Talk:Ray of Light/Archive 1

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


Disruptive Edits

I am sorry if I did anything wrong, IndianBio. I was just trying to fix BARE URLS in the citation from Wikipedia:Cleanup#2016_posts and I wasn't intending to do any disruptive edits at all. If I made any substantive edits on the content, it was a mistake -- I am pretty new. Rimsroot (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: When I made the edits from BARE URLs to Citations, I never saw anything about Adele in any of my edits. I do not know how those Adele edits got in there. I only took the bare URLs that were in the references and coverted them directly into legit authentic Wikipedia Citations. I even remember that NYU/UPen PDF article. I didn't change a thing. Very Weird. Has this ever happened to anyone else? Rimsroot (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Track title?

Is it "Shanti/Ashtangi" or "Shanti/Ashanti"? Both appear in the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The song title you refer to has the "g". I have the US edition CD myself and checked. The Madonna Lyrics Archive has the "g" as well; the guy who runs that site is a walking National Archives (IMHO) when it comes to Madonna. - Thanks, Hoshie | Grand Union Flag

Certifications

I can cite sources for the U.S., Canada, the UK, etc., but cannot for the following countries. If someone can back these claims up then they can be added back into the article. -- Underneath-it-All 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Country Certification
Austria 2x Platinum
Belgium Platinum
Brazil 3x Platinum
Greece 2x Platinum
Hong Kong Platinum
Ireland 7x Platinum
Italy 6x Platinum
Mexico 2x Platinum
Nederlands 3x Platinum
Norway 2x Platinum
Poland 2x Platinum
Singapore 3x Platinum
Spain 3x Platinum
Sweden 3x Platinum
When adding new certifications, please cite where you got the information from. Thanks. -- Underneath-it-All 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-write

I have done a massive re-write on the article, expanding sections and such. I feel I need to add a few more things to it and then will nominate it for good article status. -- Underneath-it-All 02:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good editing. Jkelly 02:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much! -- Underneath-it-All 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Madonnavillage.com does not exist anymore, so those references are incorrect now. 84.2.202.192 (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

GA promotion

Great work, this to get better :

  • The external links in the table should be placed as footnotes.
  • Needs more references.
  • I would rework the lead. Lincher 03:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Album Sales

The following are sites have show the different album sales of Madonna: http://www.beautifulmadonna.com/charts/albumven.html = 17m, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Top-Biggest-Selling-Madonna-Albums/lm/37BXBHN8JKB68 = 15m, http://charts.mlvc.org/CHThist.php = 15m, http://www.world4madonna.com/charts/ = 14m, http://www.madonna.com/home/ = 14m, 12.46m. The first link is always considerably higher for all sales, so likely to be overly inflated. The concensus being between 14 - 15 million.

GA review

I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Good article review#Ray of Light because it is underreferenced. 17Drew 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Issues appear to have been addressed, therefore the article shall retain GA. Regards, Lara♥Love 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Track listing

The track listing is done according to Wikipedia standard. --Gunsfornuns (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Move?

Should we move the page to avoid confusion with Ray of Light (Michael Wong album)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.0.88 (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This article has been renamed from Ray of Light (Madonna album) to Ray of Light as the result of a move request.

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

The result of the proposal was - unopposed move as most notable article for this title. Keith D (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ray of Light (Madonna album) → Ray of Light — The disambiguation page is not needed, as the 'Michael Wong' album is far less notable, and was perfectly fine as a disabiguation link at the top (which still remains). Additionally, the page was moved without discussion. —Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support per nominator. Old move not necessary. Nobrains atoll (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm all for disambiguation, but when there is an overwhelmingly more common usage, that should be the main article. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Michael Wong should be re-examined under WP:NOTABILITY. Reqluce (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No harm in this move since the Michael Wong album will still be accessible with one extra click. However, methinks "Michael Wong should be re-examined under WP:NOTABILITY" seems an extreme case of Geo-bias. — AjaxSmack 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Critical Reception

