Talk:Hard Candy (Madonna album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hard Candy (Madonna album) 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 star Hard Candy (Madonna album) is the main article in the Hard Candy (Madonna 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 9, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
July 26, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
August 28, 2010 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Madonna (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna (entertainer) 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Albums (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject R&B and Soul Music (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pop music (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Hip hop (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


WARNING: Online Sources[edit]

Editors should stop using as a source for international sales information. This website is nothing more than a fansite and such sites cannot be used as valid, reliable sources for Wikipedia articles (see WP:RS). Where possible, please use information from official chart and record industry sources (such as Billboard and the RIAA for the US, the BPI for the UK, etc). I'm going to give editors time to replace all of the instances where has been used, but if this source is still listed on the article in 4 weeks time, the source will be deleted and replaced with a "citation needed" tag. (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Charts[edit]

It says that the album has sold 5,914 copies in Bulgaria.Do you guys know the exact source?any charts and sales for bulgaria???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In Bulgaria 10.000 copies have been shipped and over 7.000 sold so far.The album has received "Gold" certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 06 July 2008 (UTC)


Is there going to be a moment when you all will agree about the sales numbers? Does anyone have proper data or you are just trying to be smart as most people who write here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In HUNGARY the album NEVER reached the first posotion. Hard Candy is on the 2nd position. No. > Number M > Last week position H > Number of weeks CS > Peak position —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The cd is now in 2nd place, but when it was new it was on first place, so don't say things that you don't know . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The cd is now in 2nd place but when it was new was in first place, don't say things that you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Review from "People"[edit]

"people" gave the album 4 out of 4 stars. Please someone add the review in this page. You can see a scanned page from the review here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add more of the good reviews and comments the album has been getting to the critical response section. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the same, but about the bad reviews ( I am a Madonna fan, but Wikipedia has to be the truth ) - reviews like Pitchwork who gave something like 5.3 out of 10, metacritic (64 %), allmusic guide (2 stars), NME (50 %), these are serious critics. Uncut (3 stars)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, It doesn't matter if there have been many bad critics, the cd is having a great success anyway maybe not like another discs of her but is an incredible success also and it sold more than 3 million copies in just 3 months and we are sure that it will sell much more than this during the time, and sticky & sweet tour will help a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Deltion (2/2/08)[edit]

Why is this article being considered to be deleted? If its too much vandalism then locked the article from edits? I'm very confused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Breathless debate[edit]

Can we please not get into another stupid debate about the album "I'm Breathless" it is considered by wikipedia as a "soundtrack" and this matter was settled many months ago now. To start this debate again on this new album page is pointless as this matter has been settled! JWAD


I don't see a source for the Mika collaboration, nor it's on 'The Sun' online. Is it on print?

In fact, Mika denied collaborating with Madge on the latest issue of Boyz Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Twelfth studio album?[edit]

Madonna's next studio album would be her eleventh, no? So far, there has been Madonna, Like a Virgin, True Blue, Like a Prayer, Erotica, Bedtime Stories, Ray of Light, Music, American Life, and Confessions on a Dance Floor - that's ten, if my addition serves me correctly. So Madonna's next studio album would be her eleventh, unless you're counting I'm Breathless.

I'm Breathless is a studio album. —The Real One Returns 04:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. Madonna's management and record label confirm this. (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Madonna studio albums[edit]

  • Studio album #1 — Madonna
  • Studio album #2 — Like A Virgin
  • Studio album #3 — True Blue
  • Studio album #4 — Like A Prayer
  • Studio album #5 — I'm Breathless (Yes, this *IS* a studio. A CONCEPT album based around the film Dick Tracy, which has a few songs featured in the movie, but a studio nontheless. It is NOT a soundtrack or a compilation)
  • Studio album #6 — Erotica
  • Studio album #7 — Bedtime Stories
  • Studio album #8 — Ray of Light
  • Studio album #9 — Music
  • Studio album #10 — American Life
  • Studio album #11 — Confessions of a Dancefloor
  • Studio album #12 — Hard Candy

So now that the point has been calculated, explained and justified...please do not revert this article back to the other one entitled "Madonna's 11th studio album." It's inaccurate. Thank you. — The Real One Returns 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NOPE, This is the 11th album. Check, Madonna's press releases, and the article itself which states, American Life, ninth Madonna studio album. I'm Breathless was a SOUNDTRACK album, again, check This page will continue to be reverted. We two years ago, concluded Confessions to be the tenth album by Madonna's management. Please do not continuously change it. — The following message was left unsigned by IP user
As I clarified before, I'm Breathless is *not* a soundtrack album. (Nowhere on the jacket, or in the credits, is it stated to be a soundtrack.) It is identified as music from and *inspired by* the film Dick Tracy...this, again, makes it a *concept* studio album. Madonna's fifth studio release. Therefore, my position stands. Madonna's forthcoming album will be her 12th studio album. Writing in capital letters "NOPE" does not change anything. I will continue to revert your reverts of this article to the other. Again, it simply isn't accurate. — The Real One Returns 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll put my two cents in here, Real One, with all due respect, it was decided last year that Madonna's Confessions album was the tenth. It's not debatable at this point.'s spin section also backs this up. Breathless is listed as a soundtrack, as Madonna only wrote a few of the songs. She also looks at the project as a soundtrack as it is "Breathless" not Madonna, hence, I'm Breathless. At any rate, usually, this page would be up for deletion in accordance to Wiki's policy. If a resolution is not found, it will end up on the chopping block. I would drop the issue, since the main article, as pointed out, states, American Life, "ninth", "Confessions" tenth, as this was already settled by the Wiki contributors last year, after Madonna's people also confirmed the soundtrack issue. Downdown723 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the person who says "I'm Breathless" is a Studio Album. I remember the day it came out and it was in late May 1990. They were saying it was her 5th studio Album... It may have songs from the movie Dick Tracy, but it has 12 songs all by Madonna with the exception of a few duets... Evita, Who's That Girl and The Next Best Thing are soundtracks because they include songs from various yes "I'm Breathless" is a Studio Album... I will always consider it one and always label it one in my collection and will not argue over it on here, so when the new record comes out to me it will be M's 12th studio album at least to me and the persons on here that consider "I'm Breathless" a studio record!! And Madonna doesn't control it's controlled by her why does it matter if it's a studio album or not!?!Jdcrackers 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I’d like to say that I as well see “I'm Breathless” as a Madonna studio album. She did it in vein of the DT movie, the character she played in the movie, and as a period piece from the era in which the story of the movie takes place…but 90% of the material on the album is independent and dissociated from the film itself. I agree w/Real One that it is more of a concept album that simply borrows from the movie theme than a soundtrack per sé.

