Wikipedia

Talk:Like a Virgin (album)/Archive 1

< Talk:Like a Virgin (album)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Apoxyomenus in topic REFS
Archive 1

A Question of Stumps

Despite being well-known and, IMHO, a pretty good song, it would seem to me that this article will never really go anywhere, and might just be better off having its guts moved over to Madonna. Like a Virgin, to the best of my knowledge as a Madonna fan, doesn't really have enough of a back-story to warrant it's own article. Sure, I could crank out some articles like ROYGBIV (Boards of Canada song) or My Fair Lady ('Boogiepop Phantom' TV Episode #4), but at what point does this stop being appropriate ? - Tzaquiel 17:06 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. If nobody can see how an entry will ever grow into a serious article, as opposed to a stump, its content should be merged into an appropriate parent article. That said, there seems no harm in leaving such stubs for a week or so to see if they do get expanded. Like a Virgin was only created today, so why not give it a chance? If anyone thinks it can become more than a stub, let hir prove it by doing so... Martin
Well you could point out the Reservoir Dogs reference, and there are probably a few other things that this track has had a cultural influence on. I doubt whether before this song came out any child under 10 was ever heard to sing the word 'virgin'; with the possible exception of some refence to Queen Elizabeth I. Mintguy
I am no fan of Madonna, but I see some value to it, as it is now. This kind of basic info. is not bad to have. Of course, it would be better if one can add how the song was/has been received, any influence on the piece, influence of the piece on others, etc. I am no plan to familiarize myself to Madonna, but if I were, I would possibly come back to the article and find it worth reading. Tomos 04:44 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Before changing the infobox on this (or any other album article), please achieve consenses at WP:ALBUM and Template talk:Album infobox. Thanks. Jkelly 01:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Japanese peak chart position

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This IP 210.225.215.20 changed the peak chart position of this album to 91 with this Oricon source. Yes that's the official oricon site, but pleae note that there are various releases of Like a Virgin in Japan: Like a Virgin (origal release in 1984, peaked at #2), Like a Virgin 2,000 (in 1985, peaked at #2), Like a Virgin 2,800 (in 1986, peaked at #88), Like a Virgin - Picture (in 1987, peaked at #57) and Like a Virgin (in 1989, peaked at #91). This Oricon source by the IP is the peak position for the last release of Like a Virgin in 1989. Peak position ---> 過去最高 91位 登場回数 1回, release date ---> 1989年05月25日発売. So the original Like a Virgin album actually peaked at #2 in 1984. I have searched the chart archieve for Like a Virgin in 1984 on the oricon.co.jp, but I could not find it. And my source is seemed reliable enough. This site is also used at Michael Jackson albums discography for his peak chart position in Japan. I hope the matter is clear Bluesatellite (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your addition Bluesatellite and find the IP's addition to be quite dubious since its adding the last lowest peaking release. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
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: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


{{requested move/dated}}

– The album is viewed as twice the song. However, I do believe that, if disambiguated, the viewership will be the same as the song. Look at What's Going On (album) (before disambiguation on 4/12/2013, after 4/12/2013 , and May 2013), What's Going On (song) (March, April, and May) and What's Going On (disambiguation) (after 4/12/2013 and May 2013). As for long-term significance, I am very unsure. The Madonna album has many notable songs, while the titular Madonna song itself had a music video and notorious live performances. I chose disambiguate page as a primary topic because, like "What's Going On" and unlike "...Baby One More Time" and "Oops!... I Did It Again", there are numerous topics of a similar name. George Ho (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If so many readers wanted another article, one would expect more than 269 visits to the disambiguation page to find them. You haven't shown any statistics suggesting otherwise, so barring evidence to the contrary, I believe the current setup doing its job perfectly well.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, they had help from AutoComplete search system. 11.1k (song+film) against 22k (album)... isn't that big, although it seems so. The readers must have looked through infobox or the lede paragraph to look for the song. --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Meaning they're getting where they want to be in the current setup. And 22k vs. 11k is twice as many; it implies the album is "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term".--Cúchullain t/c 20:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
How is the title associated more with the album than the song? I mean, outside stats. --George Ho (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that I wanted to canvass without knowing it or admitting it until now. Maybe I should hold back and be a voter more than a proposer, so I can learn how to make good arguments that could help convince a closing admin. --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • My take on your behavior, and I believe this is what Tbhotch was communicating, is that you have been initiating too many requested moves. I believe that this behavior saps the project, takes too much energy away from content creation. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 28 May 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.