Ok, the E! quote about the "yoga stretch" is poking FUN at Madonna's newfound "depth." It's about as deep as a yoga stretch, get it? Then it goes on to say that, for Madonna, that's deeper than usual, and it sounds good, so more power to her. It's a backhanded compliment, but I changed the wording because the way it was written before (literally) it seemed the author of the article was egregiously missing the point and saying that E! thought the lyrics were profound. E! is saying they are about as profound as a yoga stretch! Literally, it says that. So we mustn't take it at face value as evidence that her newfound spirituality was universally praised by critics. E! just thought she made a good pop record, but the gist of the comment is: "it ain't poetry" and "it ain't scripture." "Trendy" spiritualism is another clue that they are belittling her effort at being "deep." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.5 (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ray of Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

Needs citations:

  1. "Madonna performed "Drowned World/Substitute for Love", "Ray of Light", "Candy Perfume Girl", "Sky Fits Heaven", "Frozen", and "Mer Girl" on her 2001 Drowned World Tour; "Frozen" on her 2004 Re-Invention World Tour; "Ray of Light" and "Drowned World/Substitute for Love" on her 2006 Confessions Tour and "Ray of Light" on her 2008 Sticky & Sweet Tour."
  2. "Slant Magazine described the album as "one of the great pop masterpieces of the '90s...Madonna hasn't been this emotionally candid since Like a Prayer.""
  3. "The song was nominated for "Record of the Year" at the 1999 Grammy Awards, but lost to Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On.""
  4. "The last three music videos were filmed with the lip-synched audio at 2x slower-2x faster than the original audio and were later edited to make the mouthing of the words the same as the original song, which would then give it the slow-motion or fast-motion effects."

Other issues:

  1. The soundtrack image is lacking a source.
  2. Multiple citations only include the title. Citations should also include author, date, publisher, access date, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET can help with formatting.
  3. Per the new conventions at WP:ALBUM, the links in the infobox for the reviews need to be converted to citations.
  4. There are multiple dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.

This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your wonderful evaluation. But can you please give me 3 days of time after which I can start working on your points? Im in the middle of some massive GA development thats why:) --Legolas (talk2me) 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done--Legolas (talk2me) 06:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. I went through the article and made a few more changes, please look them over. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Shanti cover

I heard a cover of "Shanti/Ashtangi" in the first season of Heroes. Can't find anywhere about it. Does anyone know about it?--Nauki (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a forum where you can ask stuff about where a download is available. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't ask for a download, I asked for information on a cover to a Madonna song.--Nauki (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Christgau

I want to add Robert Christgau critic ((1-star Honorable Mention)) link to the infobox, I'm asking this because there's sometimes when other users refuse Christgau's own system. TbhotchTalk C. 05:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You can definitely add it as his reviews are quite reverred. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Could someone please explain to me, Ray of Light was stated that has sold 20 million copies according from BBC, but that's news was release in 1998.... is more than 12 years ago.... is this reliable..? please explain to me.... thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.36.154 (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Just to open it up for discussion, I've added a cite to that genre in the infobox. An anonymous IP continues to revert it and leaves attacks on my talk page. Since the information she's adding is not sourced or mentioned in the article, I'll keep it to the cited version. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed the IPs disruption. Try for WP:RFP first, let me deal with that bloody trouble maker Andrez. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Hope you get around to Like a Prayer soon btw!Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Allmusic is not reliable, they list rammstein as progressive metal, I can't get that!!! 201.43.149.83 (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Find other sources then. I've kept it as plain as possible and no on else is objecting. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because the genre of this album is MUCH more than just pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.69.132 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


The 90s: The Inside Stories From the Decade That Rocked

According to the "The 90s: The Inside Stories From the Decade That Rocked" book released recently by Rolling Stone, "Ray of Light" is #28 in the list of 100 best 90s album.

Does anyone own the book, in order to add the source in the article?

Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.152.93 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Madonna-brent-murray.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Madonna-brent-murray.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

Should be added a legacy section, this album is very important to pop music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.0.136.66 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Legacy section is well written and well sourced, good work.MilkStraw532 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this still meets the GA criteria?

