6 million??? Uh, I hate to burst your bubble but it was stated in the April 2006 issue of Out Magazine that "Confessions On A Dance Floor" had already sold over 7 million copies worldwide. This information had to have come from Warner. A major publication would not just pull a number like that out of thin air from an unreliable source. Chances are the album's sales are around 8.5 million as of June 2006. Since an album has to ship more than it sells (common sense) I think it is safe to say that she has probably shipped at least 10 million worldwide so far. As the case with all artists (not just Madonna) worldwide sales totals are based on certifications/units shipped since it is nearly impossible to get an exact number of total world sales. All other Madonna albums listed on here are showing the certifications/units shipped for worldwide sales figures (as is the case with any other artist showing a worldwide sales figure). Media traffic and the United World Charts only calculate sales for about 21 countries.

Well Media Traffic count 4 countries and invent the others (only UK, Fr, Jap and partially the uS have exact data, even the US don't have total sales data from soundscan- all the other countries do not simply have week by week -sometimes month by month- sales data, and mT go by the charts and invent the sales as tthey think fit). So, Medioa Traffic count very little. Plus MT are not an official body, trhey are just a website. The iFPI are an official BOdy (actually THE official body) and officially declared sales of 6.3M for COAD in Decembber 2005!!! &M now is just stupide, as since then, COAD has shiipped 1M (2 but 1 not requested as plat) in the EU and another 800K in the uS alone- that means 8+M in plats and a million awaiting certtification (already shipped to the EU, but not requseted as platinum). That means DECLARED SHIPMENTS of 9.1M excluding the extra 70K shipped in Oz, all shipments in Canada, Southa America, Japan, and Asia, Russia, China etc since then. That we know from country to country, we get to at least 9.2M shipped, and still we have 30 countries to go. 10M does not seem unlikely at all.... Anyway, say 9.2M excluding Canada, Asia and South America, then approximate as you wish, but saying 7M is just spitting in e face of the IFPI, and THEY decide how many records an album sells, NOT Media Traffic (MT are not in touch with companies, distributors, ertailers, artists, charts, local authorities nor artists, that is, they are not in contact with anyone concerend, nor approved by any of these people). The IFPI ARE IN CHARGE of the whole recording industry (Companies, distributors, retailers, individual countries, and indirectly even artists and chgharts- some directly like the EU chart...). So, guess who has the right data? The editor obviously has chosen IFPI/Certification data, which is official and authoritative, against Media Traffic, which is an unofficial website with no reliable source of data, and very recently strongly contradicted by the IFPI themselves (let's remember that as per Dec 2005, MT had COAD at about 4M, the iFPI clearly stated 6.3... quite a major gap- so if they were almost 3M behind in 5 weeks, 3M behind official data in 30 weeks is the least we can expect) We will know the truth when the IFPI produce the next official chart.
PS anyone who doubts the 4M shipped to the EU, well, COAD has sold more than 3M only counting 3 countries in the EU, that is UK, Germany and France, adding Italy and Spain we already get tob past 4M, another 21 countries to go... likely to be 5M shipped already, only not declared yet... This should aslo tell you that COAD gets to 6M sold counting a total of only 6 countries (US+UK+Ger+Fr+IT+Sp+Oz), with another 50+ countries to go... thinking that it's sold zero in the rest of teh world and yet topped most of the world charts is just stupid. Sure we can get to 7 M adding a handful of smaller countries, and still another 40+ to go... even at 20K each, there's another million there and in most it'd sold well more than 20K.. I can think of at least another 10 countries where sales are around 50K or more...mmm, 10M seems to be realistic, 7M is just bullshit. Pus it's &M counting the extra US sales only since Jan, and the US is where it's sold the least.
  • I Guess You could say 9 million right now but that's it. It hasn't reached 10 million yet. I would like some more sources for the sales of this album.
The new data at the bottom with country-by-country certifications is quite coool. Yes, it adds up to well over 9 Million- so I suppose I'll take that as an answer to my query- It must be about 10M or so. Thus the data seems to be right on the album page.
I see it's 4 Million in Europe not counting about 10.15 countries- so it must be well past the 4.2M stated there (and it's 1.5 in the UK, though only 1.1 declared, as shown in the list, and well past 500K in Italy, though not yet certified for it- so, only with up-to-date data, it gets to 4.4/4.5M in about half the European countries).
The Media Traffic data now becomes even more of a joke, as they will not count the sales of the week it spent outside the chart (they only count sales the gusetimate when on the chart)...
  • The album has only made 8 million worldwide. The source is on the article page.--172.168.202.49 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Billboard online in a recent article stated that Confessions On a Dance Floor has sold over 8 million copies worldwide. That number could be higher since Warner Bros. has not re-certified or made any sales figures available recently. Such as in Europe, Confessions was certified 3 X Platinum in January and many other areas have not be re-certified since January/February so it is safe to assume sales and shipments have increased since then but until Warner Bros. decides to give us any official numbers we have to use that source as an accurate sales figure. MJW 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)MikeinrdgpaMJW 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that very paragraph from the Billboard article comes from a press release from WB which dates at least as back as 3rd April, and was released when the tour was announced. Proof is a press release in the Italian press (but tehre are releases elsewhere) dated 3rd April. Exactly the same words (word by word) as in the Billoboard article, this time with the source (communicato stampa=official bulletin) dated lunedi 3 Aprile (Monday 3rd April) Check it out ::::[4] Looks like billboard just cut and pasted old info 9which is what journalist do), with very little cutting and a very old source. not their fault, as WB are not regular with updates. So, it was 'more than 8 million' on 3rd April 2006- that's from the horse's mouth...
Again, basic media studies. When the article was written does not matter. It's when the DATA was published that matters. The exact words in that article appeared in a Reuters bulletin (bar for the debbed rather than peaked in at #1 in 29 countries0 dated 3rd April 2006 and officially released by WB. I've laready posted the article in another discussion, not going to re-post it. Now that is official data. More than 8m albuums sold, yes. It's also dated april. Reuters publishes official bulletins, Billboard does not. end of story. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not hello Magazine. It needs to source things proplerly, and where there is an official source, always stick to IT, not to newspaper articles (unless the source is given)...
  • YOU dont make any sense! First you say "try to find an official source" then you go and find a source form some insane website that is no where near as credible as you think! You just find any source you can to inflate Madonna's sales! Like I Said, the album COADF has made it to #1 in JUST 29 countries and sold just 8 million worldwide, according to OFFICIAL sources Billboard and WB (HER OWN RECORD LABEL!)
You really are confused aren't you? That magazine quotes the Guinenss bokk of Records for the number of #1s- THEY are in charge of counting worldwide reciords, Billboard are ONLY responsible for THEIR OWN CHARTS (US ONLY, thanks). Add EU+North ameruica and you get to more than 29 already dear. They also quote REUTERS (official wiorldwide information agency) for sales in April 06 of more than 8m. Now , these are official data, Billboard has no fooiciality at all apart form wwheretheir charts are concerned. That is it! If you could read, you would notice that the WB bulletion does not say that COAD has topped 29 charts, but that it debbed at #1 in 29 coubntries (31 charts already including EU ans woeld). It did not deb at #1 in all the charts where it was #1, in 10, it went to #1 later. Easy to understand, isn't it?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.240.200 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Does the 4 million for Europe include the sales from France & Germany??? if it does then you're counting it twice