Bulgarian pressing

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Bulgarian pressing did not credit either Sire or Warner Bros. Should I use the front cover? --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:NFCC, if you haven't already. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

—Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible Update

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given the many new sources discussing this album because of its 30th anniversary, is there perhaps an updated figure available for sales? The figure currently used is from August 2008, and I've been looking for a more recent count. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read through all of them in detail, but yeah, I agree that there might be an updated source. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago63 comments22 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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: Moved album per precedent elsewhere; left dab page alone, in case song goes there. As noted below, the simple name will always get an inflated number of hits, but inherently the primary topic is the song, which gave its name to the album. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I was told I may have made a mistake in not moving the dab page. Perhaps I have. But the precedents are not there. Of those mentioned below, ...Baby One More Time is the song, not the dab page, and Like a Prayer violates TWODABS. I am tempted to move both Like a Virgin (song) and Like a Prayer (song) to the primary name, per ...Baby One More Time, but since that wasn't the requested move, I'll leave it for further discussion. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

– Let's take Talk:Born This Way (album), Talk:...Baby One More Time (album), and Talk:Like a Prayer (album) as precedents for this discussion. Two years ago, disambiguation was proposed, but there was no consensus, although it was closed as "not moved". Similar to Born This Way, the Madonna album of the same name looks more popular than the well-known song. However, "Like a Virgin" has been associated with the song, not the album, despite statistics. But we are not certain of whether the song is more primary than the album, so I propose the dab page to take the base title (again). Regarding the previous RM, there were three opposes and two supports, but opposition weighed in. This time, I'll include Google Book searches. Basically using a base title, the results look generic. Add in Madonna; you get equal results of the album and the song. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Add in "album"; you get 4,000(?). Add in "song"; not much difference. But I'll not be confident with the hits as I can't get past some other pages (maybe). George Ho (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said, a lot of hits for the song will also discuss the album it's on, and vice versa, especially with sources that are really about one or the other, and aren't just passing mentions. Either way it doesn't look as if readers are being confused by the current setup.
I'll add in another objection here: WP:CONCEPTDAB. According to the page views, thevast majority of readers are looking for this album or the song from it. The album contains good information about the song as well as links to its article, meaning people who type in "Like a Virgin" are finding relevant information rather than a dead end. If we're really worried, we can add the song to the hat note; that way folks looking for the song will find it as quickly as if we directed everyone to the dab page.--Cúchullain t/c 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
How is the album a broad concept? As for the album page, they don't need to search for hit songs of the album. "Material Girl", "Into the Groove", "Love Don't Live Here Anymore", and "Dress You Up" are not disambiguated and easy to search in Wikipedia without having to read through the album page just for tracklist. As for "Like a Virgin (song)" and "Angel (Madonna song)", they are disambiguated by parenthetical words. Searching for these songs depend on readers though, but they don't have to read the whole album page just for these songs, right? George Ho (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Material, Dress, Love Don't, Groove, Angel. --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to propose changes to those articles, do it at their talk pages. Re WP:CONCEPTDAB, this article covers the album as well as summary material and links for the song. It provides real information instead of a dead end, which is what a dab page would do. That's beyond the fact that it's the apparent WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain t/c 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Reading Wikipedia:Broad-concept articles (shortcut WP:BCA), the album is not hard or difficult to write about. Somehow, the writing went so sophisticated to become a Good Article, but same for other Madonna-related pages. Also, I don't see it as an abstract or a wide range of related concepts. The album just contains hits and mainstream-friendly songs that barely has anything to do with each other. But relationship between this album and the individually-notable songs are not that difficult. I'm not assuming they are easy to write about, but making an album an example of a broad concept is absurd and would mock the meaning of a broad concept. The fact that Madonna chose Like a Virgin as a title of both the song and the album wouldn't make either concept "broad" as you claim. If you want a broader concept, why not create "like a virgin" article, whose main topic is not music but broader. George Ho (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't follow most of that. The point is, the article covers material about itself and the singles from it, including Like a Virgin (song). Considering that the vast majority of readers using the search term "Like a Virgin" are looking for one of these two related articles, the current setup serves them a lot better than preemptively sending everyone to a dab page.--Cúchullain t/c 12:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to say that the album is not a suitable example of a broad concept, according to WP:BCA (stand-alone, not a section). Did you not read that stand-alone guideline? --George Ho (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying the article contains information about the song, which is true. When the vast majority of readers are looking for two related topics, it's more helpful to send them to a place where those topics are discussed than to a dead end.--Cúchullain t/c 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Not if the reader is a mobile user as apparently the majority of music readers are. Why can't they get the choice of (album) and (song) and make the choice for themselves, no reason. Move. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The evidence continues to show that the album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as it receives twice the page views of the song and all other potentially ambiguous topics combined This should be taken with a grain of salt since "Like a Virgin" currently points to the album article. Obviously the Madonna album is far more popular than anything not having to do with the singer, but it's not primary with the album's title track taken into consideration. Chase (talk | contributions) 03:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said in my initial comment, if readers were really getting confused we'd be seeing a lot more than 500 views on the dab page in 90 days. The current setup seems to be getting people where they want to go pretty effectively.Cúchullain t/c 23:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily when Like a Virgin (song) is linked in both the infobox and lead. The album and song are equally popular, so even if it's "working", that doesn't mean the current setup is abiding by WP:PTOPIC: If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The point of any policy is to best serve readers, and the statistics show that the current setup is serving them well (much better than sending tens of thousands of people to a dead end every month). To serve them even further we could add the song to the hatnote given that the vast majority of people using the search term "Like a Virgin" want one of these two related topics. However, I don't see much evidence to challenge the album's place as primary topic.--Cúchullain t/c 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