I'm worried with this article, because Ray of Light is a such a great album, and this seems to have most of the information about it. However, there are several citations without sources, the Recording and Legacy sessions aren't complete, and the promotion section could be expanded with more info about promotion around the world (apart from tour and singles). Further comments are appreciated. - Saulo Talk to Me 00:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides those few adjustments, this is a really good page and i think it meats GA criteria.MilkStraw532 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The references are an absolute mess. Lots which are completely unformatted. The article looks a bit messy too, quite unorganized and not structured. Too many pictures as well. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 00:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The references have deteriorated over the months, but that can be dealt with easily. The biggest issue is the lack of content and verifiability. The article I feel can most certainly be expanded. It goes into a mew few sentences on recording, without discussing the album's themes and genres. The images look fine, to me; three pictures is perfectly okay for an article of this length and adds value to the page. WP:LAYOUT needs to be revised here as well, per Calvin's comments. In short, no, the article does not fully meet WP:GACR, but the appropriate action to take can be questionable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is no need to delist this. If someone can volunteer (after all Wikipedia is a collaborative effort) to fix the issues mentioned above, it should remain as a GA. I do agree that there are many problems with the references and various citations are needed. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 01:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with everyone above. I think it still meets the criteria, just needs cleanup. Novice7 (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, shouldn't Legolas be notified about this? Xwomanizerx (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, since he helped the article get through GAR. I'll notify him. Novice7 (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
He hasn't been online for weeks and hasn't made an effort to continue anything that he had previously started before 'leaving'. Someone else will have to do this. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just because the article technically doesn't meet the current criteria, I don't think it is fair to De-list. Legolas and others have worked hard on it, and I think with a little effort and push from a few editors (nicely put Jivesh! :)) we can fix the issue.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Aww thanks. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I can try and help, maybe. I would need help of other editors and of course, it would take some time. Novice7 (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jivesh. And it seems everybody's responding. But might as well put this on another GAR where to discuss stuffs to fix. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Aww thanks. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Guys, can you give me a week or so? I'm trying to expand this article and add refs (User:Novice7/Ray of Light). Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My intention was never to delist this article. It's just that this was so important for pop music, and I was sad that the article had so many unsourced info. I don't have any Madonna books, and my short time on Wikipedia is mostly dedicated to Britney articles, so I couldn't do the changes myself. Thanks Jivesh, Novice7, and everyone that answered. :) - Saulo Talk to Me 19:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We know my friend. And you are welcome. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 03:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sales of 'Ray of Light'

There is some confusion about the sales of Ray of Light. It had been 20 million, then 16, and now again 20. The first section on the page says 20, and 'chart performance' says 16. This needs to be verified, fixed, and be in correlation with the entire page, and other correlating pages of Madonna.

Thegirlieshow (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The album

THE BEST ALBUM EVER!!!! I'm A Sinner (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ray Of Light sales = over 20 million!

Latest official sources put Ray Of Light's worldwide sales at over 20 million! Here is a scan of a production sheet handed out at the 'MDNA' listening party on Wednesday 7th March 2012: http://www.madonnalicious.com/images/extra/2012/mdna_playback_madonnalicious4.jpg

No, Madonna and her production people are not a reliable source for album sales. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

and how about this sources...? can you beat this?.. 39.208.99.175 (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2012-03-30/madonnas-top-11-controversies-and-how-they-helped-her-succeed-commercially/

The problem with all of these is that the numbers don't add up, the numbers from individual countries and sales regions. It appears to me that the reporters writing these articles simply copied the "20 million" figure down from each other or from Wikipedia. Who first came up with it and how?
  • The Absolute Madonna fansite says 15 million.
  • The Madonna Nation fansite says 16 million.
  • The Guardian says 16 million: "Orbit switches from Madonna to Tennyson with live Radio 3 epic", July 2009. No source saying "20 million" is going to erase the The Guardian saying 16. Some kind of comparison must be made between 16 million and 20 million if the 20 million figure is to be in the article. In other words, we would say "Reporter X and reporter Y write that Madonna has sold 20 million copies of the album, but The Guardian writes that the total is 16 million. The various country sales totals are blah, blah, yadda, yadda, adding up to about x million." Something like that. Binksternet (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, who are you buddy ?. why you so defensive to stated the 16 million-from the Guardian.... and who are you? could say that :

VH1 http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2012-03-30/madonnas-top-11-controversies-and-how-they-helped-her-succeed-commercially/

BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/150058.stm

Vogue http://www.vogue.com/voguepedia/Madonna

and Irish Independent just copied the 20 million figure from other sources...? are you a RELIABLE person to edit this article?..

