Talk:Loca (Shakira song)

Cover
http://media.shakira.com/non_secure/images/20100901/shakira_loca_cover/shakira_loca_cover_640.jpg http://www.shakira.com/news all the information to keep this page is here

Added the cover. Adding more information now. Thanks for the info! —ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no move. --  tariq abjotu  02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

– This song has many more page views than any of the other articles listed on the disambiguation, not to mention that many of the listed articles are just acronyms for other page titles. A hatnote on the Shakira song would surely suffice in the (seemingly) slim chance that this was not the article a reader would be looking for. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Loca (Shakira song) → Loca
 * Loca → Loca (disambiguation)
 * Support Oppose - I agree. This is probably the only notable and prominent song with the title "Loca". I now think that there is nothign wrong with the current title and Richhoncho below has given a valid point to oppose the move.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the term is too ambiguous to support a primarytopic claim by an obscure song. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "obscure song". Being obscure to you won't make it obscure to the world. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Dicklyon, removing the (Shakira song) is unlikely to help even Shakira fans. On a side note - this is another example of a song article which doesn't tell the reader what language the song is in. Is it in Spanish? (I presume it isn't in Albanian). Do the editors of the article know? Are readers meant to guess? ... I have put forward a proposal at WP SONG to add an optional language field to single infoboxes. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "is unlikely to help even Shakira fans". "which doesn't tell the reader what language the song is in ... Do the editors of the article know? Are readers meant to guess?" Please tell me where it is said the title of an article, and not the article itself, is supposed to inform the reader the language of the subject of the article they read. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I said infobox. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is also Loca (Arsenium song) and WP:PDAB applies. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The RM is not to move it to Loca (song) but to Loca, there are Loca Records, LOCA and LOCA, where is the partial ambiguity in a full request? Either way, PDAB says that "Loca (song)" can be redirected here in an ocassional exception, why Arsenium's has similar notability to this song? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  03:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even more reason not to move, then, don't you think? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because your reason to oppose was because of "PDAB", which is incorrect. PRIMARYTOPIC may still applying, which may be a reason to move. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  00:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Disambiguation, Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles. In this case the single term (Loca)is ambiguous and the guidelines clear. This specifically applies to song titles, which with few exceptions, are used over and over again.
 * I might have a little sympathy with those that wished to move articles if they also amended the incoming links, apparently that is not worth doing, so if WP is unfortunate enough to see this article moved every wikilink will be via Loca (Shakira song). So what was the point of you supporting the move? None whatsoever. Totally pointless.
 * Loca means Crazy, too, just another common word which is probably used as a song title more times than we can shake a stick at, but oh no this version by a person called Shakira (who, with due respect, will hardly be known in 20 years time) had to have prime place for "Loca"
 * Anybody looking for a song called Loca by any artist will find it easier (yeah, this is the purpose of article namespaces!) if the name of the artist is there as well. Looking for Loca by Foo artist, simple, you won't have to look at Loca (Shakira song) then will you?
 * There is no guideline of any description which supports ambiguating titles. There is a reason for this. It is unfortunate that some editors insist on interpreting some guidelines as meaning we should be ambiguating titles!
 * I also note we have one or two editors who specifically add redirects for the album tracks of their favourite artists - including, sometimes, alternative capitalizations, alternative titles, etc etc. This needs to be thought about - especially in the context of proposed moves like this. But it will add half a dozen more Locas to WP without doubt!
 * Finally, if this song was at Loca already, I would not have nominated to move, it is the moving which is equally disruptive. Sometimes a move is unavoidable, but those editors who make moves because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC while ignoring WP:RECENT without using WP:COMMONSENSE and a passing understanding of WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:PDAB without DABbing the incoming links should be censored. It is disruptive editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Amendments --Richhoncho (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you now mostly, but not about the Shakira being forgotten in 20 years part... --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right, she may well be notable in 20 years time, but my point is that notability in music, specifically song, and, generally, artist is transient. BTW If you agree with me now, will your strike your support above? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support--no competitors to this; what would a reader realistically be looking for at loca besides this song? Red Slash 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Red Slasm as above Loca (Arsenium song) and WP:PDAB applies. And apart from the Eurovision song they might be looking for Loca Con Su Tiguere by El Cata which Shakira's song is based on. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ? How does that apply? If this song has primary topic for Loca, it has primary topic for Loca, period. And FAR more people are looking for Shakira's song (viewed 16970 times in the past 90 days) than Arsenium's (with 567). The El Cata song seems just a partial title match. There may be an argument against the move, but it sure ain't WP:PDAB. Red Slash 03:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Red Slash, you're right - I was getting distracted because your RM and all the comments are talking about songs songs songs. I don't see that there can be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Loca a common adjective, generically "the mad woman", as illustrated by the Chicana literature figure La Loca. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Loca plagiarism problem.
