Talk:Shakira discography

Album Sales

Sales of Fijación Oral Vol. 1 and Oral Fixation Vol. 2 are 3 million and 4 million respectively. Stop changing them to the HUGELY inflated sales of 7 and 8 million unless you can provide a source. --Bojach 07:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fijacion Oral has sold 5 million according to La Vanguardia and Oral Fixation has sold 8 million according to Bradcast Music Inc/BMI. They have both been added.

@49.146.200.77 sales figures must have a reliable source to back them up - you must be getting your figures from somewhere, so please share your source. Batternut (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sales

Just because Oral Fixation Volume 2 has been certified platinum does not mean that it has sold one million copies. A platinum certification is awarded for copies shipped not sold. 67.169.112.182 23:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the number of sales nearly the same since 8 weeks when Oral Fixation re-entered the top10 ???

There's no source or site that would update the number of album sales--hottie 18:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fijación Oral podeis comprobar que ha vendido mas de 7 millones de copias en la segunda referencia que proviene de UN PERIODICO. Oral Fixation ha superado las 8 millones de copias, podeis verlo en mediatraffic e incluso, HIPS DONT LIE es un hit, no un hit normal, ¡el segundo mas exitoso de la historia! en algo se tendria que reflejar el exito del single, ademas illegal y dont brother han tenido un exito al igual pero mucho mas moderado.

this sales are inflated..maybe sold 7m and 8m with single sales included but only as album sold a lot less. should be around 4-5m. all chart experts could confirm it. Zagozagozago 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Singles and Remixed

I noticed in the list of singles is missing a single from 1995, "Un Poco de Amor", the third single extracted from "Pies Descalzos" album. Actually there was the third single in South America, but in North America (Mexico) the third single was "Pies Descalzos Sueños Blancos". Both thirds singles had Videoclip directed by Gustavo Garzon and remixes by Meme. "Un Poco de Amor" had lately a Portuguese version included in The Remixes compilation album.

About the discography, is missing the last compilation "Remixed" (not the Remixes compilatio with remixes of Pies Descalzos album). Mauchileno 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Singles

This discography is A MESS and totally invented. The positions are wrong.

Just for someone to take the time and put it right: I'll put here the correct order and peak position in HOT LATIN SONGS

From PIES DESCALZOS: 1- Estoy aquí #2 2- Dónde estás corazón #5 3- Pies descalzos sueños blancos (failed to chart) 4- Un poco de amor (failed to chart) 5- Antología #15 6- Se quiere se mata #8 7- Quiero (failed to chart)

From DONDE ESTÁN LOS LADRONES?: 1- Ciega sordomuda #1 2- Tú #1 3- Inevitable #3 4- Ojos así #22 5- Moscas en la casa #25 6- No creo #9

All other songs from these two albums that appear in the list were NEVER singles.

Singles should be corrected and expanded

The singles section is very desorganized. Having in mind that many songs have versions released in both, english and spanish, wouldn't it be better if the list lists the singles in chronological way regardless of their language and naming them in english and spanish (e.g. She Wolf/ La Loba).

Furthermore, the Single should list positions in more countries, taking into account that Shakira´s succes is bigger in latin america than in any other part of the world, her position in countries like Mexico, Chile and Argentina should be listed. Positions for many countries are well documented in this page: http://top40-charts.com/artist.php?aid=952

I also think her positions in Spain are wrong. The article should be revised and corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.15.34 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no legitimate singles chart for Latin American countries. The Los 40 Principales charts are all airplay from a single network, so they are on WP:BADCHARTS. Top Latino was single network, so it's on WP:BADCHARTS. AmericaTop100 was deemed unreliable, so it's on WP:BADCHARTS. Top40-charts.com is listed at WP:Record charts#Websites to avoid. The Chilean Singles Chart is on WP:BADCHARTS. Ditto Argentina, the Brazil Hot 100, Mexico Top 100, Peru Hot 100, etc. It's not that those charts weren't in the article at one point, it's that they've all been removed.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Singles Chart

Please, add the reliable source for the chart peak position of shakira songs on Spanish singles charts for estoy aqui, Ciega Sordomuda, Whenever, Wherever, Te Dejo Madrid, Que Me Quedes Tú, No, Hips Don't Lie, La Pared, Las de la Intuición, Te Lo Agradezco, Pero No. Ashishvats23 (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Studio albums sales

• There are several discrepancies with the album sales figures in this article. For instance, an album will apparently have been certified double platinum, but right next to it it'll say it sold about a million copies. Which is it? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect to sales of Pies Descalzos RIAA has confirmed that this album has been certified platinum, however According To Nielsen SoundScan only sold 584.000, in this case there is no contradiction because the certification of the official RIAA is a method sales audit, and sales are analyzed by Nielsen only under some criteria of Nielsen SoundScan and practice under this method can not know the exact sales. And with respect to sales and certifications for "Fijacion Oral vol. 1" 11x multi-platinum RIAA certify for type "latin" or RIAA certification Spanish language albums in addition to 2x multi-platinum normal certification in U.S. --D6h ^!? 01:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

La Pared

"La Pared" is missing in the singles list.--HC 5555 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I think it is no good idea to put global sales her albums, as they vary according to the reference; plus that many sales are inflated and are primary sources. If no one answers, I will proceed to do this myself. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing certifications