The list of World's Best Selling Albums even stated that with almost 13 million in certification, Ray of Light is Reliable to Claim the 20 million copies....

I'm sorry, i just asking.... because it seems so silly that The Guardian sources can beat among the world's top news organization of all time (VH1, BBC, VOGUE, and Irish Independent).39.208.99.175 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ray of Light sold more than 20 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/150058.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMoneyGomes (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WHO THE H3LL EDITED THIS ARTICLE

I'm really sick and tired with the person who edited and in charge with this article in Wikipedia. Why is so defend the worldwide sales and claim for Ray of Light.... from The Guardian

Why are you so angry? Is it really that serious? (SuperCell3000 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

Why ? who the h3ll are you..? are you Madonna hater or something....

PLEASE WRITE TRUTH & FACT!!!.... if the sales of Ray of Light is really 16 million, can you explain why those sources (BBC, VH1, Vogue, The Independent) claim the 20 million sales...!

I really want to say BIG F!CK for the person who edited this article.... and not answer my question above..!

sorry.... i'm so mad..! thank you... 182.11.106.219 (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The answer is, of course, a lot of people (scroll down to the bottom). --Krenair (talk • contribs) 10:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of Legacy

Shouldn't there be more in this section? For instance, this album sparked the electronic movement in music. With the trance pop style music being very popular in the late 90's and early 2000's. After this album was created, other legendary pop stars made a return using the same style of music. Stars such as Cher and Kylie Minogue both followed her electro/trance pop style in the late 90's. As well as her following 3 albums all being ahead of their times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.62.167 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, then expand the section yourself. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Artwork

This could help. Ryoga Godai (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Ray of Light album sales worldwide

There is consensus to report the worldwide sales of Ray of Light as 16 million in the article. Armbrust The Homonculus 10:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should we say about the worldwide sales figures for Madonna's Ray of Light album? Various sources give various numbers. Recent edit wars have gone back and forth between 16 and 20 million. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources, listed chronologically