I know that lists it as a “soundtrack,” but this is the -official- OST for Dick Tracy… Dick Tracy [SOUNDTRACK]

For all intents and purposes, IB is one of her studio albums…which is why I calculated Madonna’s impending 2007 studio album as her twelfth. Nwdavis 07:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This was already handled a year ago. Warnings will be sent out. It is the 11th album. Either come on board with the majority or the page will be scrapped completely under Wiki's page policy. You have been warned. Theonlygay 06:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As if you are some kind of an authority. I would love to know who you think you are to be issuing threats and ultimatums, and why you believe that anyone should bow to them. Sorry, but no. — The Real One Returns 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Breathless IS A MADONNA STUDIO ALBUM. It contains songs inspired by the film and it's not a soundtrack. Dick Tracy has an official soundtrack and it's not I'm Breathless. It's the 12th Studio album weather lists it as one or not their listings are no more reliable than a fansite. It's ran by someone who is simply confused with the idea of the "inspired by" thing at got it confused with a soundtrack.

I'd like to point out that if lists it as a soundtrack, that should be the standard. On another note, it's worth pointing out that were this considered a studio album, it would be highly unlikely that Madonna did not write or co-write a majority of the songs (particularly this far into her career) and that it was released only a year after her last studio album and the same year as a Greatest Hits release. I personally have never seen an article that has called Confessions her eleventh studio album, it was considered a timely comeback partially BECAUSE it was her 10th studio album. Also, Warren Beatty is a featured vocalist on numerous songs on I'm Breathless, and the reason Madonna released this is most likely as a companion to the soundtrack, in the vein of "More Music From Titanic" or "...Moulin Rouge," etc, seeing as the soundtrack was already so full. If an album contains the words "Music Inspired By," then it is neither a studio album nor a concept album because it is intended to tie in with a film release. Evita featured other vocalists and other songwriters (even if that applies to all the songs), yet is is considered a soundtrack because it was released in promotion with a film. At this rate Who's That Girl will be considered a Madonna album because it contains 4 new songs by her. C-Dawg 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's That Girl has nothing to do with this it's a soundtrack. It contains 4 Madonna songs. I'm Breathless contains Madonna in EVERY track. Weather it was released only a year after her previous studio album or not it is a studio album, the only reason it was released when it was because it was to coincide with the movie. Let me point this out again I'm Breathless is NOT AN OFFICIAL SOUNDTRACK album nor the original this is the official/original soundtrack I'm Breathless would not exist if Madonna was not inspired to do the album.

I'm sure Madonna just decided, "Hey, I know I put an album out last year, but why not do one this year that just happens to relate to my movie. I know, I'll get someone else to write half the songs without any input from me whatsoever! And then I can have someone duet with me on several songs. Yeah!" And no one is questioning whether or not I'm Breathless would exist, we're arguing that, as per Madonna's OFFICIAL website, and as far as I can tell every review of her latest album, I'm Breathless is not a studio album, it is a companion album, and her last album was the tenth." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justaduckyguy (talkcontribs) 02:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Who cares if Madonna only wrote half of the album, it doesn't make it any less hers. She didn't write approx. half of Like a Virgin either...nor does she hold the publishing rights to "Holiday," "Crazy For You," "Papa Don't Preach," "Justify My Love," etc. Would anyone say that these songs aren't hers because other people wrote them? The fact remains that upwards of 80% of the Breathless album was not featured in the movie, and that the film studio that owns the rights to the Dick Tracy movie that the few songs on this album that did actually make it into it does NOT sponsor or recognize I'm Breathless as the soundtrack to their film. So in that case, what is it the "soundtrack" to? As was said already, it's a CONCEPT studio album. no doubt classifies the album as a "soundtrack" because it was inspired by the film, took Madonna out of her usual personality, and because it's just easier to ignorantly do so. Unlike REAL soundtrack albums that Madonna heavily contributed to (Who's That Girl, Evita), RIAA does NOT credit I'm Breathless as a soundtrack—but as a Madonna studio album proper. Nwdavis 04:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You're disregarding the fact that, while each of these points may be argued separately to classify the record as a soundtrack, conjoined they make it far too different from both her and other artists' studio albums to be considered as such. I don't understand why you're arguing with Madonna's official website. Surely you don't believe that an artist of her stature with complete creative control that she has maintained for years would allow her own website to misappropriate information like that. Simply googling the words "Confessions Madonna eleventh studio album" proves that, in the few cases of the very few results that come up, where it is considered Madonna's eleventh studio album, the sources are merely fan sites.
Meanwhile, consider the following sources that label Confessions her tenth album: RollingStone, HMV, Yahoo, MTV, CBC, Popdirt, JunoAwards, the list goes on. If you want to call up RollingStone and demand a retraction, you go ahead, but I'm fairly certain they fact-check before print.

If you're going by Billboard, well, they consider You Can Dance, I'm Going to Tell You A Secret, Selections from Evita, and Who's That Girl as studio albums proper, so you can't say they judged well when calling Breathless the same. We all love I'm Breathless, no one is denying it's a great album--and it gave us "Vogue." But as stated before, two YEARS ago it was decided by all that Confessions was the tenth album. I can guarantee users will continue to revert each page back to its correct version. Justaduckyguy 21:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Madonna does NOT maintain her official website Warner simply hired someone to run and maintain it. I bet if you asked Madonna she'd agree that I'm Breathless IS a studio album, because technically and officially it is weather the official site says it or not does not rule the album is a soundtrack because officially the album IS a studio album weather you would like to believe it or not, if you don't believe me here is the definition of a studio album as you can see I'm Breathless would be considered a studio album according to that linked article. If you consider I'm Breathless a soundtrack because of its 2 or 3 songs that appeared in the film you probably would think albums such as True Blue or American Life are soundtracks since they both contain songs that appear in films at the time of their release. This post alone should verify to all of you who think I'm Breathless is a soundtrack that it is in fact a STUDIO ALBUM. And btw those who don't know or aren't sure none of the songs on I'm Breathless are previously released none of the songs on I'm Breathless are even on the official Dick Tracy Soundtrack.

