Jump to content

Talk:Ray of Light

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRay of Light has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starRay of Light is the main article in the Ray of Light series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 23, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
April 6, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Release date

[edit]

International release date early March, but February 22 for Japan? That was a Sunday. Are albums sometimes released on Sundays in Japan? Seems odd.

Legacy

[edit]

—Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 09:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: In Spanish Wikipedia; there are a lot information in legacy section. Chrishonduras (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit: Ray of Light album sales worldwide

[edit]

This album's certificate sales around 13 million. I think 16 million sales are so low figure for 13 million certificate sales. And there is so many reliable sources for 20 million. What do you think? I think this album already sold 20 million... 16 million it doesn't make sense

Sources;

  • BBC News: "Madonna: mad for fame at 40". BBC. August 15, 1998. Retrieved March 3, 2013.

—Navyiconer (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea from where you got 13 million, but its collective certifications from each market stands at 10,600,000 certifications. IFPI Europe collectively certifies for Europe which is 7 million. Using that its still 12.6 million and IFPI includes all shipments. Seeing that, 16 million is a reasonable compromise and that's what was decided the last consensus on the sales. @Binksternet: your input please. I can also collectively go ahead and disburse of the BBC link, its grossly overstated and its in no way reliable in this discussion. 20 million in 1998 is plain laughable claim. —IB [ Poke ] 16:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i said around 13 million so i mean 12,650 million certificate sales. Yeah that's okay BBC link is unreliable. —Navyiconer (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue to use 16 million, the same conclusion as the last few discussions on this issue. Consensus is solid.
The problem with this issue is that too many unreliable sources have published other numbers, and then those numbers have been parroted around the internet, including this article for brief periods. The other numbers are not based on certifications or reliable estimates. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally agree with Navyiconer. ray of light has sold 20 million 20 million sources looks more reliable than 16 million sources —Rebelheartmetehan (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know... when someone creates a profile with a username derived from Madonna's latest album; and their very first contribution to Wikipedia is a response to an ongoing debate... it raises some suspicions. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? I don't get it. —Rebelheartmetehan (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That you are a bloody duck sock of Navyiconer. Bah-bye. —IB [ Poke ] 08:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]
Concerns were raised about the lead section wording sounding too promotional, and some slight changes were made after a hot bit of fracas. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User:Jeremiah has continuously reverted content from the article's lead section calling them unsourced. I had reverted him saying that WP:LEAD it does not require source if its mentioned in the article body, but the user chose to ignore it. Let's explain each and every one of those lines and show the sources.

  • Critics and scholars have noted the album's influence on popular music, especially how it widely introduced electronica music into mainstream pop culture.[1][2][3][4]
  • They have also noted the way in which Madonna was able to re-invent herself and remain contemporary among the teenage artists of the period.[5][6][7]
  • Ray of Light has been frequently ranked among the greatest albums of all time.[8][9]

So Jeremiah, which part exactly do you see as unsourced? Note I pulled all the sources from the article's Legacy section only —IB [ Poke ] 11:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been attempting to reduce the appearance of bias in the lead by removing and requesting early references. The previous lead contains claims that appear to fall under WP:FANCRUFT. To avoid such accusations I suggest adding references to these specific claims or using more subdued language to make the lead appear more neutral. references may not be *required* in the lead but they certainly will help allay concerns of editorial bias.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