Discussion

  • 16 million mainstream consensus, cemented by well-researched Taraborrelli book. Other numbers listed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as minor viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • 16 million - I think its quite obvious that 16 million is more reasonable, judging by the fact that the albums certifications only add up to around 12 million. Aside from that, most sources agree with this figure, not including the one random source that inflated it to the highest rounded variable.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I do think 20 million is quite inflated, but it meets Wikipedia policy as several WP:RS support the figure. Besides, let's compare its sales to other albums with the same 20 million claim. The Colour of My Love by Celine Dion also has around 11-12 million certification (6m in US, 4 in EU, 1m in CAN). Romanza by Andrea Bocelli has 10-11 milion certification (3m in US, 6m in EU, 1m in CAN). Ironically, Janet by Janet Jackson which only has 8-9 million certifications, also listed with 20 million sales figure. I think to get broader consensus, let's discuss it on Talk:List of best-selling albums. -- Bluesatellite (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • There's a point at which common sense must come into play. We have reliable sources for so many different figures that any one of them does not trump the others. Thus, the figure of 20 million is not more reliably sourced than the others.
      Certainly a wider viewpoint would help. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm completely at a loss to what the album's sales could be given that sources as recent as the NME and Madonna.com ones state 14 million. I will say, however, that the sudden appearance of the 20 million claim in the 2010 the Irish Independent article may be due to inflation of album sales that sometimes occurs when an the media report on an artist's new releases. This has happened with Come Away with Me and Bad. I also invite editors to compare Ray of Light 's certifications with the certifications of other albums from the same era like Come on Over, Let's Talk About Love, Titanic, Millenium and ...Baby One More Time at the best-selling albums list.--Mαuri’96 “...over the Borderline” 21:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • NME article is Wikipedia entry, I've removed it from the sources list. And the article from Madonna.com was first published long before 2012. The article was once used as sales source here in May 2006. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - One must realize that some of these articles that say 14 and 15 million etc. may be outdated. I have noticed that many of these articles do not always update things when necessary and this is especially common with fansites. However, i think that a more reasonable estimate of an 18 million claim may be a good happy-medium. I dont think it's quite fair to have many other albums listed with 20+ million sales claims when their certifications are far below that yet other albums that have the same certifications are left far below saying that a 20+ million claim is inflated. If we are going to have one album with a 20+ million claim but with much lower certifications then all albums that fit that criteria should be listed as such. Or, the option I am in favor of to settle all of this, why not have these albums listed with the figures they actually deserve rather than singling out a few saying that a 20+ million claim is inflated but not the others that have the very same certifications. Janet. certifications measure up to about a 8-9 million claim, Thriller's certifications measure up to about 51 million yet they are listed with 20 million and 100+ million claims respectively. As I've said before, singling out one album saying that their certifications don't measure up to a certain claim is very unfair when this "rule" has been ignored with many other albums. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC))
  • 16M If only 12M have been certified, that figure would certainly make more sense than 20M. DavidK2 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes but remember, she needs 11.5 million for a 20 million claim, if thats the case then what about the many other albums that have the same 12 million certifications that are said to have a 20 million claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperCell3000 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Is it necessary to arrive at a single figure? Can the article not just say something like "somewhere between 16 and 20 million?"   SteveT (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
That poses an issue with other articles such as best-selling album lists etc. Anything under the inflated 20 million, and she'll be demoted.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
That prose makes more sense to me, and it has been done in several pages, like Thriller ("...between 65 and 110 million copies worldwide"). And for Nathan, if you feel the album should be demoted from List of best-selling albums, then open a new discussion there. Surely, there are a lot of albums with bigger inflation on that list compared to Ray of Light. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have too much a problem with the prose, but it seems consensus is leaning towards 16 million. As for the best-sellers page, I completely agree. Several albums should be removed. Thing is no-one opened up a discussion on the matter.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Somewhere between 16-20 million (like Thriller) sounds like a good option. --201.194.99.140 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry. I don't think I should just be editing at the bottom of this archived discussion, but my point relates to this discussion. Shouldn't Madonna albums discography adhere to the consensus here? This discussion agrees on 16 million, but her album discography page still states 20 million? Shouldn't something like this be universal? Shouldn't the 20 million there be changed to 16 million, citing this discussion, and adding one of the accepted sources? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all of the sales figures should match. If someone wanted to use the 20 million figure they should start a new RfC. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Genre

This album should also be listed as [(Raga Rock)] as many of it has strong Indian influences — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperCell3000 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It is influenced, but that doesn't mean that it is its genre. Unless a reliable source indicates Ray of Light is a raga rock album, that is not its genre. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Las ventas otra vez

Hola, lamento que hable en español, pero quizá alguno por aquí como buen usuario me pueda traducir este mensaje (me parece que al menos uno por aquí habla español). Sé que para que un álbum esté o entre en la lista de los más vendidos del mundo o en su propio artículo, tiene que tener un mínimo de sus ventas certificadas con la cifra que se cita, es por esta razón que muchos piensan que Ray of Light no ha vendido 20 millones de copias. Pero he agregado o en último caso, reemplazado, los artículos: Madonna, List of best-selling albums y Ray of Light de 16 millones a 20 millones de copias, ya que VH1 lo confirma (y muchos medios de "credibilidad").

La verdad que el sistema que emplean es bueno, pero no es imparcial que muchos álbumes que no alcanzan las certificaciones de una determinada venta estén con ella o simplemente estén, porque visiblemente se ignoran las normas. En este contexto, Ray of Light quizá con las representaciones de este artículo, sólo ha certificado 12 millones, pero se ha comprobado que en la mayoría de los casos, sobre todo en música, la Wikipedia en inglés no goza de completitud (un ejemplo puede ser True Blue de la Wikipedia en español con el de aquí); pueda ser que el álbum haya certificado en países o regiones que ustedes no sepan, Central America por ejemplo, y aunque IFPI no cubre esa región, allí se dan certificaciones, esta nota de Billboard puede confirmar lo que yo digo. Sé que hay que ser objetivos, después de todo, y tampoco puedo suponer en que otras regiones ha certificado; pero volviendo un poco atrás, aunque Thriller es un álbum de la década de 1980, seamos justos que ni debería de figurar sus estimaciones de 110 millones (recordemos que puede ser hasta fuente primaria; después de todo hay muchas Wikipedias, no sólo la Wikipedia en inglés) ya que claramente está violando las políticas de la lista, porque como bien han comprobado, apenas se acerca a los 42 millones de certificaciones y la diferencia con los 65 millones es siempre grande y con los 110 millones ni se diga, es como si el señor Jackson haya lanzado otro Thriller practicamente. A estas partes también me refiero que hay que tener imparcialidad. Saludos, Chrishonduras (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is how we treat inflated sales figures. The whole List of best-selling albums needs to be overhauled to reduce the sales figures of every album down to the firmly established numbers, not the highest reported numbers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine catering to fans. Every number we give here should be solid, not based on guesses. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean based on guesses? every source in here, or in List of best-selling albums come from a reliable source such a newspaper and not a teenage forum or fans website.

Ray of Light claim 20m from BBC, The Irish Independent, Vogue, VH1, and The National. so you mean the editor from those news source just making a guess in their article? Politsi (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your favorite references are contradicted by many other high-quality references such as Bloomberg, Billboard, the Guardian, Evene, the biographer Taraborelli, and Madonna's own official website page for the album. So what do we do when all the sources disagree? We should not simply accept the highest number reported; that is simplistic and likely to be wrong, as you note with Thriller. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Listen buddy, i'm not a Madonna fans but the reason why i'm so angry seeing Ray of Light being remove from the 20m claim figures eventhough the certification sales is quite enough to support, is because no one Complaint and let MICHAEL JACKSON fake sales figure like Thriller/110m and Bad/45m still STAND in the list. Why? like you said, this is an encyclopedia not fans catering for brain eat.

I've seen Jackson was so PRAISELY in here, in wikipedia. 39.208.107.137 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: Esto es casi inconducente. Repasemos, ¿VH1 no es fiable? (To ensure a highest level of fact checking and editorial control, this list sources sales figures to news organizations and highly regarded music industry related organizations such as MTV, VH1, Billboard and Rolling Stone). Una página oficial de un artista tampoco es entidad de certificación, además que no es independiente del sujeto. ¿Sería confiable que Shakira.com nos diga que Dónde están los ladrones? ha vendido 10 millones de copias? y es mucho menos proporcional a lo que dicen las certificaciones.

A veces los medios de comunicación, para "redondear" las cifras quitan y ponen millones. En este contexto, yo no me confío de las certificaciones, ya que estas sugieren el mínimo de ventas; Madonna tiene muchos álbumes sin certificar, y como ya no está con Warner, dudo mucho que sus discos obtengan "actualizaciones" en sus certificaciones. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que Ray of Light recibió una certificación? Estoy seguro de que ha seguido vendiendo miles de copias desde entonces.

Me parece más conducente escribir: "Ray of Light with sales estimated by various sources as being between 16 and 20 million copies worldwide, is one of the biggest selling albums worldwide". Sobre todo, me parece raro ver que en Thriller, hayan colocado que ha vendido 110 millones de copias en todo el mundo (cuando las certificaciones ni siquiera se acercan a esa cifra). Es más, me parece que los más de 100 millones de copias que muchos medios estiman, se debe a un "Wiki hoax":