Merge from I Love New York (Madonna song)[edit]

The song isn't being released as a single, the article doesn't establish any other sort of notability and this album article is relatively short (in terms of text), so I don't think there's any need for a separate article. Extraordinary Machine 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum[edit]

Hi. I'm pretty sure "Confessions on a Dance Floor" is platinum so far in the U.S., not double platinum as is written near the bottom of the page.

Yes, Confessions was certified platinum back in December 2005. It has sold 1.5 million in the U.S. (June 2006) but has not been certified double platinum yet.

-Well, certifications are for how many units are shipped. I hear there's been atleast 1.8 millions copies shipped so far, so maybe we well see it go double platinum soon.

Correct.

4 platinums in Italy- going Diamond[edit]

The Italian Branch iof the IFPI (FIMI)certified COaD 4plats going diamond (400K) in may, here's the link [5]so, in the list it should read 4plats, it was certified plats 2 months ago (by week 25) as you can read from this extract from the article

"Confessions on a dance floor" è in Italia al 4° disco di platino ed è stabile nelle prime posizioni della classifica ufficiale di vendita degli album da 25 settimane..

That is

COAD has been certified 4 plats and has been in the top positions of the chart in the 25 weeks since its release.

That means it was 4 plats when the article was written 7 weeks ago...

So, the list should not read Plat in Italy, but 4XPlat.

Ireland 4plats is 240K not 60K[edit]

Same list as above, Ireland is 4plats, which is in excess of 240K not 60K as stated. That brings the Euro tally to more than 4.5million.

NOT DISPUTED[edit]

I noticed the sign saying that the data is disputed (9M). well, a Reuters Bulletrin said more than 8 million sold on 3rd April (when the tour was announced). We are unlikely to get new updates from WB soon (they tend not to be too fussy about updates), and may have to wait till February to have a next update grom the IFPI.

I did not mean to dispute the data when I said it's going Diamond in Italy, in fact, the sales seems to be correct, it's just that the 1 plat is OLD.

This list appears on other encyclopedias that are not tampered with by users (expert.com for example) and is compiled according to certifications. With MT estimeting 7.5 or so in 23 countries (22- Germany is actually EXCLUDED from MT data...)WB declaring more than 8m in April, IFPI saying 6.3 in December, we have two old official data (6.3, 8 months old, 8+ 4 months old), and a partial estimate (7.5), which all seem to back up the certifications count (9m) we have on other encyclopedias. As long as the data here is presented as 'an estimate based on certifications' the 9m plus, provisional till when an official update comes along, is ok. I do not dispute it as an estimate, but official sources do not yet confirm past 8+ (which in itself, may mean 8.1 or 8.9...) I don't think the sign is necessary. Otherwise we would need a sign like that for MOST ALBUM SALES reported on the site...

None of this matters. You still need to link to a reputable site where you got the information from, otherwise it's worthless. --88.110.189.21 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My dear, I have [posted the REUTERS bulletin from 3rd April 06. Reuters is Reuters (official bulletin agency) and clearly sources it from WB. I think that's official.
IFPI counted 6.3 million in a few weeks, plus the album charted in the mbest selling of 2006 according to IFPI (that is OFFICIAL) with about 9 million. WB said 8+ million in April 2006 (The album was still charting around the world!!!!!!!!!!!!) Plus, just counting the sales in each country and the certifications, one reaches 9M+ with about 30 countries. MT counted 7.7 million, but sales are not counted when they drop under nr40 ans it stayed just under nr 40 for 5 weeks, with about 40K a week (that's about 200K) and MT only accounts for 75% of the world market, just add Germany's 500K and one gets to 8.5m easy!!! Funny how both IFPI and world certifications are ignored here, while Miss carey's (which should count as 2 different albums, btw)with MT at 7.7 (and it includes the US, which is 80% of her sales, and has by no means carted as high in the world as CoD!!!) suddenly became 10 million, even if to do that it should have been in the IFPI top 10 and MT top 10 for 2006, and it wasn't in the top 40... While CoD was. But the Madonna articles are conservative, MC just boost sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.87.45 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

Could we get sources for every figure in this article, please? Orane (talk • cont.) 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how Orane is quick to request sources on this article, while in his own articles he takes the highest number suggested by fansites and third rate amateurish articles to be the truth, he disregards official data, and in fact, basically makes up articles from fansites, even posts on forums (!!!!!)... how reliable would that dat be? And plese Orane, don't censure anything that criticises you!
  • What are you talking about?!

iTunes Version[edit]

Was this album ever on pre-order status before its release?

I'm pretty certain that the iTunes Deluxe Version was on pre-order status before it's release. This was in both unmixed and mixed status, both including a digital booklet and the music video for "Hung Up". Istabo 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COAD #1 in 40 countries- Guinness book of records[edit]

Ok, the article said 41 charts, then it reverted to 29 countries when Billboard came up with an article (see discussion in Albums section) which is a bad translation from a Reuters Bulletin dated 3rd of April (link in Albums discussions).

Really, the best way is to count the charts, not to take what journalists rehash as truth.

Anyway, this article quotes teh Guinness Book of Records as stating that COAD hads topped charts in 40 countries and Hung Up in 41, both being world records. The source is acknowledged, so i think we could write that in the COAD article (COAD is regarded by the GBoR as the greatest chart topper in history with number 1s in 40 countries- or something like that, as long as teh source is acknowledged) also Hung Up should report its entry in the GBoR. In the end, it is a huge achievement to smash 2 world records with 1 musical project! [6]

  • 2 things:
  • That is an entertainment website with not as much trustworthy information as Billboard.
  • The article says she has only sold 120 million albums, yet when her record label supposedly claims she sold 200 million?172.162.225.141 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is reportig an interview with the Guinness Book of Records. We all know the 120m has been there since 1988.
Billboard may be more 'prestigious' than this magazine, but it certainly is less, not morre, trustworthy, at least in this matter, as this article clearlty states sources, while Billboard does not. Newspapers are NOT proof of anything unless they report official sources. this article does, Billboard does not. I know lots of Wikipedia people would take anything from a newspaper to be God's own word, but it's not. Billboard, in that article, and I have already posted the original source- Ruters, 3rd April 06, trasforms Reuters' (official) 'debbed in 29 countries at #1' to 'topped 29 charts'. It simply did not deb at #1 in all the countries where it's been #1.Apart from that, the original source is OLD. No one can quote an official source and declare something wrong, everybody can take snippets from different sources and put them together hiding teh sources (in journalistic terms, 'cannibalising'). In this specific case, Billboard is reporting old news, already circuulated around teh world when the Tour was launched, and even incorrectly. This article is endorsed by teh Guinness Book of records. I know they won't listen to me, who cares... The Guinness book of Records will be out soon. As to the 120m, they are in the proces of updating it, but Madonna's sales have been pretty fast this year, so they are having a bit of a difficulty as to whether to try and be precise or be 'safe' (It should be either more than 200m albums or 325 m records, these are the two numbers the Guinness Book of Records are discussing with WB/IFPI, it's not a secret, you can just ask them. Apart from that, album sales have always been disputable, for all artists, and never 100% precise, #1s are simply countable, without even the need for a calculator, and it's quite funny that this very Wikipedia page says 29 countries and then lists 40 countries and 41 charts where it has officially been at #1. Have Billborad better calculators or is Maths an opinion? Are Billboard journalists maths experts? Do they take track of all the #1s in the world? NO. The Guinness Book of Records do, it's their job, not Billboard's. Again, this site is bogged down by attributing rights to the wrong sources (even blogs are used as proof at times) and disregard official sources altogether.... Nevermind, it's just a matter of time, at least on this matter.
  • LIES,LIES,LIES. EXCUSES,EXCUSES. The album made it to #1 in just 29 countries. Billboard gets OFFICIAL sources.
Bollocks. Billboard may as well use official sources, as all magazines do. howver, 10 it DOES MNOT STATE the source, 2) It DOES NOT STATE the date of the source, so, it is NOT official. on the otehr hand, the other magazine STATES the source. I don't give a damn about whether you think Billboard uses official sources, the simple fact is that it does not say so. The otehr one clearly says it's the Guinness book Of Records saying so, so, on this occasion, one article reports official sources, one does not. And billboard is the one that does not. The fact then that EVERYBODY can COUNT the 42 charts (40 countries) hwre it has officially been RECORDED as being #1, whatever Billboard say, that makes no difference whatsioever, each chart is in charge of its own business, Billboard are not the 'ruler of all charts'. Finally, when the Guinness Book is out, all this will be futile, because it will satate 2 new reciords for Madonna (3 actually, amybe even 4, but in terms of charts 2) and they are 40 countries for COAD and 41 for HU, both the greatest chart toppers in history, one for albums, the other for singles. So, I can't even be bothered to answer anymore, when people come out with silly statements like 'Billboard tells the truth'. They definitely are the autthority on THEIR chart, that is where their officiality ends. Sales are officially given by the iFPI, number of chart-topping, Tour revenues etc but the Guinness Book of Records, sorry, not Billboard.
  • NO ONE can count all the completly made up 41 charts that COADF supposedly went to #1 in. We got from her own record label (an OFFICIAL source) that the album made it to #1 in JUST 29 countries and sold just 8 million worldwide. You are making your self sound more and more of a whackjob everytime you respond. And please do not say that I'm "a Mariah Carey Fan", because i'm not.172.162.248.84 22:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, actually, WB said 'debbed' at #1 in 29 countries, that is from the Reuters bulletin, Billboard changed it into 'went to #1' in 29 countries. Easy slip in a way, if it wasn't that it topped charts in the week following its release. No-one can count the 41 charts? Well, someone did, because they are reported here, on expert.com etc... and the only thing you need to do is read the country chart, check its records, and count... ooops iit's 41 charts in 40 countries! GBoR confirm.... It's much easier to cound a few dozen charts than millions of records you know?
YES, debbed at nr 1 in 29 countries, NOT TOPPED. Billboard is ONLY OFFICIAL IN THE US, so they have no claim over worldwide charting nor sales. The Guinness book of Recotrds counted 40, they haven't invented them and will give you the charts mentioned. Plus, just check the 31 charts mentioned here, nr1 in 30 of them, very likely to have scored another 10 in the rest of the world... STOP DETRACTING FROM HER!!!!!!!!!!! Can we read????????/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.87.45 (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

I've removed the chart position, sales and trajectory sections as they're completely unsourced. Below the edit box on Wikipedia there's a messages that says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Please follow it. Do not revert the deletion without adding links for each and every number. --Dtcdthingy 14:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart trajectory unsourced?

iTunes non-stop (continuous) mix[edit]

Can someone tell me if the iTunes non-stop mix maintains a fairly consistent BPM or if it drastically changes like the songs on the regular album? For example, the song Push is very slow compared to the other tracks. Does the non-stop mix slow down for this song or do they speed the song up to keep more in tempo to the rest of the songs? gujamin 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe edition journal lyrics[edit]

In the article, it mentions that the deluxe edition Confessions on a Dance Floor CD came with a journal that contained lyrics from Let it Will Be. However, I own the deluxe edition (as well as I'm sure a few people that have contributed to this page), and the lyrics in my journal are from Like it or Not. Were some sets shipped with different lyrics and doodles in the journals, or is this just a mistake? I think some sort of clarification needs to be made. If need be, I can provide pictures from my copy to prove that the lyrics are indeed from Like it or Not. 74.227.52.50 (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Data[edit]

Sorry to start a new discussion, but the other one was hard to define where it left off. The total is now 11m, and this is possibly due to a few errors. Firstly, it quotes 4.3 million as European sales, which maybe correct - but then all the countries are listed separately too, so double dipping there. If you look at all the individual countries, well, it doesn't leave many counties left to be included in the 4.3 million. Some of the other sales are a bit off too. France has 750,000 shipped, so cannot have sold 900,000. Italy I believe is 400,000 as of late December. New Zealand is max. 15,000 but could be as low as 7,500 (1 x plat). UK is now 1.22 million. Until explained, I will not edit the data. 60.234.242.196 09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that some of the current editors to the sales figures are non credible in their edits. Please remember that wikipedia is edited through verifiable sources, as to gain factual information. As this is not being done, all non verified resourcing will be reversed. 60.234.242.196 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also as it is being blatantly ignored, the sales total will also be reversed when it is inclusive of the European figure, as this has already been accounted for in the individual countries. 60.234.242.196 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again. Do NOT keep reversing this, or I will get an administrator to enforce it. Data is accurate AND was resourced. 146.171.254.66 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data for the Billboard link is NOT accurate as it is NOW outdated considering it was written only 8 months after the album was released. Billboard is not an official source of worldwide sales(Billboard is known for US sales only) any more than the two news sources I posted.(Which are CURRENT) Also Madonna fan sites(madonnatribe) are not credible sources of sales info. I posted two CREDIBLE and CURRENT sources where there was only one CREDIBLE source posted before.(which is now OUTDATED) 11 Million Worldwide[7][8] Bbmtn (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sources being requested to be taken as reliable do not quote where they come from, therefore they can have come from anywhere - even wiki In reading them, the details are mixed and closely match the wiki article on Madonna. That does not make it as reliable as those already there. As pointed out in many of the arguements above - Billboard, Warner Bros, and the Official Madonna site(s) all specify 8 million sold. These are considered Subject Matter Experts in sales details. web reporters are not. Also as mentioned previously, there is currently only one site/group that is actively collecting sales dats worldwide. United World Charts sate 7.5 million sold as of end of 2007 [9]. Thus you have all the official sites saying the same thing. As per the wikipedia policy on verifable links, links sould come from sources that have knowledge on the subject 60.234.242.196 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before The Billboard link is outdated and Billboard might be considered an expert in sales but that would be U.S. sales that they have expertise in not worldwide sales. The second link that keeps getting reposted is to a madonna fan site which is not reliable at all. The United World Chart ONLY counts 40 Countries(it even states so right on the site and the sales totals from The United World Chart only accumulate when an album is in the top 40 of their chart that week. If an album were to sell 80,000 worldwide one week but that wasn't enough to put in in their top 40 chart that week then that 80,000 would not be added to their sales total for that album.....That is how flawed The United World Chart's system is.Bbmtn (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on verifiable links. Your comments on why the existing links should be changed are based on speculation and opinion. At this point, the two links provided are not useable. If you can find a new figure from a verifiable source, then please add this. 146.171.254.66 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice! The madonnatribe(fansite)link you keep reposting is not verifiable whatsoever! And while Billboard is a verifiable source on infromation for U.S. sales it is NOT a verifiable source of worldwide sales which is the topic at hand.Bbmtn (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is partially correct. Someone had exchanged the official link with another. This has been corrected. Billboard is also not an expert of worldwide sales as said, but the link is not reporting to be from them, the link from Billboard clealy states the information is from Warner Bros - that makes it from an official source. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 million copies?[edit]