But what is the evidence that the album is the primary topic? The viewcount argument is flawed for reasons already stated. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In my original comment.--Cúchullain t/c 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I repeat... The viewcount argument is flawed for reasons already stated. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No, not really. I repeat, "if readers were really getting confused we'd be seeing a lot more than 500 views on the dab page in 90 days". Even if every viewer of the song got there after coming here first, the album would still win out by thousands of views.--Cúchullain t/c 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Uhh... no. Because using the stats I provided here, if every editor who has viewed Like a Virgin (song) in the last 90 days came here first, then we subtract 19,000 from Like a Virgin's 37,000 views. That puts the album article at 18,000 views, which is on par with the views for the song article. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I realize I was looking at the numbers from the last RM, but the point is the same: unless we assume that most or all viewers of the song article came here first (and clicked a link or something, as they're not going to the dab page in any large number), the evidence points to more activity for the album.--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Chase, the rule would apply if the disambiguation page has only two entries. Did you overlook Like a Virgin (film)? George Ho (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
However many topics there are is irrelevant; the spirit of the rule applies: because of the near-equal popularity of the song and album, there is no primary topic. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In the context of a previous move request I do not see a status quo. More, I think, will have been written about "like a virgin" as a song. When "like a virgin" is mentioned i suspect more people will think of the tune / song words of video rather than the album. I wouldn't be suprised that, if this move was not made, another editor would propose the move and editors will have to go through this all again. The song was released on November 6, 1984 with the album being released on November 12. Currently Like a Virgin (disambiguation) presents ""Like a Virgin" (song), a song by Madonna from the album of the same name". I think that this could as well be presented as, "Like a Virgin (album), an album by Madonna named after the song of the same name". As far as the title is concerned the song comes first and I think that we currently have a backward presentation. GregKaye 07:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I reworded the hat note to contain a link to the song, if that helps a bit. I too consider the song the primary topic, but the album contains several notable songs. Randy Kryn 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Neither topic is primary. The album era is over. —  AjaxSmack  22:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, wouldn't want to see the overall name go into a disamb page, the topic is identified with the singer herself, so moving the primary off of her creative work would be sending it off-topic. This album has more than one hit song and, even if the era of the album is over (I disagree, albums are often creative works in-total, and the best ones are not dissimilar to films, novels, and other thought-out art forms) this album made and makes an impact in the career of Madonna and the culture of the time. Randy Kryn 11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: How much of an impact an album make wouldn't affect which page a reader is looking for. The album has numerous notable songs, but other readers search for familiar songs, like Material Girl and title track, Like a Virgin. Shall we create redirect pages with "(redirect)"? That's how it's done in Doctor Zhivago (now a dabpage). --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I can't say which article is the primary topic, due to the fact that both the album and the song are highly notable. So, IMO, let it just become a disambiguation. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Song more notable than the album, and really should be primary topic. —Lowellian (reply) 08:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cuchullain, who frankly has made the only convincing argument this whole RM. I was going to close this, but due to strength of argument I couldn't justify closing it as moved despite the clear numerical majority. Votes that simply claim the song is as (or more) notable/prominent are pretty useless, provide some actual evidence for your claim rather just your gut instinct. Jenks24 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides his argument about album containing hits, were you convinced by Cuchullain's interpretation of broad concept? --George Ho (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was interesting idea, though I can't say with my closer's hat on that it would have weighed in my (hypothetical) decision. I definitely think the idea that at least with the present situation the reader will get some of the information he/she is looking for, regardless of whether they want the album or the song, is a better situation than having the dab page at the base location and they get nothing. Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, many readers read just the introduction. In this case, just the intro and the track listing may be what general readers are looking for. They can pick one of hit songs in the lede and click right thru. As for the song, if they want to read further after the intro about the song, then let's give them what they want. --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, sorry. Jenks24 (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with George Ho, the main songs in the album, including 'Like a Virgin', should be named and linked in the first lead paragraph. Randy Kryn 13:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • per Cuchullain, who frankly has made the only convincing argument this whole RM. The argument that it receives more views than other topics, despite the fact that this is currently at the base title for "Like a Virgin" which renders that point irrelevant as readers looking for the song and other topics are pointed here first? (I countered this point above and was not rebutted.) Meanwhile those in support have cited guidelines such as MOS:DAB for why this should be moved. It's a very good thing you did not close this, indeed, because I can assure you this would be at MRV right now.