Your argument doesn't hold water. I haven't heard of any studio albums that contribute 3 songs to a single film. Additionally, statements speaking for an artist are irrelevant and should not be included in the discussion. I could say "I bet John Travolta is against fur" but that wouldn't give me license to create a wiki on his behalf, particularly if I was unable to cite it. And you are misunderstanding, of course it is unthinkable that Madonna herself would run her website, but you can bet your bottom dollar she doesn't just let anything be posted there. That's why it's called official Madonna website, because it reflects official information. And sign your posts. Justaduckyguy 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a complicated issue but according to wikipedia I'm Breathless would fit under the studio album label. None of its songs were previously released or on any soundtrack. None of her songs were even on the official original Dick Tracy soundtrack that I posted the link above to. And your argument doesn't hold water because never in my life have I seen a soundtrack with not only not the name of the movie in the title of the album but no where on the case (I own the album) does it say Soundtrack to Dick Tracy or O.S.T Dick Tracy. It was made to coincide with the film, but is not a soundtrack. And regardless of what the official site says by official and technical standards I'm Breathless is a studio album. And like I said before has a history of being uninformed/late on information/making mistakes/misprints etc. Any way Madonna isn't very involved with the site and doesn't even own a computer so it's hardly Madonna certified or Warner certified just her management which I said could easily be wrong.

Chad427 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "Madonna doesn't even ownn a computer"?! Are you for real. You obviously don't know Madonna at all. What a joke.
  • Agreed. It also is a joke that you would retort using the exact same phrases as the person you are responding to. That being said, it says clearly on the front of the album, "Music from and inspired by the film Dick Tracy." If this album was meant to be entirely dissociated from the film, it wouldn't mention it on the very front. Furthermore, soundtracks, such as Batman and Robin, for example, often contain songs that were not in the film they represent, thus carrying said title of "music from and inspired by the film ______." Bjork released her Drawing Restraint 9 album with a song that wasn't in the film, and it is considered a soundtrack, not a proper studio album. Saying that this single Madonna album is the one instance in all of the history of soundtracks to be considered a studio album would be to ignore the definition as set by the same studio company that funded it and its movie, Warner Bros, as they established in the aforementioned B&R soundtrack album. Justaduckyguy 07:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Additionally, your defintion of a studio album would encompass almost every EP that an artist ever put out. Justaduckyguy 07:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not a joke I know much more about Madonna than most people here do so thanks for trying to disregard the points I made by accusing me of being wrong cause I'm not a fan when I am. And Madonna has made it clear she pretty much rarely goes on the internet other than checking mail she has said this many times in interviews the past several years obviously you know nothing about her if you don't know this. To make my other points more clear and to make additional points:

It's not a soundtrack, it's not catalogue/listed as one, like Who's That Girl or The Next Best Thing are.

Dick Tracy has it's own soundtrack, clearly titled Dick Tracy Soundtrack.

And I don't see albums like Glitter being considered soundtrack albums.

You say has the final word but Warner Bros. themselves Madonna's label categorized the album as a regular studio album and not a soundtrack like WTG and TNBT. I would think Madonna's own label is much more reliable and official than her official site which doesn't necessarily decide or know if it is or not a soundtrack.

Chad427 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Glitter was considered a soundtrack, stated by Mariah. Madonna's record company already confirmed that I'm Breathless was a soundtrack as has Madonna. It's a character, Breathless, not Madonna. More than half the songs are from the film.

This is ridiculous. I suppose we'll find out what number it is when the reviews start pouring in. Until then I move that it be unnumbered, simply known as Madonna's Next Studio Album. That is more than a fair compromise. I'd also like to point out that "how big of a Madonna fan" you are neither gives you credibility nor respect, it's best to keep those opinions out of the discussion. 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I said that was because the person before me was trying to discredit me for not even knowing her or being a fan. And no, not more than half of the songs on the album are from the movie only 3 are actually. I agree we should keep it like this until an official press release comes from Warner saying what studio album it is. Even though they already list I'm Breathless already as a studio album. (this is a fact) 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a fact because they already said it is not, as well as Madonna and her official web site. Maddyfan 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is considered a "CONCEPT" album does not mean I'M BREATHLESS isn't a Soundtrack. For example, the Hannah Montana album is a "concept" album because it says on the cover "Songs from and inspired by the Hit TV series," yet it is considered a Soundtrack even though only about half the songs are from the show. So therefore, I'M BREATHLESS is a soundtrack. -JJVrocks (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user JJVrocks. I'm Breathless its really a soundtrack. pVip (pVip's messages) 14:37, August 5, 2008 (UTC)

GET OVER IT. who cares what the bloody thing is considered, shes sings on it, we liked it, we bought it. So just shut up and stop this pointlessness and btw not anywhere has it said this is a madonna album

Release Date for New Record[edit]

Many people have been saying it is coming out in the fall, but someone told me today that it would be released on New Years Day 2008! I believe that's on a Tuesday! Sounds like Madonna wants to start the New Year off but then again it's a rumour... hopefully it will come out in December, but I guess we will just have to be patient! Jdcrackers 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


For the latest news on Madonna's new album, you should check out Madonna's personal blog @ What better source for Madonna stuff than Madonna herself?

That's not Madonna's blog, it's a fake. PatrickJ83 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Patrick that's what I was thinking too, I thought it was a fan because of some of the things that were said contradicted what Madonna actually did... It seems Madonna would want it taken down though since it's been up almost 2 years. Jdcrackers 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"Hey You" should be on the new album. It'd make sense. I'd also like to see a compilation of all the hit songs she did for movies from "Crazy for You" to "Die Another Day".
The album could be called "Esther" since that's her Kabballah name; or "Madge", since that's what the press calls her at times. We'll just have to wait and see.
She might have a blog on MySpace. Then again, she's busy with a husband and three kids, the upcoming R&RHoF induction ceremony at the Waldorf-Astoria, and the new album. A blog might be the last thing she'd do! She doesn't even watch TV or read the papers that much, let alone go online.
This'll be a big year for Madonna.Sposato (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know?[edit]

Does anyone know when this cd is coming out? Some say end of 2007 while others are saying 2008... Does anyone know if she is still planning on releasing the "Best of Remixes" or the "25th Anniversary Box Set"? Jdcrackers 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


