Talk:Erotica (Madonna album)

Unreleased Songs

1. Goodbye to Innocence
2. You Thrill Me
3. Throb (There's controversy if it is really a Madonna recording from the time, since Janet Jackson recorded during the period her own song Throb. So it is questionable if it is really a Madonna song or a case of mistaken identities)
4. By Alien Means
5. Freak
6. No Entry
7. Love Hurts
8. Shame
9. You Are the One

Can anyone verify any of the above? I just cut it from the article as being completely without sources. Jkelly 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This time around I dewikified a number of redlinked songs and removed a "Greatest Hits" section. See WP:ALBUM for details on what an album article should be, and when to link to songs. Jkelly 05:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

don't know how to edit this but "YOU THRILL ME" is not an unreleased madonna song. it is actually just a demo of erotica. erotica had various demo versions and a few contained the vocal lines "you thrill me" which leaked onto the internet and fans called "you thrill me". it was never a full song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyaj (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eroticaoriginal.jpg

Image:Eroticaoriginal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EroticaoriginalCDcover.jpg

Image:EroticaoriginalCDcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious description

Erotica is a concept album about sexuality and relationships. Each track explores a different facet of sexuality, usually involving sexual relationships. Lyrically, the album does not tie sex and sexual relationships with the traditional ideals of romance. A dance record by all accounts, the album showcases hip hop and jazz-affected club production from co-producers Shep Pettibone and André Betts.

How does every track explore a facet of sexuality? What do "Bye Bye Baby", "Bad Girl", "Waiting", "Thief of Hearts", "Words", "Rain", "Why's It So Hard", "In This Life" or "Secret Garden" have to do with exploring sexuality? Of course, some of them make allusions to sex and sexuality, but sexuality is not the main focus.

I also fail to see how "Where Life Begins", "Bad Girl", "Waiting", "Rain", "In This Life" and "Secret Garden" can be called dance songs, so I'm not entirely sure the definition of the album as a "dance record by all accounts" is accurate. The whole first paragraph of the "Album information" section seems riddled with personal opinions. 201.22.37.46 (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sales