En el historial del artículo podemos observar que éste sufrió de un excesivo vandalismo (por lo que llegó a ser fuente primaria a lo que a ventas se refiere). Desde esta versión (2005) dice que "de acuerdo al Libro Guinness de los récords, Thriller ha vendido 51 millones de copias en todo el mundo" (no tiene referencia). Un año después, una IP vandalizó el artículo diciendo que había vendido 60 millones de copias "de acuerdo al Libro Guinness de los récords. Por suerte, en Febrero Funky Monkey reparó ese bulo y agregó la referencia correspondiente, que efectivamente, de (1982-2006) de acuerdo al Libro Guinness de los récords, "Thriller había vendido más de 51 millones de copias en todo el mundo. Pero un mes después, vino algo desastroso, dónde una IP agregó: "but some sources put the figure closer to 60 million" y agregó como referencia a UKMIX Forums. Como se puede ver sucesivamente en el historial del artículo, algunos usuarios reparaban ese bulo de las ventas, mientras que otros reducían o inflaban. Por lo menos en esta versión de Noviembre de 2006, por supuesto que esto era totalmente un bulo y vandalismo, una IP lo revertió pero el usuario Ashadeofgrey lo dejó de esa manera. Y después vino un terrible bulo que se quedó así y se exparció por toda la red, por ejemplo, en esta versión podemos ver: "According to the Guinness Book of Records, Thriller is the world's all-time best selling album, with sales estimated at over 104 million copies". Como podemos notar, el Libro Guinness de los récords había certificado ese mismo año (2006) a Thriller con sólo 51 millones de copias, pero en la versión anterior que proporcioné, dice que "de acuerdo con el Libro Guinness de los récords, Thriller ha vendido 104 millones de copias". Esto se quedó así, luego, supongo que medio tras medio se basó en Wikipedia para decir que "Thriller ha vendido más de 100 millones de copias", cuando en realidad es una falacia.

Sé que Thriller es un disco ajeno a este, pero es el mayor ejemplo de que las reglas que hablan de, por ejemplo: "I think its quite obvious that 16 million is more reasonable, judging by the fact that the albums certifications only add up to around 12 million" no son complidas parejamente. ¿Acaso las ventas certificadas de Thriller se acercan a las más de 100 millones de copias?, como he expuesto, todo esto es un "Wiki hoax" que luego se exparció por innumerables fuentes. Espero que haya imparcialidad. Saludos, Chrishonduras (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Use your english please, this is an english wikipedia. make it easy. thank 39.208.107.137 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, I agree with several of your points. I agree that there is the possibility of a "wiki hoax" in terms of sales figures related to Michael Jackson's Thriller album. Furthermore, I would like to point out the same problem could have happened with Ray of Light—that various news and magazine writers looked at the 20 million figure on Wikipedia and repeated it without checking. I also agree that we can tell the reader that other sources give higher and lower sales figures than 16 million. However, for the purpose of comparing the album with other albums there must be one main sales number that is the most solid, the highest authority, the widest agreement. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ray of Light Sales

Ray of Light sold more than 20 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/150058.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMoneyGomes (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-30-greatest-edm-albums-of-all-time-20120802/21-madonna-ray-of-light-maverick-1998-19691231

Rollling stone list of the greatest EDM albums. Ray of light at #21--Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Open Discussion RfC: Ray of Light album sales worldwide

Somehow editors concluded the previous consensus in the 16 million records figure, even when consensus ended in 5 neutral positions and just 4 positions that supported the 16M figure. Even one of the neutral positions actually stated 18 million as a fair figure. The consensus is totally ambiguous and according to this Ray of Light have enough certifications (12.5 million) for the 18 and even 20 million figures. In addition, even with the sources listed up there, the figure that most sources state (6; The Irish Independent, Voguepedia, VH1, The National, Handout for Madonna's album MDNA) is 20 Million, while there are only 3 sources that state 16 million. There is no concrete reason to deny figures of 18 and 20 million. --Watquaza (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You've just stated that 12.5 million certifications is enough to say that she sold 18 or 20 million albums. What "concrete" reason is that? Applying an arbitrary factor of 1.5 is not concrete, it's conjectural.
One big problem that Wikipedia has with album sales figures is the feedback loop of reporters taking figures from this or that version of Wikipedia, rather than researching the sales figures on their own. Any published sales figures that are later than 2003 have to be looked at carefully to prevent this sort of inflation.
The figure of 16 million was arrived at because it appeared to be the median of the published sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Sorry for the intromision and sorry for my irregular English. First of all, I'd rather be impartial and I'm totally in disagreement with primary sources, but Binksternet I don't think that the figure the 20 million is a primary source (the rule: Wikipedia:Primary source) because, BBC for example, put this figure in 1998 and Wikipedia was founded several years after (2001). Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good source. You make a good point. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So we can confirm that the 20 million figure is not a primary source. That source is from August of 1998, even earlier than the ones showed in the consensus. --Watquaza (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

