Talk:Womanizer (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
Good topic star 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

Why[edit]

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

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)

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)

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)

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)



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)

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)
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)
  • Last I checked, we are not a dictionary. Support Red Slash 22:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Completely agree with the nominator. A better example is Nevermind. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • Support per Status; move Womanizer to Womanizer (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving "Womanizer (song)" to "Womanizer" and the current "Womanizer" to "Womanizer (disambiguation)", per BDD. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose move. The song is not the primary topic. Womanizer should remain a disambiguation page. gobonobo + c 15:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Womanizer (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)