In the intro is written that the album had sold over 10 million units globally but in the latter part of the article I see 5 million units. Both are without sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phonography (talk • contribs) 01:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 03:10, 25 February 2010 (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) 15:49, 19 July 2011 (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 consensus. The unwritten convention is that an article not at the primary topic needs a completely unambiguous disambiguator and, unsurprisingly, most of the RM "regulars" who have commented here have expressed that opinion. However, this is not explicitly written in to WP:DAB and, although it gets brought up at WT:DAB every now and then there has never been a consensus to do something about it. As such I don't see either the supports or opposes being very deeply rooted in policy and because there's no clear numerical majority either I'm not seeing a consensus. As a side note, using WP:TWODABS in this sort of discussion is quite bizarre. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Erotica (Madonna album) → Erotica (album) – This album is more popular and more familiar to people than some band's album. If possible, extra disambiguation is no longer necessary, unless there will be another challenging album with the same name. George Ho (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry George but what's the benefit? We try to avoid brackets, but once they are there I cannot see where Wikipedia:Disambiguation says to establish a primary in the bracket. Someone looking for Erotica by Roberto Perera (1990) Erotica by Darling Buds (1992) both of which have en.wp text mentions isn't benefiting from making the disambiguator ambiguous when it shows up in the RH search box. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well... how do we know that they are challenging topics? How do we know that 4-6 people are looking for non-Madonna album? --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But even the 90% who are looking for the Madonna album benefit from current non-ambiguous title, without the (Madonna ...) there's nothing to tell the 90%, great that's it, that's what I'm looking for, click. What is the benefit to anyone of removing it? Chances are they're going to search "Erotica + Madonna" anyway, at least as likely as typing "Erotica + Album" so again whom does removing it benefit and how? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to use Google, but "erotica album" and "erotica Madonna" result almost the same on first pages (well, with Wikipedia included). From Yahoo (Wikipedia excluded): "Madonna" term results the same as "album" term. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and, especially, WP:TWODABS. Why send Erotica (album) to the Erotica dab page? Much better to have the Madonna album there, with a hatlink to the lesser known album. Some are helped; no one is hindered, which is the point of TWODABS in situations like this. It's all good. --B2C 22:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NCM, articles should not have ambigous disambiguation. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is not the priamry topic of "Erotica", so should be properly disambiguated. "(album)" is not part of any PT consideration, since it only concerns the undisambiguated title. WP:TWODABS doesn't apply, there isn't one, Erotica (disambiguation) has many more than 2 articles. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As noted above, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to titles that already have disambiguators because almost no one will actually type "Erotica (album)" as a search term. Getting readers navigated to the article they are most likely seeking from an unqualified title (i.e., Erotica (disambiguation)) is the purpose of primary topic. See Talk:Loud (Rihanna album) and Talk:Rumors (Lindsay Lohan song) for recent similar cases. —  AjaxSmack  03:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Suuport The opposers are wrong. Per WP:ALBUM's own MOS: "If there is a primary album, such as Thriller (album), then that would get the primary (album) disambiguation, and only the secondary albums, Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album) or Thriller (Lambchop album) need be disambiguated by band". There is not evidence Erotica (The Darling Buds album) is important or notable enough to have an album ambiguity. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support WP:ALBUM's, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:TWODABS and especially, WP:COMMONSENSE. Chrishonduras (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Ajax nailed it. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ...Nailed a poor excuse. WP:ALBUM's style is never referred at Loud, and "Rumours" is irrelevant here. This article is about an album, not a song. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ALBUM and the rest, per Tbhotch. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per Tbhotch. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Darling Buds album is quite possibly of more lasting cultural significance than Madonna's, a point easily overlooked. Safest by far to leave as is, and harmless. Note that there are at least three reasonably well known albums by this name, and probably many more less well known. Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Sorry, Andrewa but respectfully "The Darling Buds album is quite possibly of more lasting cultural significance than Madonna's, a point easily overlooked" this is a Argument from ignorance. Furthermore: Let's be realistic, the band is of independent music. Around the world, in all media, the term "Erotica" as such is fully referred to Madonna. The equivalent of Michael Jackson with Thriller. I do not know how many languages ​​you drive, but if you have any questions, we can make comparisons. Nothing more, is that I think your comment is "baladi". Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. One of the criteria of WP:TITLE is "Precision". Erotica (Madonna album) is more precise.--Salix (talk): 23:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you explain, with your own words, why WP:PRECISION is appropiate and WP:ALBUM and WP:TWODABS are not? Your comment never explain why we should disambiguate two albums (one notable and the other barely notable) under a "more precise" title, especially when 600 people are looking for what can be considered as the primary topic of albums, versus 10 people. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply Erotica (Madonna album) leves no confusions as to what it might be, Erotica (album) is ambiguous. There is not lack utility in the current title. The reader will not be confused indeed they will be reassured they have the right page by the name. Following WP:IAR which title makes the article better? --Salix (talk): 07:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"The reader will not be confused indeed they will be reassured they have the right page", in that sense, Wikipedia should stop because of 10 persons, and 600 of other people are ignored as we send them to a dab page. Good rationale which still ignoring why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide should be ignored. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why the opposers cannot get there are only three albums with that name, and two of them have an article. Why WP:ALBUM is OK with Thriller (album) but not OK with this album, please be logical and use common sense. Now, if the problem is the other page, it fails WP:NALBUM and should be deleted unless somebody start to prove why it is a notable album. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just thinking how people might find the page. If you type "Erotica" in the search box you come up bunch of suggestions, the second of which is "Erotica (Madonna album)" that tells the reader thats is definitely the page they are looking for. They might also search for "erotica madonna" which finds the page as the two key points are mentioned in the title and can be search for. If the title was just "Erotica (album)" then when searching its not completely obvious and it does not have the key word madonna making searching harder.--Salix (talk): 13:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you prove it is easier to search this page by "(Madonna album)" instead of (album)? Because it takes about 5-10 seconds to type her name--also note that Erotica (Madonna album) will still existing as a redirect, and the hatnote {{other uses}} will be used, as it was created for that reason. This discussion is not about moving "Erotica (Madonna album)" to "Erotica", in which all of you have a valid readon to oppose this RM. This discussion is about "Erotica (Madonna album)" being moved to "Erotica (album)". Your comments are basically poorly formulated. You say that people won't confuse Madonna album with The Darling Buds album, but it is illogical that you want to protect the interests of 10 daily viewers that search for TDB album and make 600 people being redirected to a dab page, when they are probably not looking for the concept of "Erotica" or any other use of the word. It is also illogical that you believe people types "Madonna" when they search this album. Google has 10,400,000 hits with "Erotica (album)", and "Erotica Madonna" has the halve of that. "Erotica Madonna album" does not improve the hits, giving it only 1,410,000, and TDB still proving the lack of notability with only 31,300 hits with Erotica the darling buds + 11,100 hits with Erotica the darling buds album.