    And as for the evidence you want: Like a Virgin (song) received 19,000+ views in the last 90 days, a figure comparable to Like a Virgin's 37,103 views, which is already skewed due to readers who accidentally come here looking for the song or other "Like a Virgin" topics. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition, the album contains five hit songs, any of which could have inflated the album views, it's the song that gets played on the radio, performed (including by other artists) etc., not the album, and, as AjaxSmack points out above, "the album era is over." --Richhoncho (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional discussion

  • A question that has come up in the two RM discussions is whether the album article's pageviews are inflated by readers seeking the song article. To test this, I just piped several links from the album article to the song article with the barely used "Like a Virgin (Madonna song)" (until now, 2-3 views per week) to check number of readers seeking the song article; after a bit of time, check these pageview stats for an increase to get an idea roughly how many readers are seeking the song rather than the article. —  AjaxSmack  22:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the pipe links. This is a wikipedia page, not a test link, and I believe you have got whatever result you were looking for. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You also reverted my link to the song in the hatnote, which wasn't a test but a way for readers to gain quick access to the song. Can it be put back if this present discussion closes with no change? Either that or a link to the song in the first couple sentences of the lead. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
User:IndianBio, I'm fine with the revert if it disturbs you that much. It's not a big deal to me. I was just trying to help unravel the mystery of how many readers were seeking the song. This method has been used before in similar cases and it does not create any extra steps for readers. For example, as a user at this RM discussion notes, "Back in 2013, the links to the United States and Americas articles on [the America] page were made to go through the specially created redirect pages US (country) and Americas (continent) so that people could get a handle on how many people landing at this page were looking for each of the two topics." Many other pages are linked through redirects, names that are not the article title, which is perfectly in line with WP:NOTBROKEN / WP:NOPIPE. —  AjaxSmack  18:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
A brilliant, constructive and harmless piece of detective work, I can't see what the problem was with it. But putting it all in perspective, we're taiking about a smutty and overrated piece of music by a smutty and overrated artist who does very well in our smutty and overrated culture (and good luck to the self-confessed Material Girl, she's good at what she does but for my money Lady Gaga and many, many others are even better). The song is an ear bug to many who wouldn't know or care that the album even exists, but who really cares? All of the proposed solutions to this non-problem are acceptable. Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree this was a good idea. Jenks24 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2015 (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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Like a Virgin (album). 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) 19:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Like a Virgin (album). 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) 06:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

“Every important artist...”