It's All over the media right now. Source. Erick (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I know! It's kinda funny lol. Anyway, I'm very busy with schoolwork at the moment, can you please add the information or ask someone else to do it? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Loca (Shakira song). 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nDfynkk6?url=http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin to http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006100124/http://www.fimi.it/archivio_certificazioni.php to http://www.fimi.it/archivio_certificazioni.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060243/http://thecelebritycafe.com/reviews/shakira%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Csun-comes-out%E2%80%9D-tour-shinned-florida-fans-saturday-09-28-2010 to http://thecelebritycafe.com/reviews/shakira%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Csun-comes-out%E2%80%9D-tour-shinned-florida-fans-saturday-09-28-2010
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DEcxjgIA?url=http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/kereso-eloado-cim-szerint to http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/kereso-eloado-cim-szerint
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227055450/http://austriancharts.at/2010_single.asp to http://austriancharts.at/2010_single.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/canciones/Top%2050%20Canciones%20Anual%20%28PUBLICAR%29%202010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719010257/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20100001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20100001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527163502/http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loca (Shakira song). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715174856/http://mx.noticias.hispavista.com/espectaculos/20101129134400010/llega-adictiva-banda-jos-monitor-latino/ to http://mx.noticias.hispavista.com/espectaculos/20101129134400010/llega-adictiva-banda-jos-monitor-latino/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Video
The Spanish version is shorter (and more popular), the English version contains additional footage with Dizzee Rascal. It's not like with "She Wolf," where the two versions are exactly the same.82.177.40.11 (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Inflated 5 million sales
This 5 million copies claim is completely nonsense. Where this song sold that amount of copies? It has "only" 500,000 with certifications and those are the countries where it performed better. Do you really think it sold 10 x more in other countries, little markets where the digital and streming sales are almost irrelevant? We know how media works on sales, see the album Thriller case, before Michael Jackson death it was reported sold around 50 million copies (even Michael Jackson sais that in a documentary), and then after his death 150 millions, the certifications to date are around 45 million copies and the claim used here in Wikipedia is 66 million copies, wthe more accurate possible. I think we have to do the same here, but in the casa erase that info about 5 million copies worldwide.--88marcus (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it was reported from Reuters and sources such as the BBC picked up on it. There are multiple sources stating the same thing as a result. It needs to be fact checked a little more and we can determine if it should be removed.Rain the 1 00:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need of that. BBC and Reuters can't say nothing about sales. They are not IFPI and doesn't work with sales like Nielsen soundscan, those sales came from record companies, other unreliable sites and Wikipedia itself.--88marcus (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Marcus. Those worldwide sales have nonsense. You need to take care on Vandalism... specially in Shakira's sales... the vandalism that Shakira's articles have had in many Wikipedia's (mainly Spanish) and then later, her sales became "true" in other languages (like English or French since she is popular in those markets). This is a "woozle effect" in the media. So... the statement about "Reuters and/or BBC" is wrong:

1. Are just primary sources. All those (English) sources since 2014/2015 talking about the worldwide sales is refering the same issue: "plagiarism". It's a "cyclic information".

2. Original 5 million figure came from sources in Spanish, like this one in 2011. Later was included in all Wikipedias and since she is a "spanish singer" source was accepted and the figure of 5 million copies became in a "wozzle effect".

3. The issue with the vandalism in spanish version in Wikipedia even is worst. You can verify even since 2010 that the song became number one in "33 countries".... for example 22 countries in December 2010 (at least)... Since then increased in 33 countries because was never reverted (example). Same issue with the figure of "5 million copies". Was never reverted.

4. You can see even how since December 2011 it was included same statement in English Wikipedia: "Loca" reached number one in more than 33 countries and has sold more than five million copies worldwide. with the same spanish reference provided. So this actually is a primary source. It's the problem of vandalism (in this particular case from other Wiki-versions) and inclusion with nonsense by editors.

Also, in reference this source ("noted to be the best selling merengue song of all time") I don't know why this can consider to be a "verified reference".

Chrishonduras (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)