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/derogatis/914872,CST-FTR-madonna25.article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.168.237 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it sold 12 million copies, anyway many reviews sya that 8 million but it sold more than 12 million so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.193.7 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 12 million records (Including singles), but the album has only shipped 8.5 million at the most worldwide.
Lemme check first what both the sources say.

Unmixed Version[edit]

I kno that on digital stores (like Amazon and iTunes), they sell an unmixed version of this album (kinda like how You Can Dance - LP Cuts aren't mixed together, but with COADF, theyre all the original lengths.) Any chance we can put this info back into the article? --MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 20:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the formats section but that's it. It would also depend on what sources are being used. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would Amazon count as a source? It doesn't say that this is the unmixed version, but it does have the unmixed timing. [10] MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 20:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im afraid not. Retail outlet would fail as a bad source. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sample 'can you feel it' from the jacksons used in the track sorry[edit]

why has my edit been removed concerning the use of a tune from the song 'can you feel it' in the song 'sorry'? this is common knowledge, when you google it you can find it, as you can also clearly hear it when you compare the songs on youtube... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.222.186 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because everything in Wikipedia needs to be sourced and you are continuously adding unsourced content. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm always adding stuff which can easily be verivied and I'm sure about, when I see an article that could use further information. but you are right, I should go and search for links in the future. as for the sample, you can pick your source: http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&source=hp&q=madonna+can+you+feel+it+sorry&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=&aq=f&oq= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.222.186 (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COADF has sold 8.5 million copies worldwide, not 12[edit]