No source for this I can find, plus the link doesn't go anywhere ... can anyone improve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKW111 (talkcontribs) 13:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Constant reversions[edit]

i find I am constantly reverting the same things. While COnnextion is noted as the working title, it is specifically stated that it will not the actual title, so shouldn't be taken as the actual title in the info boxes. The inclusion of Mika as collaborator is properly referenced (unlike some of the others) and so should remain. Even if a Mika collaboration doesnt end up on the CD (the articles already notes that these collaborations do not necessarily mean songs will be used on the record). As for further possible songs on the album, this article is intended for properly cited songs - it is not a rumour board, and any inclusions should be properly referenced. Thank You. JKW111 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rumours from drownedmadonna and other blog sites[edit]

This article seems to be becoming increasingly filled with 'information' from fan-based blogs, such as drownedmadonna, which have a tendency to provide unsubstantiated rumours. Moreover, each new bit of information seems contradictory to earlier information, which for some reason is still in the article. Can people please take care to ensure that the style of this article remains something akin to an encyclopedia article, rather than a cut and paste message board. Unless people raise objections or alternatives, I propose that in a few days time, the current info collected from various fan blogs be condensed to something more concise. Given the overall picture is that most of the infomration about the album remains specualtive, I dont think the article needs to list every possibility that has been suggested. I realise that most of these entries are from people who probably dont read this page, but can we try to get to some consensus? Thought? Cheers. JKW111 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they are in the 90% and higher, correct. (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Licorice title[edit]

Licorice may not be the real title. A fan made a signature picture months ago which used the title 'Licorice' for the new album:

"Seems like Billboard is going on something that was said on but it might be that Sirius got their title from a signature picture I made for a Madonna forum a few months ago. I thought of the title Licorice because one song was called "Candy Shop" and that the album was going to be hip hop/ r&B which is usually reffered to as being "black" music.

This story is soooo funny. Either way, if this is true, then I predicted the new Madonna album title months ago, if not, then they are going on one of my fake fan creations...

Hilarious. Here's my signature picture again... "

Since there's been no official confirmation from Madonna or her representatives that this is the real album title, I say it should be removed from the Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Licorice title and release date[edit]

confirmed that Licorice is NOT the title of the album

also confirmed that the speculated release date of late April 2008 is wrong - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofsnails (talkcontribs) 15:33, 7 December 2007

See this: TRyudo (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

tracklisting[edit] PatrickJ83 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Track list formatting[edit]

Is there some particular reason why Madonna's albums have this huge, elaborate track list table? They're all like this.... a regular wikitable is bad enough (and against style guidelines, as far as I know) and these are even more extreme. - eo (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Old style Track listing is more informative and are not so tiny and simple looking! Simply putted text looks less interesting!!! Please don't change it (undo your changes)! Don't make these pages look worser!!! --Digital1 (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"It looks pretty" really is not a valid reason. - eo (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, here you a valid reason - Track listing is more informative and are not so tiny and simple looking! The Problem is, that those songs who wont be a single (with no wiki-page) would be a "naked" text with no credits (additional info) --Digital1 (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Credits (songwriters, etc.) are certainly important. I'm talking about the elaborate table. See style guidelines in WP:ALBUMS pertaining to how tracklists should be displayed. A wikitable should be used only in situations where there are many guests and samples (i.e. hip-hop albums) - and even in those cases it shouldn't be huge and boldfaced and set up the way Madonna albums are now. - eo (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
WHY HAS THE TRACK LISTING BEEN CHANGED? There is no "elborate" table being used just a simple, effective and attractive looking one. The guidlines only stipulate that what a tracklisting SHOULD have i.e. number tracks, title, duration. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE TABLE BEING USED! User:Jwad
Why are you yelling? - eo (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not yelling at all, just putting across my dismay at changes for no accurate reason at all. I cannot see why the table for the tracklisting had to be changed User:Jwad
All caps indicates yelling. Nothing has been changed at all. I'm asking a question to find out why Madonna's track lists are formatted differently than every other artist in Wikipedia. - eo (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
They've been listed like that for as long as I can remember (look at Ray of Light or Confessions on a Dance Floor) and they're far better than this bland and stripped down version of a tracklist that is quite hard to follow. I think that it should be reverted back to the way it was before this whole mess started. Geoking66talk 01:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Then why pointlessly delete it with no replacement? The tracklist has been officially confirmed a few times now, but completely removing it without at least replacing it, which surely makes the page less informative, is petty to say the least. If this is going to happen, either provide a replacement that would obviously suit your standards, or just don't bother editing this article. Or commenting on it for that matter. Nowradiate (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And someone with sense has added the tracklisting! In your preferred format of course :) Nowradiate (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why has the tracklisting been deleted from the article? JKW111 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see now edit wars are beginning with regard to how the track list is laid out. I strongly believe that this page (and all Madonna's albums) need to adhere to the style guideline in WP:ALBUMS. There is no reason why Madonna's album pages should be formatted completely different than all other artists. If someone has a credible reason for why Madonna albums get a big, boldfaced track list table please explain here. Otherwise it needs to be fixed. - eo (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The tracklisting has now been updated in line with the Wikipedia Albums guidelines HERE : Many of Madonna's album pages contained complicated tables listing producers which are not notable in Wikipedia Album guidelines, nor are tables for tracklistings in the first place. I have since updated most of them to fit in with the guidelines and this new album should be no different. The only missing information now are the track times which can and will be updated in this correct format upon release.Reqluce (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed a bunch of them from the big, elaborate, boldfaced layout to a wikitable less busy but what you've done here adheres to the style guideline and looks good. Works for me, thanks. - eo (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with the way all the tracklisting tables have now been deleted off ALL Madonna album pages. It does also say on the wikipedia guidelines that you can also use tables. Madonna's tracklistings have been changed 4 times already over the past few weeks and they have only been changed since the Hard Candy tracklisting had been added. These tables had been present for over two years before and then changed to the table format on the Wikipedia Albums Guidelines which is fine. These tables have now been deleted completely. As most Madonna albums used a variety of producers and some tracks contain samples by other artists (i.e Confessions on a Dancefloor, Bedtime Stories, her compilations etc.) is it not a better idea to use a table for each of her albums? I feel that the Wikipedia Albums Guidelines for tracklisting are flawed as they do not give the user the easy way of finding different information on the album; such as producer of each track, additional production or remix. I think in Madonna's case a table should be used for each album. User:Jwad

