Talk:Primera Fila (Thalía album)

ABPD

That information is fake, Thalia was not with this album there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.100.214 (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC) yes,Thalía no is there.It´s fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.13.55.74 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It this the correct title?

In various online CD stores the title of this album appears as "Thalía en Primera fila". [1] --El Mexicano (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, DO NOT change the tracklist and the song titles!!!

I corrected the tracklist various times according to the rules for spelling of Spanish titles, however, somebody always undoes it. DO NOT change it, please, because the correct form is as it is now. Thank you. --El Mexicano (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

3 stars, not 4

Get your fact straight, Primera Fila only scores 3 stars from AllMusic.com, not 4 stars. I edited back. JaymanJohn (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sales and certifications

In "Sales and certifications" section none of the present sources refers to the information contained in the table. Please update sources. --El Mexicano (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious mistakes in the article

Hello. I want to inform you that there are certain mistakes in the article. For example, in Mexico the album has been certified as Diamond + 2x Platinum (420.000). The current certification appearing on the article is diamond + gold (330.000). There has been a long time since the album was at this level of sales. Apart from this, the album is also platinum in USA (100.000) and gold in Argentina and Costa Rica. What's more, there are many syntax and vocabulary mistakes, which indicate that the article was edited (or written) by non-English speakers. If it is fisible, please try to make the corrections. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.139.169 (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the AMPROFON database the certification is Diamond+Gold. As they are the certification authority, unless a contrary reliable source is provided, this will not be changed. Searching the RIAA database for the Platinum certification you claim it has returns nothing. The RIAA database is considered extremely reliable, so no, it will not be added, unless very conclusive proof is provided that the database is suddenly lacking (with my experience of hundreds of searches, it never is). The Argentinian database is currently down, but I remember when I searched it that there was no trace of any certification. Some other source was provided for a Gold certification so it remained. There is no source saying it is certified Platinum. There is no source for a certification in Costa Rica at all. Bottom line, unless you can provide sources, none of these will change. As for language, I'll go over it and fix some, but the general rule is, if you see something needs fixing, fix it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In AMPROFON, if you check the weekly chart that is published on the site, the album is certified as diamond + 2x platinum (link : http://greaves.tv/amprofon3/Top100.pdf ). As for Argentina, it was published even in the official page of Sony Music that the album was certified gold (link : http://sonymusic.com.ar/ ). What's more, Thalia is nominated for 3 Latin Billboard Awards for this album. The article is very uninformed and most people consider Wikipedia as the most reliable source, so there should be full information. I would use the editing tools to fix these problems, but I cannot understand how it functions, for this reason I put it in the discussion panel.

If see your point about the top 100, but the website does not keep an archive, so we will need to archive this page. I'll try to do it myself. I do not see what you claim should be on Sony page, could you provide a more specific link? As for the Latin Billboard Award nomination, find a source and add it. --Muhandes (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I updated the certification. As I said above, everything else will require a source. --Muhandes (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look at the billboard awards and they don't mention the album as the work nominated. These are Artist awards, not Album awards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Primera Fila sold 1.5 million copies, not 700k

Check out this link : http://www.thalia.com/habitame_siempre/Thalia-Bio-2012.pdf It is clearly stated in an official press release by Sony Music that the album sold 1,5 million copies. I keep on editing it but someone is constantly vandalizing the article by removing everything I edit. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.79.48 (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your reference is Thalía's website. Considering that the site is not reliable for sales, as it is very close to her, WP:PRIMARY applies. Secondary reliable sources must say this, but not Thalía or Sony Music. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of the words "press release"? It means that it is re-posted in almost every website out there, because it is an official statement. PLUS (Personal attack removed) think that Sony Music is not a reliable source. You must be kidding, it can't be explained otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your main problem here is that you don't understand that this is not a fansite, regardless if it was a press release. If it was "re-posted in almost every website out there", USE THOSE SITES. We hace rules, and the sites that are WP:PRIMARY with sales and certifications that means SONY MUSIC cannot be used as sources, for example Laundry Service. Shakira's site contradicts itself with sales. Also, stop making attacks to people or otherwise you and your IPs will be blocking from editing. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have no idea regarding to music business, shipments and certifications. The sites that are used as a reference are other sites, not the site of Sony Music itself. It has nothing to do with advertisement here, neither with promotion of a record label, it is just about including important information in a music article. When a music album's shipments are certified, it is something that should be mentioned. When a record label verifies a certification and it is re-stated by other sources as well, it is not promotion for the album, it is about including information about an album's commercial performance. Be more mature, the official site of a record label is not a FANSITE, this is ridiculous. And as for RIAA, it doesn't always include all the certifications or sometimes it takes a lot of time to update the site's database. After all, it's been only days since the album was released, so it would be abnormal to already to have the certification updated on the RIAA site and nowadays albums are certified based on shipments, not sales. But when it is referred in different sites of good reputation, it must be taken into consideration or at least discuss about it in the talk page of the article on whether this specific information should be included or not in the article. What is against Wikipedia's terms and conditions is to remove information from an article because you don't like this information. At least if you were objective, you would open a discussion in the talk page or at least read the "commercial performance" section of the article, in which many references regarding to the gold certification are included. If you have no idea about music articles and stuff, then don't edit them. It would be unfair for me to be blocked from Wikipedia, since I am the one who created this article and has contributed to so many articles in Wikipedia so far, just because you don't want the truth to be stated. Be objective (and by the way checking out your Wikipedia page I noticed that you are a fan of other artists so it may be very possible to remove information from other artists' articles for personal reasons. But it is not a forum here, it is Wikipedia and every user has the right to add information and every verified information should be stated and included, and DISCUSSED before removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I "have an idea regarding to music business", in fact I have written 8 good articles and 1 featured article related to music, so please do not speculate about my life. Also, the person who has no idea what's doing here is you and your necessity to edit Thalía's articles (see all ypur edits, 99% are Thalía-related), plus the IPs you've been using the last days, and do not understand what and when a source is reliable or not. If RIAA take "too much time to update information", or in fact never (My Life Would Suck Without You) is not our problem, we go by authority sources, not what it is supposed to be. Unless the RIAA updates their sites the albums/songs are not certified, if you have a problem with this, e-mail RIAA's mail and complain there. Really you have to understand that "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."

If Lady Gaga says that The Fame has sold 20 million copies, and all sources say 15 million, who is telling the truth? The same applies here. It doesn't matter if it is Sony Music or Thalía Official Website, we must not used them for those purposes. As I told you, self-references should be avoided because of cases like this, where the Shakira's site contradicted itself with 13/20 million copies sold.

You've been told that primary references must be avoided for sales, but you insisted to continue adding Sony's/Thalía's sites through multiple articles. You said at first that it was a press release, why you didn't use sources like Yahoo! or other secondary reference? Read the policies before complaining and insulting others because of your mistakes and lack of knowledge of the rules and guidelines. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Only in Mexico, the album has sold over 540,000 copies according to AMPROFON, it was 4x platinum in Venezuela which equals 40,000 and platinum in Argentina according to CAPIF, which equals 40,000 copies. The album became #1 in both top latin and latin pop albums in US Billboard and stayed in the chart for many months after its release and it's been more than 3 years since it was released. The album also had a moderate success in certain parts of Europe like Spain and Greece plus all over Latin America, where it was certified in almost every country. Does it sound illogical to have sold 1,5 million copies? Is it an extraordinary total sales number? Just use the common sense. It is obvious that this information is official and true. As for the Thalía-related articles, I edit Thalía-related articles because these are the subjects that I know best and can contribute to Wikipedia. Am I goint to be criticized for contributing in Wikipedia? If I were a doctor, I would edit medical articles. Being a Thalía's career follower, it is the best subject I can contribute to, since I've followed her for more than 14 years. What's more, I've already stated it and I will state it again. What is also out of terms, is to edit war. But you don't seem to respect that. When there are doubts on something, it is discussed on the talk page, not removed. So that more sources are encountered, or generally have a variety of views and decide on whether something must be included or not. Or you think that you are the master of Wikipedia and can anytime remove anything you don't like without asking anyone or opening a section in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailormoon94 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (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: Move. We have consensus the proposed title is well established in English-language sources and better fits the relevant guidelines. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Primera fila (Thalía album) → Primera Fila (Thalía album) – It should be at "Primera Fila" or all the Primera Fila albums moved to low caps. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCCAPS. Erick (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCCAPS (sorry). This particular album doesn't occur in a quality printed source, if it did it would follow the normal practice in serious books on Latin music and accurately reflect the album title. Log in to Amazon.com and "LOOK INSIDE" some of the better Latin music books, Steward, Aparicio then search "album" to see whether they Anglocaptialize the album names. They don't, neither should we. We don't do this in classical music articles, why should we be doing it in pop ones? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Allmusic, Billboard, MSN, Amazon. As for some English news sources, WSJ, Miami News Times. Erick (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