@IndianBio and Jeremiah: For transparency, I was asked to comment here but have been watching the WP:AN/EW report unfold. I have the following observations:
  • Both IB and Jeremiah have edit warred over content in the lead. The content is not pure vandalism, and is not exempt from WP:3RR
  • WP:LEAD (specifically WP:LEADCITE) states "Because the lead will usually repeat information [...], editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material"
  • The content is not controversial and has a number of demonstrated reliable sources
I would reccomend both IB and Jeremiah take the time to talk through the pros and cons on having this claim cited, and attempt to work with other editors to determine a consensus before making any further edits to this article. I would also reccomend that IB closes their WP:AN/EW report as I believe they have also fallen afoul of the 3RR, and that both take the time to cool off before coming back to this dispute. Thank you both for your continued contributions to the project -- samtar talk or stalk 11:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Samtar. Yes I guess my err was ultimately edit warring, so yeah backing from that. The report will be closed I guess automatically. So now Jeremiah, as Samtar pointed out also, "The content is not controversial and has a number of demonstrated reliable sources", so what do you believe is violating WP:OR here? —IB [ Poke ] 11:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IB, if you could leave a line on the report retracting it, I'll make sure it gets closed. As per Jeremiah's comment below I have renamed this section to be more neutral -- samtar talk or stalk 11:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Samtar I did already in the result section. —IB [ Poke ] 11:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not discuss this in this section. The title is clearly baiting. This user is a child. I have begun a new section at the bottom of the page. Grow up.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremiah: I've renamed the section - please do continue to discuss this so that we can resolve the dispute -- samtar talk or stalk 11:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeremiah: time and time again you are calling the content as WP:FANCRUFT and relegating as WP:OR, when I have clearly demonstrated above that the content is adequately and highly reliable sourced. You are calling the content as bias but have you read the section or the sources? Yes, references are not required in the lead since it is sourced. As WP:LEAD says "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". So that's what should be done. As for the lines, do you have any suggestion which you feel will make it more neutral? —IB [ Poke ] 11:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a rephrase

[edit]

Critics and scholars have noted the album's influence on popular music, especially how it widely introduced electronica music into mainstream pop culture. They have also noted the way in which Madonna was able to re-invent herself and remain contemporary among the teenage artists of the period. Ray of Light has been frequently ranked among the greatest albums of all time. --> Academics have noted the album's influence on popular music, and how it introduced electronica into mainstream pop culture. They also noted Madonna's musical re-invention with the album, which helped her remain contemporary among the teenage artists of the period. Ray of Light has been ranked among lists of greatest albums of all time. How does this look @Jeremiah: and @Samtar:? —IB [ Poke ] 11:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: I don't think that ping worked - anyway, I prefer this re-write to the current text. Would it be possible to add a citation? Although lead items don't need one, a single cite at the end of that would help our readers know exactly where to do to read more about this. What do you think @Jeremiah:? -- samtar talk or stalk 12:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the above, I think we can all sometimes forget who we're writing this content for - the readers of the encyclopedia! Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who knows nothing about Madonna's musical re-invention (which would be an awesome tribute act name) -- samtar talk or stalk 12:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rewrite is good if it contains with a single terminal citation. This will certainly help the reader and immediately lead someone to help establish a claim of the record being "best ever" material. (On my mobile. Editing is friggin hard on a mobile...) @Samtar: and @IndianBio:  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 12:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Great to hear Jeremiah - @IndianBio: do you think you can track down a source for that, I know you've got a couple and you're pretty great at finding new ones - just a single cite which supports the overall sentence would suffice. Thank you both for working together and coming to an agreement -- samtar talk or stalk 12:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samtar: sorry sometimes the ping thing does not work. Yes we can add one citaion for each of the assertion as I gave above. Or can we internally redirect the reader to the legacy section for more details? In terms of reader's perspective only I would say redirecting to the legacy section seems like a plausible thing to do. —IB [ Poke ] 12:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See above edit conflict! -- samtar talk or stalk 12:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samtar: the best source to explain all of this is from Taraborrelli's book Madonna: An Intimate Biography with the lines ... "Ray of Light as another calculated ruse on the part of the artist to exploit rave-inspired electronica music, which was mostly off mainstream pop's radar until Madonna got hold of it. The same page also talks about how Britney and Christina were releasing bubblegum music while Madonna maintained autonomy, as well as the Rolling Stone list. Will that do? —IB [ Poke ] 12:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, go for it -- samtar talk or stalk 12:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jeremiah and samtar, I implemented it with this edit. —IB [ Poke ] 13:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise Edits for

[edit]