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fully anoted discography such as ASCAP or At no point under the Wikipedia Albums project does it suggest the citation of producers per track. Some of Madonna's tracks do contain samples from other artists but these are few compared to Hip Hop albums which the guidelines consider to be of particular note. The pages DO say you CAN use tables but only for COMPLICATED albums (and it even has a link to what a complicated album table should reflect). I feel that the sampling can be reflected in the article of the album with 1 to 2 lines perfectly, should users wish to search for such information. With hardcore detialed fansites online with everything from the latest rumor to barcode catalog numbers, I doubt that the usual user would be interested in producer credits or additional remix credits. I think in Madonna's case a table for each album, particularly her early albums which had few if not NO guest appearances do not require an esoteric table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reqluce (talkcontribs) 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i prefer without the table, it look neater and better. --BatterWow (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Madonna album articles had been formatted with the tracklisting tables for over a year, with absolutely no problem/objection. Then, out of nowhere, some anal retentive zealot comes sniffing around and decides that the formatting was just a little too complicated to his simplistic little eye to process, and makes a federal case of it. Now it's some unnecessary "issue." If Wikipedia didn't approve of use of tables in articles, they wouldn't exist. And since this IS an encyclopedia, it IS beneficial that the articles (especially when dealing with something as specific as an album) be as informative as possible. People DO look to Wikipedia as reference items, and the tables are tidy ways to be as informative (and condensed) as possible, while attaining order. Leave the tables alone.—DMWN (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because the tables were left for a year doesn't mean that they were correct or adhering to style guidelines. My original question was why Madonna, of all artists, had track list tables that were different than everyone else in Wikipedia. Now that the issue is open, I suggest being civil about it. "Leave tables alone" is not an acceptable response - this is not a Madonna fan site and no one owns these articles. The WP:ALBUMS guideline does reference wikitables for "more complicated situations", which may be applicable for Hard Candy because of guest artists, but certainly not for Madonna's early albums. She has never used a stable of guest rappers, etc. on her tracks and in most cases the tables are not necessary - and the huge tables that were there for a year (big, boldfaced text and font sizes, etc.) are absolutely not necessary. - eo (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Referring to myself as an "idiot" and "sad little person" in the conversation between Ericorbit and Reqluce on Ericorbit's talk page is both unnecessary and in fact bullying and is going to be reported. I do not think Madonna is a hip hop artist! A lot of work was put into Madonna's album information tables such as remixers, samples and producers and I am quite frankly dismayed at the way this has been handled. I thought an encyclopedia was to inform people of full and thorough information on a subject. These tables have never been an issue until now, since the Hard Candy page has been added. It seems that some anti-Madonna users cannot cope with her album pages having full information unlike most other artists' pages. Ericorbit did not have a problem with the last set of tables as he in fact installed them. Double standards? Jwad
I wouldn't say that anyone here is either pro- or anti-Madonna. It really is just a formatting issue. The tables I questioned have been removed, which is fine. Simpler wikitables were put in place by myself and also by Jwad. Even tho I prefer them to what was there before, there is still no burning need for the tables on most of her albums, especially the earlier ones. I could see tables being more useful on her remix albums and perhaps this new one. I think a happy medium can be reached. And yes, I also suggested to Reqluce to read WP:Civility. There's no need for insults - no one wants the pages to be lacking important information. - eo (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So the elaborate esoteric tables with production and remix credits are back on the rest of Madonna's pages. Wow. Big surprise. I myself am an avid fan but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Madonna encyclopedia. All those in favor of these tables have yet to prove where in the Wiki guidlines are track by track info regarding producers and additional remix production notable at all. As Ericorbit mentioned, just because the issue of tables has come up with the release of 'Hard Candy' does not mean that it was right before. I myself have had very specific and hard-researched information which I updated on some artist's pages removed before, so I know how that feels like. It is not a matter of wanting or not wanting someone else's hard work on the page, it is about reaching a consensus so that the pages FIT IN LINE with Wiki Album standards.Reqluce (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please footnote this?[edit]

I mentioned it in the "release" section:

PatrickJ83 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Devil Wouldn't Recognize You[edit]

Please STOP changing the title of this track. It has been confirmed as the title mentioned above. It is not "Devil". Alkclark (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Edible candies[edit]

So, I have seen a tiny picture of the open special edition album and my question is, can you eat the candies? Are they even accessible without special skills? Dollvalley (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they're edible, well probably suckable, because they're HARD candies remember..? PatrickJ83 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate cover[edit]

The special edition cover seems to come from a fan site... is there any other verifiable source for this cover? JKW111 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I found this. But the cover is small. So I do not know if will count. Source. And One quick question, what i have notice about the Australian release date is this. On one website it says its going to be released on 28th of April. Herald Sun HiT.. The other one says 25th of April. JB Hi-Fi. And the two other source say the 26th. Warners Bros. Music (the source alreay given on the "Hard Candy" wikipage) and Sanity. Sanity. So this is quite confusing :s --BatterWow (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that source is fine to leave the current picture. on australian dates, the release is the 26th. JB Hifi will ship cd on 25th only for pre-orders, which will not arrive until the monday. the Herald Sun article was quoting US press release that only stated 28th date. WarnerAustralia site is correct, and is consistent with posters in stores. JKW111 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd Single[edit]

I thought "Give it 2 Me" was already confirmed as the 2nd single? Is this True? Jdcrackers (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. That is why the page created for it was removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not is not a source for rumors (or confirmations), there are various fan sites for that.Reqluce (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well from what I have been told it is going to be the second single. It will be confirmed soon I am sureJdcrackers (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And I know this is an encyclopedia, I read this site daily not just Madonna, but everything that catches my eye! Jdcrackers (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Until there is an official announcement or press release which can be properly sourced, it does not warrant mention in wikipedia.Reqluce (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

TODAY Madonna posted a video message on YouTube..saying she's "on the set of her new video" and "Give It to Me" is playing behind her. PatrickJ83 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this although she never specifies which song the video is for. - eo (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the two usual Wiki-cynics strike again; how they love to disapprove…patrolling Madonna album articles patrol with a yard stick, ready to spank fingers and say no. It HAS been confirmed that "Give it 2 Me" *is* the second single. See for yourself.DMWN (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fansites and Fanclubs aren't reliable source. Until we get good enough source stating that it is a the next single. Then yes, you can add it to wiki. --BatterWow (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Give it 2 Me has been confirmed as the second single, I guess I will have to call Liz Rosenberg to confirm this for all you that want a reliable sourceJdcrackers (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell Liz to issue a press release so that we have a reliable source. Thanks. - eo (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well a radio station in Toronto, Canada just announced "Incredible" is the new single and played it as well. Not sure if I can say what station and the time played today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanofmadge (talkcontribs) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Release dates for formats[edit]

The LP version has already been postponed, as well as some formats of the single 4 Minutes. Can someone update those. Dollvalley (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard Candy Wiki Hacked[edit]

I don't know who did it, but I'm quite upset that the Hard Candy Wiki page was hacked by a Mariah fan/Madge hater. I don't know who is acting as though they don't have a life that they have to post hateful mess like this, but it's really gotta stop. If anything, I blame Perez Hilton for starting up this Madge/Mimi beef and getting everyone riled up. Whatever happened to just enjoying music period? This stuff is exactly what caused the deaths of 2Pac and Biggie (and no, I'm not comparing a beef like Mariah and Madonna to those two, but when the media sensationalize stuff like that, stuff is bound to happen to that nature).---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reno211 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested the page be semi-protected and it was granted for a period of one month. Editors please try to restore article to its previous version. Atlantics88 (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


There is no policy that says an R&B album should have a table. Here is the official approach:


A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list.