These html sources are not our standard for MOS issues. We are an encyclopedia and should reflect quality book sources. As I said this album doesn't occur in a quality printed source, i.e. a book. Do the specialist Latin music books on Amazon Anglocapitalize Latin albums and songs? No. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. Billboard.com is not a reliable source, but Billboard is reliable. Now that makes sense, you don't have a COI with GBooks, you are just a person that believes that printed sources are the most reliable references while online are not. Yes, you don't have a COI, you are just making your own rules, because, as far as everyone knows online sources are not unreliable sources. One more for your upcoming ANI case. Thanks IIO. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tbhotch, This threat of springing some kind of "ANI case" is getting wearing - you've been following me about making trouble such as WP:POINTY AFD of articles, which were all kept, and now you're here complaining that my view is that we should follow book style rather than webpage style? Please read WP:RS and note the line which says "reliable for the statement being made". The issue of reliable sourcing refers to issues such as dates and information, it doesn't refer to MOS/Style issues - WP:NCCAPS is a style/MOS issue. And WP:NCCAPS does not set a rule for foreign language song and album titles, please read it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It neither says that "html sources are not our standard for MOS issues", you are inventing this, or otherwise demostrate printed references are "our standard for MOS issues" with a WP:MOS link. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CT/WP:NCM, and the logical extension of WP:UE that we use English capitalization conventions, not Spanish ones. IIO, we do treat classical and popular composition titles separately, due to NCM. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:BDD are you sure? Then why do so many European language classical titles have European capitalization? I am pretty sure I have seen this in a WikiProject Classical music guideline somewhere. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, for whatever reason, NCM address capitalization for popular music but not classical music. My guess is that, in absence of such guidance, the WikiProject has made its own guidance. If it's widely followed and uncontroversial, perhaps it should just be added to NCM. Ah, here we go: WP:CAPM is the project's guidance, which I don't object to for classical music. --BDD (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew it was there somewhere. I guess I would like to see WP popular music follow the style used in serious English books on Latin popular music - which is similar to WP:CAPM and not similar to Billboard's Lets Cap Everything Approach. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2014 (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.

REFS

• 2012: Worldwide sales as high as 1,5 million copies. REF example
• 2010: 140,000 MEX / 250,000 USA and a total of 1 million - El Universal

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: I think you should include the 250,000 in the article. Nielsen Soundscan is not very accurate to Latin albums and since the release of the album the streming market grow a lot in the World.--88marcus (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: personally, i don't have problem, even keeping both sources and put them in context in the "Commercial performance". Could be the same with other Latin albums such as Paulina in which this source (Telemundo - San Antonio) says that album sold 1 million copies in the USA alone. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: To me is perfect. Those are probably shipments and since Nielsen soundscan have problems with Latin sales data I don't have problem with that. Shakira, Ricky Martin and Enrique Iglesias have the same problems with some of their sales, Nielsen pointed that the albums of some of them sold less than 500,000 but they were certified for 1 million (platinum)--88marcus (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)