      • My two cents

First all, sorry for my irregular English. Okay,

Analyzing well the consensus, as you said Watquaza, is really imprecise. Binksternet just said something in this discussion that catches my attention: "The figure of 16 million was arrived at because it appeared to be the median of the published sources". I'll explain (my opinion) why in principle, the consensus not proceeds in many things:

When I open debates to change sales, apart from listing all the different possible numbers that give various media (in multiple languages, of course), I also look at the history of Wikipedia to compare and see which have not cyclic references (primary sources) and if possible (although very difficult) also I lean on secundary references that speak that "X" or "Y" sales are unrealistic or simply are inflated figures. This is what I did with for example, Thriller, Michael Jackson and recently, Bad. The three previous cases violated this process, ie, many rules of Wikipedia that are not negotiable. With this process I have analyzed this case and really, this article has been impartial with all this.

I understand the point of avoiding bias (is common sense) and support the sales on certifications. Well, in this context, according to the article, the album has some 12 million copies certified. Although the official pages of artists should not be used as references, in principle in this context, Madonna.com is actually quite fair [in comparison to other sites such as Shakira.com], because Madonna.com is based on certified copies and said to be are 14 million; maybe We do not have the information of the other certifications, but it is highly likely that the album has certified in Central American, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela ... etc, the remaining 2 million copies that the article not show. And Madonna.com was established justly in March 1998.

Regardless of certifications 12 or 14 million, they really are not a minority compared with sales of 16, 18 or even 20 million (even other albums should be up to 10 or 12 million copies certified sales needed to be more realistic and some of them even are included on the list of best-selling albums) The real median, not only secondary references in English, also in German, Spanish, French ... The figures are between 18 and 20 million. My counterproposal is this,

Solutions:

  • Leave the figure of 18 million
  • Leave the figure of 20 million
  • To say that the album has sold between 18 to 20 million.
  • All possible solutions, but leave as a note that the album have 12 to 14 million copies in certifications; and let the readers decide what to think and what to do with both facts.

We don’t have to act as judges of the information, especially when it comes from reliable and trustworthy sources. Finally, sorry for my bad English. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

At some point on Wikipedia there will be a decision to make based on one exact number for sales. For instance, if we say that the album sold between 18 and 20 million units, where do we put it in a table or list of albums, one of which sold 19 million. Does the Madonna album go above or below it? What I'm saying is that we should have a firm number in mind for these sorts of decisions. One number. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Leave the figure of 20 million Is a confortable figure with the BBC source from 1998, besides that album probably also have pending certifications. --Watquaza (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

SALES

Ray of light sold more than 20 million, 15 million in the site of Madonna is a text of the billboard launched in January 1999 and is related certifications.Ray of light sold more than 20 million informations VH1 and the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/150058.stm and http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2012-03-30/madonnas-top-11-controversies-and-how-they-helped-her-succeed-commercially/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMoneyGomes (talk • contribs) 13:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude, what do you think we are talking up there? --Watquaza (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Anne Masuda

I removed the reference from Yahoo! included in the legacy section as it seemed pretty unreliable to me. Please revert me if I'm wrong. My love is love (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@My love is love:, you also removed some of the other chart related information. Why? They were sourced to a reliable website per WP:GOODCHARTS. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Well I removed them as the article already contained peak positions for the Danish and the Spanish charts and aCharts was used as a source. I was doubtful about this because some articles list all the peak position on a chart each year, while other only mention one (the highest) peak position. My love is love (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@My love is love:, well some countries allow for multiple chartings based on Catalogue no. So the chartings in 2006 and 2012 are for different releases (box sets, fan editions, jewel pack etc). I replaced acharts with valid Hung Medien references. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@IndianBio: I understand now. Thank you for pointing it out. My love is love (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ray_of_Light/Archive_1&oldid=1140418902"