  1. "Complete song title" (John Doe, Brian Smith) – 4:23
    • First verse: Name of rapper
    • Second verse: Name of rapper
    • Samples: Name of sample source (preferably including artist, song, and album)
  2. "Complete song title" (Doe, Kelly Kalamazoo) – 3:24
  3. "Complete song title" (Doe, Kalamazoo, Smith, David Whitman) – 2:34

Track names should be in quotes in the track listing and in the rest of the article. A track that is a medley of multiple songs should be inside one set of quotes, like this: "Song 1/Song 2". Untitled tracks should be listed as Untitled (without quotes). If a track has an article of its own, the track name should link to that article.

Note the standard method of attributing songwriters—write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name (unless the first initial is necessary to disambiguate it, as in the Gallagher brothers of Oasis). If all songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano." If several songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano, except where noted."

Track lengths should be included for each track. Use a spaced en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) as a dividing horizontal punctuation mark before the track length. (Note that they may both look the same in the edit box.) You can insert it from the special character list below the edit box (see Help:Special characters) or copy and paste it from here. You can also add it by writing – HTML entity to the edit box (like this "–") but this makes the code less readable. If you think that this is too difficult, you can still use a hyphen, and hope that someone is going to change it into a dash. This holds true both in "Track listing" and "Personnel" sections. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes.

Particularly for hip hop albums, it is helpful to list which members of a group (or guests) rap on which verses as well as mentioning sampling sources. This can be done in a nested list, as in the example above. Using a table is recommended in more complicated situations (see Before These Crowded Streets for example). If a table is used, it should be formatted using class="wikitable", using column headings "#", "Title" and "Length" for the track number, the track title and the track length, respectively.

The track listing should be under a primary heading named "Track listing". If there are significantly different track listings for different editions, these can be listed under sub-headings. If the album was released primarily on CD and spans multiple discs, these should be listed separately under sub-headings named "Disc one", "Disc two" and so on. Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one" and "Side two". —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKW111 (talkcontribs) 12:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

R&B album? Reading reviews of itthe album seems full of "new" disco club fillers. Anyway Madonna is not an R&B artist, shouldn't the same layout be used for all her albums?? Dollvalley (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I SORTA agree with the person above, when I think R&B I think ballads, and this is a "dance" record by all accounts PatrickJ83 (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Try getting this point across to the usual people who have reverted all previous attempts to follow the abovementioned guidelines. Somehow it is imperative that all her previous albums contain full song writing credits, when the credits were acknowledged, when they were printed / not printed, who the track by track producer/remixer was etc. Naturally with that amount of esoteric information which they claim is "enclyclopedic" tables will be needed. But the question begs to be asked, since when is any artists' album exempt from Wiki:Albums guidelines?Reqluce (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


The CD is already released in Australia (brought forward due to public holiday). At which point do we change tenses to "was released" etc, rather than "will be". Do we wait for all release dates??? JKW111 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We'll change it April 30th so it's fully accurate PatrickJ83 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the tenses. Waiting until 6 days after the release to change tenses is sloppy and inaccurate. JayKeaton (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviews and maximum of 10[edit]

Yes you can only has a max of ten reviews. That does not mean that reliable reviews by rolling stone should be discounted and rejected when it would infact be better that it replace the unreliable review by people magazine. Poor judgement. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 10:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, Rolling Stone seems to favor American music and rock and all that stuff, look at all their "best albums ever" etc etc lists. Only because they are a big US magazine does not mean that they are more reliable than, say, People. RS are snobs if you ask me. Dollvalley (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dollvalley for a valid point.Reqluce (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Incredible is 2nd single[edit]

Just heard the new single on a Toronto, Canada radio station today @ 1:15pm and not sure if I can mention the radio station or not. Newbie on here Fanofmadge (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Did they say that or do you assume that because they played it on the radio? Dollvalley (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Simply hearing a song on the radio does no tmean it is a single. Nor does any airplay on TV at all. For example, Gwen Stefani's song WONDERFUL LIFE was used in a TV commercial, yet it is not a single. -JJVrocks (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

MTV states Give It 2 Me is second single.[edit] PatrickJ83 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now that it's been confirmed, I'll let it sink in for our resident cynics/hall monitors (they know who they are) for just a little while…and then, I am going to reinstate the GI2M article, and they are going to leave it alone. —DMWN (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, bad attitude. One would think that people who really like Madonna would want her articles to be sourced and accurate. Are you here to create Madonna fan pages or are you here to contribute constructively? So sorry to outrageously insist that you have a reliable source, I can imagine it's been a very rough two weeks for you. - eo (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Tags are put on articles that don't have an absolute source to verify its absolute validity. That's what they're there for. Numerous times it's been stated that GI2M was the second single, but no…you had to doubt and play the cynic until it was signed in blood from some kind of uber notarized & neutral industry source. A bit anal retentive, wouldn't you say? Countless Wikipedia un-sourced articles continue to exist with sourc tags on them, and it isn't a problem. In the end, it all proved to be true; GI2M has been confirmed to be the second single, so what did all of that stickler-for-the-rules pettiness truly accomplish…? Other than to halt the flow of information. Finally, if I indeed have a "bad attitude" where you're concerned, it's probably because I frankly haven't appreciated the self-righteous and unnecessary finger wagging and hand slapping you and the other one have been perpetuating on this Madonna article (as well as others.)—DMWN (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Tags indicating a lack of sources is not "okay". The solution to this is to properly cite articles that are missing sources. If you truly want to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way, why don't you help to add sources to articles, rather than creating more that have none? - eo (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said Ericorbit. Now the resident fans (who know who they are) will know that this is Wikipedia which requires reliable sources. And it is going to stay that way.Reqluce (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're taking yourself too seriously there, you might wanna check how many articles wouldn't pass even in first grade and yet are still online here. Sometimes sources cannot be put on paper or in links, there is way to obtain certain information before it's official so don't knock it just cause you wanna be a cop here...Dollvalley (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that wanting a source for an article is "taking yourself too seriously". Just above this thread you questioned an editor who speculated "Incredible" as the second single. Should an article have been immediately created for that because he heard it on the radio? We're talking about a single release in 2008 - once a reliable source is available it takes 2 milliseconds to find it on the internet so what is the big deal about waiting for confirmation? - eo (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It musta been a tough few weeks for you too, Eo, given that you spent all your time checking that the "Give It 2 Me" article auto-redirected to the Hard Candy page, and messaging me when I would change it. So stressful for you! PatrickJ83 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Not stressful at all, I already told you it's on my watchlist. - eo (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Official Release Dates[edit]