Many of listing charts' certifications are missing (like France and Spain). You should work on it, Shakira fans. :) · Mcdonalds (talk · cont), at 18:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Move article

I propose moving the article to "Discography of Shakira" to meet naming conventions.Lucia Black (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What naming convention is that? Nearly all discographies are named "<name of artist> discography". There are a few exceptions, but not many.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

definitely not "nearly". Ive seen a dozen articles with "Discography of _" however i will not say that proves my method is more common. Im simply saying your against mine wont wrk. LISTNAME suggest usage of "List of _" and since discography is basically a list type, "Discography of _" is best suited. When it comes to the subject of another subject, the name should be "subject of _". For example, the article "Halo 3 marketing" was moved to "Marketing of Halo 3" because of naming conventions. The current version just lacks discription.Lucia Black (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at search for discography vs. pages that begin with the word "discography". It's about a 20:1 ratio. Nearly all the "Discography of ..." articles are discographies related to video games, movies, or television series, as well. Most of the ones related to musical artists are just redirects to "<artist name> discography".—Kww(talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really the point. "X discoghaphy" lacks description and at the moment the only form of naming convention against all others. That should change.Lucia Black (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then bring such forth to the naming conventions page. Not here. Zach 01:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wp:naming conventions. Easy to link, from the beginning it asks that names be discriptive natural titles. "Shakira Discography" sounds unnatural for a title and undescriptive.Lucia Black (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then so do thousands of other articles. You've been told where to bring it. Zach 01:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you saying? I cant understand you.Lucia Black (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that Shakira discography is the standard naming for such articles. If you believe Discography of Shakira should be the correct time, then all of Wikipedia's discography articles should follow that format. Therefore, you must discuss that someplace else. Zach 02:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "discography of Shakira" sounds extremely stilted. This individual discography wouldn't be the place to discuss a general change. Probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies would be better.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Idk what u mean by stilted. But im going to challenge this for a much more affective long lasting move.Lucia Black (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It means awkward and unnatural sounding.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

its rather subjective. Many articles feature the exact naming convention, i think it only sounds awkward because it cuts off a bit. But doesnt sound really awkward if used in practice. For example "Discography of The Beatles" or "Discography of Black Viel Brides" seems to sound less of a run off. Like a complete title.Lucia Black (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Using a possessive form instead of a noun phrase just sounds strange. Are you a native speaker of English?—Kww(talk) 03:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats incredibly subjective, and the idea isnt to sound possessive, its to meet general naming conventions. What would make a possessive title, is if it was "Shakira's Discography" which sadly is more accurate version of this form of naming than the one currently used. Sometimes editors say "it sounds strange" for one particular case, but ignoring the rest that follow the same trend and never contest it. Why? Because they dont really believe it sounds that strange, they just prefer it to be their reason.

"Subject of X" type of titles sound "complete" to an article title rather than having a run-off (as in a title that has a beginning but an awkward ending that doesnt really sound like it ended). Plus, it personally sounds like "types" of discography rather than a being discography of that artist. For example the ones that sound the most off are: This one (Shakira discography), Usher discography, Fun Discography. But when its "Discography of X" the article is already says "this article is about the discography of X". "X discography" sounds like a type of discography or method of organizing a discography. and im not trying to nitpick or look for faults. the faults are just there.

It sounds strange? I dont believe you really believe that. or rather i dont believe you believe that you're giving a non bias opinion toward discography article titles because you wouldve attempted to say any other article that follows that form of naming sounds weird such as "Characters of X" related articles and "List of X episodes/books/characters" or any "subject of X" article out there.Lucia Black (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly believe that it sounds strange. I think some of our list articles sound strange as well. In any case, renaming one discography out of ten thousand doesn't make sense, so this isn't the place to try to create a new naming convention.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds quite awkward, and rather unnecessary: I've never heard anyone complain before that the current format sounds incorrect, so I feel that the name is fine as it is. Also, the "Discography of" pages that we do have aren't generally artist discographies, which are what we're discussing here: they're usually the music from a video game or full releases of a film series. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not unnecessary. Discography of X is a lot more descriptive and clearer that this one. I already said im going to challenge this at a higher athority. Does it really atter if anyone ever complained about it before? Many times thats the case in wikipedia.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, but usually it's quite a good indicator on policy and whether or not the general population considers it to be right, in my opinion. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think im fighting for whats right, you tthink im wrong, but if i am wrong, wouldnt you fight for other the other articles ive mentioned to be wrong?Lucia Black (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Very incomplete article and inaccurate information

The official singles list is incomplete, messy, some have incorrect years of released, etc.. The information provided is confusing and inaccurate. References are needed. Thanks--181.27.163.26 (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sales sources

@Userline303: I have examined the sources you provided and here's what I found: BET is fine, The National looks fine and so does Biography.com. However Concerttor.com is just a site for tour dates and nothing more so that's not reliable Also, none of the reliable sources mention 125 million sales in singles. Lastly, use {{cite web}} when citing sources. Paging WonderBoy1998 for his input as he is the one who worked hard to get this featured list. Erick (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

BET and The National seem to be fine, but a lot of users have opposed the use of Biography.com. Comcerttor.com is definitely unreliable. Moreover, most sources claim her record sales to stand at 60 million. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Shakira's Albums Sales

Hey guys, according to 'Wetpaint' