Talk:Bad (album)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bad Sales Figure

User:Synthwave.94 Here is a source [[1]] it says bad has sold 34700000 copies ww.its article from 2013 when it was ceritified 9 time platinum.since then it has sold 1 million copies in us alone and certified 10 time platinum.[[2]].so can we change the figure simply more than 36 million copies sold Akhiljaxxn (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like original research to me, but I see what you mean. Sales figures seem to be outdated in this case. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok I just realized that sources were removed from the article (those claiming the album sold 45 millions copies worldwide). I think they should be restored along with the New Yorker source you mentioned above in order to write something like : "Bad sold between 34 and 45 million copies worlwide". Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update can u pls udate the same in List of best-selling albums ? .And can you take the initiative to reach in consensus[3] of recent accurate sales figure of thriller? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the list of best-selling albums, I'm OK with the 34 million addition along with the 21,3 million certified units. While I agree sales of Thriller look outdated, I'm not sure you can find more accurate sales, considering most sources mention 100 million copies sold (or more). Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

But the New Yorker source (from 2013) says Bad has sold 3470000 copies world wide and thriller has 66+M .since then bad sold one million and thriller sold 4 million copies in us alone.the claimed figure of both bad and thriller still not changed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sales

Not here, but in other Michael Jackson's articles was consensuded several months (years) ago that the 45 million copies is a very inflated figure. Can be months/years and after that, he reached some certification(s) and most notable the Diamond status in United States, but is still inflated. Moreover, we need to be careful with the streaming count like the RIAA, because they increase for thousands of copies the actual figures. With the application of the WP:STICKTOSOURCE, also see other policies that apply with the 30-34-35 million units. We have reliable sources for the Michael Jackon's figures that many of them are inflated, like this album Bad. Just verify this news from ImpreMedia (2012). Again, there is not signficant progress in sales beyond United States and I don't see any new peak after his death. So, I'm one of the several users that support the range of 30-34-35 million and delete the 45 million copies. Pinging @88marcus:, @Akhiljaxxn: and @Synthwave.94: for their input. Best regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 23:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's true many sales figures for Michael Jackson albums are inflated (the 100M+ copies sold for Thriller). To be honest with you, I'm fine with the 34-35 million sales figures, but I would be curious to know where the 45 million copies are considered inflated. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Where the 45 million copies are considered inflated? That's simple. Look the certification history and we will verify that is the double of sales between 45kk against 22 million certifications. Suspicious when even after his death, sales, peaks and cerfications needs to be "more" progressive. Common sense. Look also the reliable source(s) that easily says that the 45 million is inflated, this is other point that we don't to take lightly.

I know that now, the 45 million figure has reliable sources, and I think that they were primary source. So, we don't need to be judge of the information or hidde a fact, especially when it came from a reliable source; my 2 cents is, if some users wanna keep the 45 million, lets makes a note like with Thriller and the 100, 110 etc million figure. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

so can we change the figure simply more than 36 million copies sold ?And make a not like thriller and his total sales? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have problem with your proposition Akhiljaxxn, but exactly the "36 million copies" looks original research because I never saw a reference with that amount. It need to be 35 million copies, that will be fine. However, if some wanna keep the 45 million figure, the solution is add the note like Thriller's article and explain to the readers both facts. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

30-35kk is the more accurate. This album can't sold more than we have in certifications, in small countries, where 10,000 shipped is a Gold Record!--88marcus (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've seen pages like List of best-selling albums List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom use this new yorker article as a source.according to this .as of 2013 bad has sold 34700000 copies world wide.since then it has sold 1 million copies in us alone which makes the total 35700000 copies so i dont think the figure 36 is a exagerated one.The total cerified copies of Bad from available matkt is 21.3 m in List of best-selling albums.I just have calculated this total certification but i found its 23646587 copies and the same with Dangerous too .The total certified copies of dangerous is 17.3m copies in List of best-selling albums but when i calculated this i got its 19486965 copies.Pls fix this Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Double Album?

Bad the LP came on two records, as it couldn't fit on just one. Would this not make it a double record? Nickeleh (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The words "record" and "album" do not mean the same thing. The album is the collection of songs, the "records" (in this case) are the vinyl LPs.

At just over 48 minutes, Bad could have easily fit on one LP. Splitting it up on two LPs allows for slightly increased dynamic range and a much higher retail price. (Duke, for instance, was a single LP at over 55 minutes.)