According to Madonna's website,, the album will be released in the US on April 29, 2008, but in the rest of the world on April 28, 2008. Yet for some reason there are different released dates listed on the Hard Candy page. I am only trying to make things right when I edit it, so please dont undo what I edit. Thank You. -JJVrocks (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Further confirmation of Give It 2 Me as second single[edit]

At 11:00 into the video. She states she just shot the Give It 2 Me video w/ Pharrell. Confirmed! PatrickJ83 (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it's already number 57 on the Billboard Hot 100, shouldn't it be assumed that they are not waiting until July to release Give It 2 Me? If there was a lesson to be learned from the U.S. release pattern of singles from Confessions, they waited much too long between new tracks for radio. It is smart that Give It 2 Me is already out while 4 Minutes is still in the Top 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Miles Away, Possible Single?[edit]

Recently they started to play Miles Away on a few Australian radio stations, not only that it is also in the Top 10 Japanese iTunes Charts. Which could indicate it is also being played there. Maybe there is a specific release for the Asia and Australia? I'm not sure, so I wont be adding anything.

I'm just curious and would like to know if anyone knows anything else. --MartinGrogan (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I live in Australia, I havent heard it on the radio yet :|. Maybe they are doing like a preview of the album. Not quite sure, where do u live..(Eg: City or State)? --BatterWow (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I live in NSW, I've heard it 3 times so far, not sure what radio station, and I had only gotten the album that day. I still think it could be played somewhere, seeing it's charting on the Japans iTunes and all. --MartinGrogan (talk) 3:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Simply because a song gets some airplay does not mean it is a single. Like Gwen Stefani's song WONDERFUL LIFE, it was used in a TV commerical, yet it is not an official single. -JJVrocks (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

References, Chart-positions[edit]

please write the references behind the country and not behind the chart-position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Why is it always the same 2 users who think they should only edit the Madonna pages? If weren't for "resident fans" the Madonna pages would be highly inaccurate. I agree that information should be referenced, but the warring and edit-mongering is getting out of control. This has become an ugly dictatorship by the 2 users who appear to bully other contributors to make themselves feel superior, but in fact are the opposite. It just shows what sad lives some people have. JWAD (talk)

A lot of important (but negative) critics are missing...[edit]

Insert non-formatted text here I think someone wants to put a false reality here... because some major reviews (NME, Pitchwork) were not good about the record. It's sad but true. WIKIPEDIA is something made for the truths, not just an illusion that the album got just good reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the same, but about the bad reviews ( I am a Madonna fan, but Wikipedia has to be the truth ) - reviews like Pitchwork who gave something like 5.3 out of 10, metacritic (64 %), allmusic guide (2 stars), NME (50 %), these are serious critics. Uncut (3 stars)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is very, true, the album did receive a lot of negative reviews, and saying "the album received mostly positive reviews" is quite misleading.-Ella Vader (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad Reviews[edit]

The album received a lot of negative criticism but it is all missing from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of it should be added, but definitely not reviews from blogs. Reqluce (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

error in chart position[edit]

the album never has made into number one in poland, according to olis /official sales/. it debuted and peaked at #5. anyone please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elf dibro (talkcontribs) 19:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Chart[edit]

The peak position of Hard Candy in Mexico was number one. The chart sales that appear on the reference are from preorders only. Those charts refer to the week that ended on April 27, and Hard Candy was released on April 29. Also In the Sticky & Sweet Tour press release it states the following: "Madonna's 11th studio album for Warner Bros. Records debuted at number one in 27 countries around the world thus far, including the USA, JAPAN, FRANCE, UK, GERMANY, CANADA, ITALY, AUSTRALIA, THE NETHERLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SWEDEN, DENMARK, IRELAND, FINLAND, AUSTRIA, CHILE, SPAIN, MEXICO, HONG KONG, SINGAPORE, SLOVENIA, PORTUGAL, BELGIUM, BRAZIL, SWITZERLAND, ISRAEL and U.A.E." So please change the 19 to number 1. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC) states 36. it was updated on 10th of may —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meddi83 (talkcontribs) 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard Candy wasn't a number 1 album as stated in the list of countries, its peak was at No. 3. If you look the table with chart positions you can see it. (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard Candy debuted to no1 in 36 countries[edit]

According to the biggest and most reliable greek music portal, HC debuted to no in 36 countries and not 27.


Someone please update —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meddi83 (talkcontribs) 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you feel a sourced piece of information with the appropriate citations needs to be added, do can it yourself. Reqluce (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This week on stated 27 countries. I think that is more reliable source. JKW111 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard Candy Promo Tour[edit]

Please go to the discussion page as certain users want this page to merged. Please give your thoughts as it was originally going to be deleted. Thanks Talk:Hard_Candy_Promo_Tour#Merge_from_Hard_Candy_Promo_Tour JWAD (talk)

provide link in tracklist[edit]

please provide link to in the tracklist.