  • I think a press release from her record label is more reliable than a random newspaper as a source:[11][12][13][14]ARMOR89 (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you know him User:LAUGH90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) considering the same claims? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just stating the facts. The 8.5 million figure seems more accurate.ARMOR89 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the press release would be considered reliable in this specific context, but likely if anything to overstate the numbers. That the studio is quoting the lower stat makes it more believable, but it's still worth getting to the bottom of this contradiction. If necessary, you can report on both numbers, explaining that the studio reported sales of 8.5 million but news media had a higher number of 12 million... Ocaasi (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it was only one part of the media, a newspaper. If I need to report on both numbers, I will, but how can I do that.ARMOR89 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where reliable sources disagree, it's always worth trying to figure out why. Are they citing the same album? The same parts (maybe the 12 million number includes tour sales)? Are they tallying the same date range? etc. Could you provide me the 12 million cite, from the Chicago paper? Ocaasi (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I'm looking at it now... Ocaasi (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Chicago sun times says: "Her last effort, the Brit-affected “Confessions on a Dance Floor,” sold 12 million copies in 2005, but less than 2 million of those were in her native U.S." That seems almost definitely wrong, at least the 'in 2005 part'. So, two options. We can try and find another independent source, which quotes the 8.5 million number. Or we can just mention the discrepancy: "Madonna's studio reported sales in excess of 8.5 million, and the Chicago Sun Times reported an even higher number at 12 million." There really should be a better source for these (billboard, rollingstone, etc.) so that we don't have to rely on a CST blogger or the studio itself. Although I agree that the studio should take prominence here, if only we can back it up with an uninvolved report from newspaper as well, I think it'd be enough to put the CST number aside, or at least in a reference note. Ocaasi (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can look at the sources I listed above, or the one here [16] or Billboard themselves [17]ARMOR89 (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think that settles it, at least for me. The Chicago Sun Times blogger could have easily misquoted the number, and is not exactly an authority on the music business. I think the preponderance of sources clearly suggests 'more than 8 million' or 'approximately 8.5 million'. I don't know if you had resistance here from other editors, but I'll support the change if there is. Ocaasi (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Chicago Sun-Times may not be an authorative soruce for music industry, but its author Jim DeRogatis is. He is the reviwer of countless albums, singles, artist's works etc. I find his additions extremely reliable and that is the way they should be. An official addition from her label fails WP:RS as a primary source. And yes, COADF sold less than 2 million in the US, more so 1.7 million. Hence the author is correct. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, User:ARMOR89 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:LAUGH90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who was continuing the same disruptions at the Madonna articles, changing peaks, sales etc without any discussions or prior consensus. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most important point here is WP:V, Wikipedia goes to verifiability. Jim DeRogatis is a reputable music critic and author, who has written countless articles and several books. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just about V. If multiple other sources which are also reliable cite the 8.5 number, then we have an actual dispute, and it must be described as such per WP:NPOV... unless we can get conclusive evidence one way or the other about which number is correct. I don't know anything about Laugh90 or Armor89, but the sources establish the relevance of 8.5 million no matter how socky the editor is. Ocaasi (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Ocassi. And I have not made any disruptions or changed her peaks/sales/etc to any other Madonna page. I just put the more accurate 8.5 million figure instead of the inflated 12 million figure from the Chicago Sun Times blog writer. Legolas, Kww, and Bluesatelite (all Madonna fans) are obviously biased for DeRogatis because he gives a larger sales number for the album. I am not trying to damage the article, I am just trying to make it and the album sales more accurate.76.117.166.71 (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree. The album has not sold anywhere near 12 million copies. Its certifications/sales barely equal 6-7. Besides, there are more sources including HER LABEL claiming 8.5. If her label, who is supposed to be promoting her and making her look good for once, why would they undermine her sales!? They would try and boost them and write 12 or more! It goes to show that if her label says 8 or 8.5, it must be true or even less--184.32.187.227 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with reliability of 8.5.--GnoworTC 02:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reviewed the evidence, I stand by 76.117.166.71 in that 8.5 is probably more correct. However, I will not tolerate generalizations like "Legolas, Kww, and Bluesatelite (all Madonna fans)". "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the sock's continuous addition of the unconsensized content. This is your last warning LAUGH90, a rangeblock will come on your IP if you continue disruptions. Now Guogou, on what context can you assume that the 8.5 reference is correct? It is a primary source and cannot be used, pointblank. Her record lable is stll saying that Madge sold 200m records. Warner hardly updates anything and it has been proven time and again, through certifications, sales, and even chart peaks. Similar is the case of the official website. They are not exactly reliable sources. So, sorry that claim cannot be added. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the IP has been revealed to be a sockpuppet, I feel rather foolish for believing him. What I originally told the IP was to go with whichever source was more recent, since both seemed acceptable. The primary source press release can be acceptable, as "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia [...] with care" (WP:PSTS). As for the news blog, "some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" (WP:RELY). Guoguo12--Talk--  21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.117.166.71 has been blocked, as the IP belonged to LAUGH90, a blocked editor. All of his edits have been reverted. Any editors considering making changes on his behalf need to consider WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors before doing so. For the record, I can't imagine many accusations more hilarious than saying I am a Madonna fan. I lean towards Etta James and The Puppini Sisters.—Kww(talk) 05:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, these are my two cents. Firstly Legolas, what makes these six sources not reliable for 8.5? What you have to understand is that whether or not the claim comes from her label, they are still quoting them. If you say the sky is blue, and I quote and say "Legolas says the sky is blue" whether its an original idea from me or you, I'm still agreeing. You quote something you deem reliable, like Wikipedia relies on sources it deems reliable. I mean we really have 6 sources versus 1. 6 are in the right area, judging from certifications and sales, whereas one is sticking out like a sore thumb. Also, there are 3 editors already expressing agreement with 8.5, so there kind of is consensus brewing. I'm in no way picking sides yet, just giving food for thought :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because they come from the label, simple as that. Im not opposed to 8.5 with a RS, but opposed to anything from a PSource. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just consider the situation for a minute. 1) Where else would the info come from. In what way could any secondary source not ultimately have gone to the label? 2) Why would the label have the lower number? 3) If we have both numbers covered in reliable sources, don't we have to at least describe that dispute? 4) Forget about the editors involved here; edit warring is separate from content issues and has already been handled. Focus on the content here, which seems to support at least dual mention. Ocaasi (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to support this point: my blocking of LAUGH90 and his various socks shouldn't be taken as a sign of me agreeing with one figure or another. People should reach a consensus on how to handle the conflicting figures.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about we describe it accurately: "Madonna's record label cited 8.5 million in sales through various press releases. Music journalist Jim Derogatis put the number at 12 million." This does two things: one, it lists the contributions of all relevant sources (and primary sources are relevant for their own data); two, it shows that this situation is a bit silly... what are the chances that a newspaper article has a better knowledge of sales than the company itself? Ocaasi (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically consider this source from Inquirer.net: "Warner hopes "Hard Candy" will do as well as the 2005 "Confessions" which sold 8.5 million worldwide." It's a secondary source, presumably as reliable as Chicago Sun Times. It's backed up by the primary source press releases. I don't see how we can not at least mention the 8.5 number in context. Ocaasi (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decided to wait until we all reach a consensus to make edits. So far, many more agree that the 8.5 million figure (and the sources) are correct.LAUGH90 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Occasi's addition of mentioning both the sources, that way both the range from the reliable sources can be added. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific text[edit]

Ok, great. Progress... Laugh90, thanks for being a bit patient. Wikipedia works much better that way. Legolas, thanks for working with the sources. Here are the options as I see them:

  • Cite two separate numbers (8.5 and 12); this gives the detailed background
  • Cite a range, literally (between 8.5 and 12); this glosses over the controversy but is a bit of a fudge
  • Try and resolve the difference ourselves (take it to WP:NPOVN, contact Rogatis at his email which I tried, find more sources, etc.)

I think there's consensus for now to use the first option and just attribute the varying numbers to their respective sources. The only question is whether giving some hint that Rogatis is the only source to mention the 12 million number.

  • Option a: "Madonna's record label, event promotions and other newspapers cited 8.5 million in sales. Music journalist Jim Derogatis put the number at 12 million.
  • Option b: "Madonna's record label, event promotions and other newspapers cited 8.5 million in sales; however music journalist Jim Derogatis put the number at 12 million.
  • Option c: "Madonna's record label, event promotions and other newspapers cited 8.5 million in sales; only music journalist Jim Derogatis put the number at 12 million.