"Double album" is a slippery marketing term. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (76:20), Layla... (77:16) and Quadrophenia (81:36) were double LPs which became double CDs until they were remastered on single CDs. All are nearly double the length of Bad, but no one calls them "triple" or "quadruple" albums. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure Bad came on one record. The final song, Leave Me Alone, was left off the LP and was only found on the CD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Insight on singles

Billboard wrote a piece here on the album's singles today for its 30th anniversary. It could be useful for expanding this as well as the song articles if needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead dispute

Can the editor who reverted this change explain how these extra words improve the article? Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Updates and corrections

Aoi The album peaked at number 1 in 25 countries, not 13. Jackson received a Lifetime Achievement Award following his huge success with Bad (there's no info on this in the article). The album has sold 45 million copies, not 35. Also, the current version isn't the original as one of the users took out info and split the middle paragraph. 89.241.108.216 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox genres

@Isaacsorry: in my talk page you recently suggest to remove hard rock and dance. I think dance should not be removed: The New York Times calls Bad "a gleaming, high-tech dance record"[4]. Hard rock could be removed: AllMusic says "he moved deeper into hard rock, deeper into schmaltzy adult contemporary, deeper into hard dance"[5]; I think it's not so explicit. I suggest to add R&B, since The Telegraph says that the key sound of the album is a "High drama R&B"[6]. Blueberry72 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think rock needs to be in there - there's not much point in having both rock and hard rock. Also, Liberian Girl is really the only R&B song. Isaacsorry (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Rock is sourced by an article which says "“Bad” is a fair-to-strong array of soul and rock blends"[7]; I think is properly sourced: morever, if we remove rock we'll have to remove soul too, since they're sourced by the same article. Even if we could consider "Liberian Girl" the only R&B song in the album, a music critic wrote that R&B is the key sound of the album[8]: we cannot base infobox genres on our personal beliefs or feelings, because only music critics are considered reliable sources. Blueberry72 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that considering the main genres for the album as a whole should only be in the infobox, rock and soul should be taken out. The only rock song is "Dirty Diana" and soul isn't really featured other than maybe "Man In The Mirror". What do you think? Isaacsorry (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A source which says "soul and rock blends"[9] is quite explicit... anyway pop, dance and R&B are sourced more explicitly ("POP: MICHAEL JACKSON'S 'BAD,' FOLLOW-UP TO A BLOCKBUSTER"[10] "it's a gleaming, high-tech dance record"[11] "High drama R&B"[12] ""): these three could be the infobox genres, removing soul, rock and hard rock. I don't know what to do with funk: according to the article, the Encyclopedia of Popular Music speaks about "soft funk confections", but it's a linkless source Blueberry72 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it would be more appropriate for pop, R&B, funk and dance to be kept in the infobox. Isaacsorry (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Before making that change we could ask a third opinion. @Binksternet: we're about to change the genres in the infobx: Pop, R&B, dance, funk. What do you think about it? Blueberry72 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: ok, we haven't received a third opinion. I'll wait until tomorrow, then I'll change the genres. Blueberry72 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Blueberry72 changed it for you as you may have been busy and it slipped your mind. Voodoopink1 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

About Speed Demon

I am willing to resolve this issue with @Blueberry72:, if you want to, please message me here Great Mercian (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Great Mercian: if want to see "Speed Demon" in the infobox you should convince other users that the song is an official single. I think that a limited release isn't suffice. You should ask in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Blueberry72 (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Featured

Does anyone think that this should be nominated for a featured article? Isaacsorry (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No. I haven't examined the article in detail, but for a start, the recording/production section is nowhere near as comprehensive as it should be. Popcornduff (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the language in the review section

Is it necessary for this article to use the phrases "suck my cock" and "like shit?" EGarrett01 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't worry about whether articles or quotes contain dirty words. It might be better to paraphrase that quote instead, but if so, it would be for reasons of conciseness, not because of the dirty words. Popcornfud (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Besides WP:NOTCENSORED, I see no evidence of WP:RFCBEFORE - nor indeed any WP:TALK other than the above two posts. Discuss if you like, but don't jump straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC, that is a last resort, not a first step. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur with the removal of the Rfc header in this edit, due to the failure to observe WP:RFCBEFORE. (The improper formulation of the Rfc question is secondary, but applies if you ever decide to create another Rfc.) This is simply a normal discussion, with normal responses, and actually has been definitively answered already, per Popcornfud. Egarrett01, if you wish to remove the phrases you find offensive, please state a policy- or guideline-based reason for it. Otherwise, if it's just a personal preference, I think we are done here. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If "Leave Me Alone" doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ALTTRACKLIST, what does?

This edit, when the song was released as a single from the album and is mentioned at least eight times before the track list section, is a mistaken and very heavy-handed application of that style guide. If being mentioned eight times as a significant part of this album doesn't meet what WP:ALTTRACKLIST suggests, what does? Do we need 10 paragraphs on one song before we can include it in the track listing section? It's on all editions apart from original LP editions and reissues of the original LP configuration. I would suggest even calling it a "bonus track" is inaccurate, hence I've reverted this edit and changed the wording in the track list. I would hope most editors who watch this page agree. @TheWikiholic: as one of the regular editors of this page. Ss112 19:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this looks like a good situation to preserve the extra track, given the extra context. The use of the word "bonus" took me to the wrong conclusion.

(Psst: You don't need to be angry. No need to begin a discussion with a furious rant next time.) Popcornfud (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)