Truskare (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Miles Away Has appeared on Charts[edit]

It has appeared on the Canadian Hot 100 at number 90. [1] --BatterWow (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any New Singles?[edit]

What Single will be released after "Give It 2 Me"? Is it "Miles Away", or "The Beat Goes On". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is "Miles Away —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrovip (talkcontribs) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

MILES AWAY —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It sold over 3 million copies[edit]

Hard candy has sold more than 3 million copies worldwide in just three months, not 2 million . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Two "Beat Goes On" ?[edit]

Maybe I'm the only one, but aren't there 2 songs with the same title on Madonna's album? One with Kanye West and another with Pharrell Williams. Or are they alternate versions? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Kanye West is the real one, the one with Pharrell is the demo. I prefer the demo though :D --BatterWow (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The demo is available via LimeWire. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard Candy in México[edit]

Hard Candy wasn't a number 1 album as stated in the list of countries, its peak was at No. 3. If you look the table with chart positions you can see it. (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Since hearing "Miles Away" is the last single from HC, is Madonna & Warner still going to release the compilation record? Do any of you guys know if it will be just a third greatest hits or a box set? Also what songs do you think they will include on it? Hopefully they will release a couple new tracks since there weren't that many from Hard Candy and it seems Warner would want to capitalize on their biggest selling artist. Jdcrackers (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Madonna - 4 Minutes.ogg[edit]

The image File:Madonna - 4 Minutes.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Time goes by...[edit]

I think, after a year since it has been released and with only 3,5 million copies sold, it is safe to say that this is her weakest album to date. Should we put it in the article?-- (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not her weakest album, its the economy and position the music industry is in. Internationally the album was the 6th highest selling of 2008 and she was the highest selling American Artist of 2008. [2] In reality its performed very well, so no it should not be classed as a weak album; unfortunately all artists are selling less albums due to the economy and illegal downloading. JWAD talk 09:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly my point! 6th! Madonna has always been number 1, when has she been 6th? I'm sorry, but by now, Confessions would have sold 8 million already. HC has... still 3.5! It is her weakest. Just look at the reviews and the promotion (only 3 singles).

4. single = Beat Goes on?[edit]

...? So how it is? Does everyone know will it be next single? I have heard something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Heartbeat was released as forth single in Argentina!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

NO 4th Single![edit]

Guy Oseary have official dismissed a fourth single. Please go to [3] to see a Q&A he did with Madonna's official fanclub. So please stop adding information of a fourth single until it is/if it is confirmed by Madonna's management or record company. JWAD talk 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


In the lead of this article, it says the album sold 5 million copies, but the table says 3.8 million. None of these statements are sourced. What to do? — (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


above the picture of the albums cover it says 'Hard Candy- The Shittiest Album Ever'

Can Someone Correct that title and please whoever did this stop being so rude and childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RIAA Certification[edit]

the reference says that hard candy has not been certified as platinum and is still certified as gold with sales of about 720,000 in the USA. then why does the article say that it has been certified platinum with sales of over 1 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Because bullshitting Madonna queens keep adding it. It is still Gold in the US, and has sold 725,000 as of August 2009 according to Billboard. (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Your homophobic comments will not be tolerated on this site. Any further comments like this and you will be reported and banned from the site. You must keep your comments civilized, I draw your attention to WP:CIVIL - Thanks JWAD talk 10:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

How neutral can you be when you are stating actual facts? I can see what the complaints might be, but those have to be from Madonna haters. It is perfectly acceptable to say that "'Hard Candy' debuted in a record-breaking 37 countries"...because it did. I suppose you could say "'Hard Candy; debuted at #1 in 37 countries, a current world record." But either way it's going to make someone mad (i.e. some Mariah Carey fans for example). And no matter what, information like that should be mentioned...otherwise all the facts concerning the album or single aren't discussed in the article. I'm not trying to be argumentative and I love Mariah Carey...I just think Madonna's pages get a lot more critism.

I guess my point is, if actual records are broken and verified, how neutral can you be when stating them? And for someone like Madonna or Mariah for example, they are at the point where they are going to be breaking a lot of records. - MFA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The source given (an MSN article) that is attributed to that claim does not actually say it was a record. It merely states Hard Candy went to no.1 in 37 countries - it does not say this was a world record. Unless a reliable and impartial source can be found to say that this was a world record, then it cannot be included in the article. (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

UK sales certification[edit]

Hard Candy has been certified Gold in the UK. This is confirmed by the British Phonographic Industry's website, and the BPI are the only source that can be used for UK certifications. There are various editors (and you know who you are) who are regularly changing this detail to "platinum" status without a valid source or reason other than they want to make it appear that the album has sold more than it actually did. This constitutes deliberate vandalism, and if anybody changes this certification again, they will be reported and the page will be blocked. (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I have a kitty. TbhotchTalk C. 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh you doo?? what kind? Can you let him play with mine? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

UK end-of-year charts[edit]

The source given for this ( is not an official UK Charts Company website, despite the fact it incorporates similar logos. They are an independent website run by four music fans (or "chartwatchers" as they call themselves). Their "FAQ" section makes it clear that they are not affiliated with the Official UK Charts Company, as does the "Background" section (here: The website was used as a source to claim that "Hard Candy" was the 36th best selling album in the UK in 2008. However, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - who are the offical music industry authority in the UK - compile their own year end charts, and "Hard Candy" is not even in the Top 40. Considering it only went "Gold" in the UK (100,000 copies) its not surprising that it didn't make the year-end Top 40. The BPI year-end charts (from 1999 onwards) are here: (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

UKchartsplus has been deemed to be unreliable and has now been added to the list of sites to avoid at WP:CHARTS. (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad reference[edit]

I removed the following text and reference:

  • Neil Tennant revealed they were contacted again the same week and were told that Warner had changed their mind. "We got told to forget it as they decided to shove her down the R&B route".

David Bourgeois never wrote the cited piece in Spin. Instead, the quote comes from the madonnalicious fansite:

The fansite is not sufficiently high quality to be used in regard to WP:BLP concerns.

This problem is traced to Legolas2186 who added the text and cite. Other such problems are discussed at User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems. If you find any more of these problems, take them to that workpage. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

UK certification/sales[edit]

The British Phonographic Industry have had a system of automatic certifications in place for some time now. When an album reaches a certification threshold for silver, gold or platinum, it is automatically certified. If Hard Candy had sold over 300,000 copies in the UK, it would have been auto-certified as Platinum. An archive (Highbeam) that is not the original source of the claim (Music Week) does not meet the standards for inclusion as anybody could have written it. (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That is true that BPI has raised certifications automatically for sales, however, there are many albums which are not re-certified. The archive shows that it is from Music Week and you are not providing any proof that HighBeam Research is unreliable whereas Wikipedia highly approves it. This is your WP:OR I feel and unless you can actually prove that highbeam is unreliable. Please check WP:RS, archives of many sources are there and we use it. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hard Candy (Madonna album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 09:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 17:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)