They're subtle differences. Which one gives the most accurate impression? Tweaks to phrasing welcome. If we can't agree, we'll just use the first. Ocaasi (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think option b is more welcome, it is true that there is a difference between 8.5 and 12, and contradicts DRogatis' and Warner's. I would go with option b thats why. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for a Laugh90 or a few others to weigh in. Draft b which you chose emphasizes the contradiction, and might make it sound like Rogatis is the preferred choice (I'm not sure if he is or not in this case). Ocaasi (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How will we write it out in her albums discography?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Options: 8.5 million/12 million; 8.5-12 million; 8.5 million* (explain in footnote); 12 million* (explain in footnote). We can choose among them. Ideally, we want to resolve this by getting a definitive number. One of them is right. Ocaasi (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the tables, I suggest we take 8.5–12 format. A double footnote should be explanatory. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before we do a "8.5 million/12 million" thing first, shouldn't they're be a "majority rules" situation with this thing? Just asking.LAUGH90 (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia goes by WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:VOTE. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant "majority of sources", not "majority of editors", Legolas. LAUGH90: in general, when reliable sources disagree, it keeps things more stable if we reference both numbers. It keeps editors that prefer one of the figures less likely to keep changing the article, and lets the reader know there is a dispute in the sources.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the aritcle that references the 12 million figure uses the "sold 12 million copies in 2005" thing. Wouldn't that look puzzling to most people?LAUGH90 (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So since we will do that, here is a suggestion. Now Kww, you have said in the past that you tend to favor the lower numbers out of fear of inflation. Also, it is pretty clear more editors prefer 8.5 and there are more sources for it as well. So for the discography, how about listing 8.5 and having a footnote leading to where it says, According to Jim, the album sold 12 million copies. Hows that sound?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to adjust all mentions to describe both numbers. I have seen press releases and promotional material with the 8.5 number as well as one newspaper. Rogatis is the only source for the 12 million. If we can assemble a more persuasive list of source for the 8.5 numbers, that might work. But until that case is convincing, we'll have to describe both. This doesn't have to remain indefinitely, but until the situation is better resolved.Ocaasi (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) There are quite a few more sources that state the 8.5 number: [18][19][20][21][22] Sorry if this seem extensive.LAUGH90 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that list is substantial. But Rogatis is a known source. We have to give him 'some' deference. Ocaasi (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more you can add to it the better. Best would be if you can add (source, date) next to each one i.e. (New York Times, 2008). Ocaasi (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the "sold 12 million copies in 2005" look questionable to you? This looks like another case of the blog writer getting wrong info.LAUGH90 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soooooooo!? What have you kids decided on? :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From that source: "Madonna's tenth studio album, the Grammy-winning "Confessions on a Dance Floor" (2005) which sold more than 11 million copies, was built on a continuous mix of dance songs, with musical elements borrowed from the '70s, and current dance music." Ocaasi (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have decided that both the sources being reliable, they will be kept, and as Occasi said, a range will be put. I will make the change now. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of Sources[edit]

This is just to collect the sources we keep using in one place. Please mention the source and date of the source. Ideal sources are from music/entertainment articles and not just event promotions.

8.5 million
  • [23] South Florida News, 2008, "over 8.5 million"

*[28] (this one is before Hard Candy was released and mentions 8 mil for COADF) *[29] *Madonna To Tour Spain in September (free content article, not an RS) *Madonna To Perform Free Show In New York *"Hard Candy" Amazon page, "more than 8 million" *from April 2008, claims 8 mil *mediafax is a media company which is frequently being quoted by TV or radio stations across Romania - here, it claimes Confessions sold 8 mil, the article being, again, from 2008 *8 mil - 2008

11 million
12 million
  • Jim DeRogatis Chicago Sun Times

* fan radio, started by a national radio - July 29, 2009

Striking out all unreliable sources. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I think you should strike out DeRogatis as well. Everything he writes should not be quoted as the bible.LAUGH90 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh, after all that work from many involved, is it really going to help to take pot-shots? The current article is a reasonable compromise and the DeRogatis source cannot just be denied. If you want to fix this permanently, find a iron-clad, current sources that meets all reliability standards. Ocaasi (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up[edit]

One, nice work. Dispute among reliable sources amicably solved with better sources and discussion. Thanks for being patient, and Legolas for doing the final legwork. Last question, how could this be resolved going forward? I think there must be some definitive, current, reliable source that has the number. Where could we find it? Ocaasi (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Madonna is coming up with a new album in 2011. Again that would surely be followed by press releases in every major publication and news sources. They will of course talk about the sales for both her albums the last decade and talk about their sales. Then from there, we might be able to form a concrete opition regarding the true nature of the album sales for this one. At present, this seems like a good compromise. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, works for me. Ocaasi (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I would rather have the article be this way then what it was before.LAUGH90 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK end-of-year charts[edit]

