Talk:Womanizer (song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Womanizer (song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Womanizer (song) 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.

Womanizer (song) is part of the Circus (Britney Spears album) 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
Date	Process	Result
February 10, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
May 4, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Britney Spears High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Britney Spears, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Britney Spears on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Britney SpearsWikipedia:WikiProject Britney SpearsTemplate:WikiProject Britney SpearsBritney Spears articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italian rock band Maneskin first covered Womanizer at Coachella 2022. Post performance, Maneskin's version received rave reviews internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugg2020 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

why are peak positions bolded?--SveroH (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rank; Single sales/Digital Song sales[edit]

To User:Xwomanizerx, I checked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs and there has been agreement that the Yahoo music blogger in question neither has the personal credentials to serve as reliable himself, does not present his own sources, and does not make the specific claims that you are inferring, that this is a ranking of the top 20. Clearly the song was a huge success, and it may well be that it was as you claim, the fifth-best selling single of the decade, but particularly if so, then there would surely be some other source for that data point. Apparently it has not been certified Gold by the RIAA, which I find surprising given it was #1, but that fact seems to make it less likely it would have exceeded 5 million, and certainly not as a single. Abrazame (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

There are three redlink categories that are confusing: Singlechart usages for Frenchdigital | Singlechart usages for Hungary | Singlechart usages for Swiss. Are these for real and how did they appear as categories. Shouldn't they be removed? werldwayd (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Version?[edit]

There are 2 versions of the music video on Vevo: the director's cut and a Canadian version of the director's cut. From what I see, they are identical. Can someone try to spot a difference and mention it in the article? — /an.dre.jiˈʃor//tɔːk/ 00:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certification[edit]

In the chart performance section, it states the song has reached 3.1 million legal downloads, yet on the RIAA website, the single isn't even certified Gold. I find it very doubtful that the single didn't even reach Gold status, so why isn't it on the website? & under the certifications section on this article, the song has nothing listed for the US. Can somebody find a way to deal with this?

Requested move[edit]

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. Xoloz (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Womanizer (song) → Womanizer – No need for brackets - you can add a hatnote to the wiktionary or something - similar to LMFAO. Unreal7 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The song should not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Based on long-term significance of the term, the Womanizer page should be changed to an {{Redirect to section}} that points to Promiscuity#Male promiscuity. Then have a hatnote there that points back to Britney Spears' song. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons to LMFAO and Nevermind are "other stuff exists" arguments. The difference is that "womanizer"/"womanizing" are mentioned on the Promiscuity article. There is currently not really any encyclopedic content on either "LMFAO" or "Nevermind". Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and also LMFAO song and Nevermind album don't have other media products of the same name. En.wp mentions 4 songs called "Womanizer" so this one should really be at Womanizer (Britney Spears song) per WP:SONGDAB, but not going to push for that as the others weren't singles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zzyzx11, WP:OSE is a bad argument at AfD but generally a pretty good one at RM, since article titles should be approached consistently. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not when one scenario possibly deals with disambiguation, determining a primary topic, and a {{Redirect to section}}, where the other two cases do not. As I mentioned, "womanizer"/"womanizing" currently have encyclopedic content to warrant such DAB/primary topic considerations, while "LMFAO" or "Nevermind" do not. You cannot apply the same consistent criteria if one term requires disambiguation while the others do not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, we are not a dictionary. Support Red Slash 22:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Completely agree with the nominator. A better example is Nevermind. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "not a dictionary" doesn't mean albums and songs replace every other word in the English language. For the dab there's Womanizer (Absolute Steel album) 2006 as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the comparison between the notable subject womanizing and internet slang "LMFAO = Laughing my fucking ass (arse) off" fails because womanizing is an encyclopedic subject whereas "LMFAO (Laughing my fucking ass (arse) off"), isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per WP:ASTONISH. People looking for a wellknown concept should not be greeted by a limited audience song. As popular as BS might be her songtitles are not yet common language. Agathoclea (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Status; move Womanizer to Womanizer (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving "Womanizer (song)" to "Womanizer" and the current "Womanizer" to "Womanizer (disambiguation)", per BDD. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - most instances of womanizing don't even pertain to this song, or even Britney herself for that matter. Womanizing is a much more broad term than that as Agathoclea indicates. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose not the primary topic. The promiscuous male is the primary topic, and it is encyclopedic, not merely dictionary material. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; like Agathoclea stated, people looking for a well-known concept should not be greeted with the Britney Spears song instead. I'm not convinced that the Britney Spears song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for readers looking up the term here at Wikipedia; and even if it is, I still disagree with the proposed move, per what Agathoclea stated. This move would be nearly as bad as the Yesterday move, however, which I disagreed with here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It might be a dicdef, but it is still a search term and it would be perverse to send readers to a song that uses the dicdef as its title. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. The song is not the primary topic. Womanizer should remain a disambiguation page. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Release date[edit]

Britney Spears said in her booklet that comes with the CD for "The Singles Collection" that "Womanizer" debuted on October 18, 2008. http://www.rnbjunk.com/foto/2009/11/10-500x375.jpg DatBoy101 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zomba[edit]

Does it really make sense to list the Zomba Group of Companies as a label for this album? Zomba had been the mother company of Jive, however, in 2007 all Zomba labels were integrated into the BMG Label Group and formed its constituent Jive Label Group, while the Zomba brand ceased to exist. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2018[edit]

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: consensus not to move the song to the plain title, per the discussion below. Additionally, no consensus to move the page to any other title at this time, and no consensus in this discussion to move the disambiguation page at Womanizer to make way for a primary topic redirect. If it is necessary to continue discussing the disambiguation page, please initiate a new move request. Dekimasuよ! 21:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Womanizer (song) → Womanizer – There is no other article called "Womanizer" as seen in the DAB page. But should this move request end against my favour, the term "womanizer" should redirect to "Promiscuity". This is because the DAB page has only two links: this song and the article Promiscuity. The DAB page shouldn't even exist per WP:TWODABS. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and hopefully early close. There are so many things wrong with this proposal that almost don't know where to start. There are five items on the dab page so WP:TWODABS is irrelevant. And the primary topic is clearly womanizing. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but move Womanizer (song) to Womanizer (Britney Spears song) - This song is not the primary topic over the basic term described in the top link on the dab page. Also, this article is WP:INCDAB considering that we have coverage of other songs on Wikipedia, and this articles current title could legitimately also be used as a redirect to any of those. -- Netoholic @ 08:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Not the primary topic. In fact, I think Womanizer should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and the DAB page moved to Womanizer (disambiguation)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Commercial products must not be allowed to capture common words in a reputable encyclopaedia. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll withdraw this move request, but "Womanizer" must redirect to promiscuity per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Someone please delete the DAB page since none of the other terms there have articles, and a hatnote can be added to "promiscuity" article saying "{{redirect|Womanizer|the Britney Spears song|Womanizer (song)}}". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: please re-read WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:DABMENTION. No one is going to be deleting any dab page. 07:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened RFC as per request on my talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per IIO, and Oppose any sort of move - IMHO the current title (and those around it) are absolutely fine. –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think there's enough evidence to determine whether the song is the primary topic over the subsection at Promiscuity which covers the term and concept of the "womanizer" to some detail. The present title is correct as Womanizer (song) per WP:SONGDAB; we don't add artist names unless there are other articles on songs of the same name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying now. Let this move request be closed, let "Womanizer" redirect to "Promiscuity", and retitle the DAB page to "Womanizer (disambiguation)". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's no way the song is the primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.