As I have told you multiple times, WikiProject Albums has a style of writing articles, including its title. This is a consensus, and you, as an admin, perfectly know what "consensus" means. When people search Michael Jackson's Thriller album, they don't type Thriller (Michael Jackson album), they simply search for "Thriller (album)". Why? As simple as it is the primary topic when discussing albums. And I can cite you multiple example, like Imagine (album) or The Dark Side of the Moon. The same applies here. The album is not a primary topic of the word "Erotica", but it is the primary topic of albums, and you cannot prove otherwise. This will sound POINTy, but if the problem is the other article, I will AFD, per WP:NALBUMS, and this page should be moved with no objections as there would be no other album with an article, which seems to be the reason why you are opposing this RM. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 14:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Tbhotch. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current level of disambiguation "Madonna album" is about right. Any less is too little. To focus on recent popular music is to focus too narrowly with respect to the whole of Wikipedia. The typical reader, on seeing seeing a link or title en.wikipedia.org/Erotica (album) should not be expected to naturally assume "Madonna", and for those who do should not be put out by seeing "Madonna" in the title. No 23-character title should be considered "too precise". As for google hits, our goal is closer to providing "an easy access to information" than to providing "information tightly coupled to google hit counts". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

  Your oppose never use a policy or guideline to support you, nor says why WP:ALBUM/WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:TWODABS are wrong, nor why Thriller (album) should be different to Erotica (album). Also, "Erotic" is not the correct name. On a side note, if our goal is to "easy access to information", why you want 10 million potental readers with their information access to be blocked just because the interests of few ones. Really, if you want to oppose this, give a better reason. As now, nobody has proven a) WP:ALBUM is wrong, b) Thriller (album) is an exception to any rule, and c) any kind of notability TDB's album has. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, the missing a in Erotica there was a typo. Now fixed.

  The guidelines are wrong because they reflect a false consensus, being written by non-representative editors, who for reasons I don't get seem to want to minimise the number of characters in all titles. I would prefer albums to be titled "Title (artist)", dispensing with the "album" unless there is a reason, such as a similarly named song, book or film, by the same artist, for it. I think it weird that the artist is included in the title if they are not famous, and left out if they are.

  I have no idea what you are talking about, about wanting 10 million readers blocked?? Which ever way the rename goes, a redirect will remain at the other. I prefer the actual title to be unambiguous.

  (a) Why do you want someone to "prove" a WikiProject (WP:ALBUM) wrong?

  (b) Why do you think everyting has to be based on rules? I'd prefer to see Thriller (Michael Jackson album).

  (c) The preferred name for a Madonna album should not depend on the lack of notability of any other album. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunatley (to you) consensus is consensus, you like it or not. If you don't like it, or you believe it is wrong or "false", this is not the venue to discuss it, and as long as it exists it must be followed under ArbCom decisions. "I prefer", "I'd prefer", "I think", etc. are "your preferences" and are not a guideline or policy. Your views are correct in the sense that everybody can comment, but if you are going to affect pages with them at least you should use valid references or something to support you, like I've done multiple times here. Go and change Wikipedia's MoS where you should, at WT:MOS. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Madonna" belongs in the title of this page. That comment always belongs on this page.

  Arb Com has no role with respect to content.

  Policy is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. And you are citing guidelines and WikiProjects. The governing policy is WP:AT. Why don't you go to WT:AT and help me make my point that too many people have the misapprehension that the MOS guidelines (the multitude of them) are to be interpreted as "law". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – An album as controversial as this and who's Google hits come up surely for the Madonna album, can easily be the primary topic for the Erotica dab and, also as per Tbhotch's explanation. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:53, 20 March 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.

About genre information

Could this really be considered a pop rock, or even an electronic album? What are the references to that, besides Allmusic? In earlier versions of the article there appeared to be a more realistic view on the genres influencing the sound of the album, house music and new jack swing being the most obvious influences; there might be some jazz-influenced tracks produced by Andre Betts, at least to my ear. Also, I am sure that any change could be referenced, by looking through most of the objective album reviews online. I suggest that the genre section in the info-box should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.255.129 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)