The source given for this (UKchartsplus.co.uk) is not an official UK Charts Company website, despite the fact it incorporates similar logos. They are an independent website run by four music fans (or "chartwatchers" as they call themselves). Their "FAQ" section makes it clear that they are not affiliated with the Official UK Charts Company, as does the "Background" section (here: http://www.ukchartsplus.co.uk/background.htm). The website was used as a source to claim that "Confessions on a Dancefloor" was the 15th best selling album in the UK in 2006. However, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - who are the offical music industry authority in the UK - compile their own year end charts, and "Celebration" is listed as 17th in 2005 but was not listed at all for 2006. The BPI year-end charts (from 1999 onwards) are here: http://www.bpi.co.uk/assets/files/Yearly%20best%20sellers%20-%20albums.pdf 88.104.21.251 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.25.59 (talk) [reply]

COADF on Rolling Stone[edit]

According to this link http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/madonna/albumguide, the album is rated 4/5 stars while the original review is 3.5 so which one should we use now? 182.239.151.129 (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add a legacy section[edit]

This album is very important to music. In many ways it was Madonna's comeback album and reaffirmed faith in the masses that she'd still got it. It's impact is inarguable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSudhanva (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are basing in what? We need sources. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Oh-kay ... Showing her creative talent and ability to remain relevant: http://www.gigwise.com/reviews/albums/10499/Madonna-%E2%80%93-Confessions-On-A-Dancefloor-Warner-Bros-Released-141105 Her talents as a sly strategist, and her importance as a dance artist http://www.allmusic.com/album/confessions-on-a-dance-floor-r796865/review How the album enunciated her role in popular music http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5RQEAAAAMBAJ&q=album+review+confessions&hl=en#v=snippet&q=album%20review%20confessions&f=false The album’s influence on dance music: http://top40.about.com/od/news/fr/confesmadonna.htm How Madonna remains the Queen of Pop: http://top40.about.com/od/news/fr/confesmadonna.htm How the album is one of the best dance albums ever, and one of Madonna’s best: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129559,00.html Showing her covetous ability to constantly, successfully reinvent herself, and her gift at recognizing fruitful collaborations: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5030-confessions-on-a-dance-floor/ It being a bold album, one of her best, and influential to music, her status as the Queen of Pop and the one and only dancing queen: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/nov/11/popandrock.shopping5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSudhanva (talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]



We might also add that it was one on the best albums of 2005. #29 and include the quote. http://www.nme.com/photos/a-decade-in-music-%E2-50-best-albums-of-2005/160607/1/1#22 --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also rolling stones best of 2005 at #22 http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rolling.htm#2005 --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another list where coadf is rated best of the 2000's. #38 http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/feature/best-of-the-aughts-albums/215/page_7--Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A disco album too? It said it's influenced by 70's and 80's disco, so it must be[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_on_a_dance_floor Beggsie221 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the difference between "influence" and "genre", right? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a plenty of reliable sources have called it a 'disco album':
...and so on. Bluesatellite (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impact/Legacy[edit]

This album had a huge influence on the music industry. This album was considered gay club music at the time yet still managed to top charts. Thus proving that Madonna brought the electropop scene mainstream. As i have said before this album was considered gay club music at the time, but since about 2008 electropop has become modern day pop music. Of course this means that this album was ahead of its time especially after setting so many trends. Not to mention the numerous awards received by this album. Also, this album carries Madonna's best selling song of all-time. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]


I also agree and info is provided 2 paragraphs up to back up these claims. A legacy section should be made--Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As mentioned in the previous legacy conversation, this album was instrumental in the development of dance-pop/electro-pop music as a mainstream genre, allowing the transition from R&B to electronica in pop culture. Specifically, 2003-2005 were very R&B/Hip-Hop-centric, which makes COAF's great success noteworthy. It certainly greatly contributed to the rise of dance-electro-pop as the main force in pop music, which started taking place mostly in late-2007/2008 and became prevalent from 2009-today. Also the fact that dance-pop was transformed from a gay-niche genre to a commercially viable one is partly thanks to Hung Up/Sorry/COAF's big success around the world.

Madonna's COAF tour should also be mentioned here as it was highly praised and controversial and marked this era and the rest of her career.

Also this era was viewed as Madonna's big comeback after the controversial American Life by many critics.

Lastly, the album was included in numerous publications' lists of best albums of 2005 and of the best 2000's albums overall. (Rolling Stone (2005&2000s), Slant(2005&2000s), Pitchfork, NME etc. etc. etc.)

--Blamestars (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sales[edit]

this album sold 14 million

http://tsort.info/music/faq_album_sales.htm

(SuperCell3000 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Confessions on a Dance Floor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Green tickY All the start class criteria

Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 08:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

10 years[edit]

Retrospective reviews. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 19:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Do you think that we can open a section of "Legacy" for this album?. I saw some references about the impact of this album, including the revival of disco genre and in fashion (I'm expanding my Madonna Library) and I can find some sources. We also can add images like this wax statue. I don't know actually, is just a comment. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. —IB [ Poke ] 07:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This album is one of her's best to date . I agree to creating a legacy tag to this page Ankur Jaipuriar (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Concept album"?[edit]

This article is included in the "Concept albums" category. Why is this album a concept album? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Confessions on a Dance Floor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confessions on a Dance Floor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Price[edit]

The producer's working ethic is detailed in this article published in Sound on Sound magazine. —IB [ Poke ] 14:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confessions on a Dance Floor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Confessions on a Dance Floor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future Lovers[edit]

Why isn't there any mention to the fact that «Future Lovers» samples Donna Summer's «I feel love» and that in the Confessions tour, Madonna actually performs a mashup of both songs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.60.37.141 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confessions_on_a_Dance_Floor/Archive_1&oldid=1156028406"