I have been attempting to reduce the appearance of bias in the lead by removing and requesting early references. The previous lead contains claims that appear to fall under WP:FANCRUFT. To avoid such accusations I suggest adding references to these specific claims or using more subdued language to make the lead appear more neutral. references may not be *required* in the lead but they certainly will help allay concerns of editorial bias.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your theory above section where there is already discussion. —IB [ Poke ] 11:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremiah, the lead section does not require citations when it summarizes article body text which is fully supported with cites, as in this case. People have been asking you to read WP:LEAD; have you done so? Nothing in the guideline says that bias belongs in the lead section, cited or not. Personally, I thought the wording was quite accurate and neutral before you came along. Nothing at all like fancruft. Binksternet (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of WP:LEAD and the point it is trying to make but this encyclopedia is written for readers not Wiki beurocratcs. Quoting Wiki standards is not going to help a reader that thinks the article was written by a PR firm when loaded language like "best album of all time" is tossed about. The fact that I was not even the first person to bring up WP:FANCRUFT —it was actually Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi in WP:AN/EW—should be enough to substantiate that.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 13:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremiah can you please stop the negative attacking language like "you should be ashamed for using it"? Its extremely incivil and does not contribute in the discussion because none of us here actually added the content. Binskternet has a point which I also believe and Fortuna Imeratrix Mundi is not above all. —IB [ Poke ] 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@IndianBio: "Is not above all": Is that your version of WP:AGF or respecting other editors? I hope not, as you know how that story ends. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 17:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to be admonished by a teenager that had such a huge temper tantrum he labeled an entire section of this discussion using "uncivil" language. Tried to start a report for a 3RR violation he himself committed and then deleted my comments on his talk page when I tried to bring this up. Your tone set this discussion, IndianBio, you can own it. I'm absolutely dissinterested in Madonna, her music, and her discography and you both are clearly NOT. You both should take a step back and consider your bias and fancruft. I'm not responding to any further of your personal attacks or non-relevant comments. Have your childish last words if you must. Hopefully you'll grow into someone that sets the tone for further dissagrements using more diplomatic means.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 13:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion has reached the end of its usefulness. Please all be aware of the civility policy -- samtar talk or stalk 13:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

In the section "Suggest a rephrase" both IndianBio and Jeremiah agreed to the alteration of the lead. I would welcome any other interested editors to provide their comments below, so that a consensus can be made and this discussion closed. My thanks to IB for boldly closing the discussion earlier, however I agree with Binksternet that you are too involved. I propose keeping this discussion open for a couple more days -- samtar talk or stalk 12:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Given the recent decline in usefullness of the discussion, the creeping incivility and the semi-involvement I've had in mediating this, would you be willing to close this? -- samtar talk or stalk 13:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section references

[edit]

References

  1. ^ "Madonna, Ray of Light". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
  2. ^ Taraborelli 2002, pp. 301
  3. ^ Jonas, Liana. "Ray of Light - Madonna". AllMusic. Macrovision Company. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
  4. ^ Harrison 2011, pp. 4
  5. ^ Taraborrelli 2002, p. 327
  6. ^ "Awards Ceremony To Feature A Circus Theme". Billboard. 131: 87. December 5, 1998.
  7. ^ Hiatt, Brian (3 November 2015). "Adele: Inside Her Private Life and Triumphant Return". RollingStone. p. 2. Retrieved 4 November 2015.
  8. ^ "500 Greatest Albums: Ray of Light - Madonna". Rolling Stone. Jann S. Wenner. Archived from the original on December 20, 2010. Retrieved February 23, 2014.
  9. ^ Branigan, Tania (November 22, 2001). "U2 crush Beatles in top album poll". The Guardian. London. Retrieved July 29, 2012.
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.

Certification

[edit]

Ray of Light reached platinum status in Belgium. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Ray of Light. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sepheryn

[edit]

In this entire article, Curtis Maldoon's "Sepheryn" isn't mentioned once. It's the 1971 song that "Ray of Light" was based on. The songwriters are credited, but that's it. 70.77.106.11 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ray of Light. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REFS

[edit]

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ray_of_Light&oldid=1233121506"