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the article for “Like a virgin”:
“According to author J. Randy Taraborrelli, "Every important artist has at least one album in his or her career whose critical and commercial success becomes the artist's magic moment; for Madonna, Like a Virgin was just such a defining moment."”
On the article for “Like a prayer”:
“Taraborrelli wrote that Like a Prayer was a turning point's in Madonna's career; "Every important artist has at least one album in his or her career whose critical and commercial success becomes the artist's magic moment; for Madonna [...] Like a Prayer was. [Madonna] pushed onwards as an artist, using her creative wit to communicate on another level, musically."”
So... which is it ?
--Abolibibelot (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It is both actually. The quote on p. 164 of the book says "For Madonna, Like a Virgin was just such a defining moment. Like a Prayer was another." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww adh77 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

REFS

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • First female artist to sell over 6 million copies (Herald Weekly)
  • Her album Like a Virgin (1984), which included the hit single "Material Girl," became the first album by a woman artist to sell more than 7 million copies | The World Book encyclopedia (World Book, Inc) - Volume 13 - Page 37, 2000 (year)
  • The seventh female solo artist to hit the 10 million mark in the United States (Billboard June 13, 1998; pag 15)
  • 2 million copies in the United States in December 1984 alone. Madonna book
  • In America, around 75,000 copies of Like a Virgin were dancing off the shelves daily. Madonna book
  • WEA's biggest performer of the past year has been Madonna's "Like A Virgin" album, at 260,000 units (Billboard 9 Nov 1985, pag A-6)
  • Gold in Brazil (November 1985); meaning 80,000 copies
  • The most important albums of the past 30 years — Folha de S.Paulo (1997, Brazil)
  • Albums of the 1980s — peak 3, by Sounds (UK, 1989)
  • Perhaps as much, if not more, than any other album of the mid-1980s, Madonna's Like a Virgin helped in a significant way to establish postdisco dance-club music as part of the pop palette | pag, 112 in Listen to Pop! Exploring a Musical Genre by James E. Perone
  • Japan - peak #2 (already included with other ref)
  • 800.000 copies in Japan (but from Sony Music) — Note: Current sales in that country were provided by Oricon Chart book
  • BRASIL: Quando a gravadora WEA lançaou o primeiro long-play da roqueira Madonna ("Like a Virgin") no Brasil, no ano pasado, precisou de 14 meses para vender 410 mil cópias. O segundo, "True Blue", lançado en julho último, alcancou 205 mil em duos semanas. | Exame (pag 62) 1986 — NOTE: 410,000 copies in Brazil in 14 weeks (her 1993 tour that visited the country boosted sales)
  • Double Platinum in Hong Kong (but from her record label)

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Drummer Dave Weckl didn't record any song in the album.

The liner notes pointer in the main article may be wrong. In the Personnel section they read "Credits adapted from the album's liner notes.[122]" In the reference pointed "Like a Virgin (LP, Vinyl, CD). Madonna. Sire Records. 1984. 9 25157-2." is written. However, none of them can be considered as a proof. The inlay liner scans from the Warner Music 2001 re-issued CD show the actual musicians contribution to the album.

Here are the inlay liner scans:

https://www.covercentury.com/covers/audio/m/Madonna_-_Like_A_Virgin_2811_Tracks29-booklet5.jpg is for page one and https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YJM766qf5ps/TCF1wmm-z3I/AAAAAAAAF_Q/jIpX7O65YLs/s1600/Booklet-2.jpg for page two.

Anyway I point the links in full: [1] [2]

No drummer Dave Weckl can be found. The correction has already been made.

References

  1. ^ https://www.covercentury.com/covers/audio/m/Madonna_-_Like_A_Virgin_2811_Tracks29-booklet5.jpg
  2. ^ https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YJM766qf5ps/TCF1wmm-z3I/AAAAAAAAF_Q/jIpX7O65YLs/s1600/Booklet-2.jpg
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Like_a_Virgin_(album)/Archive_1&oldid=1156025754"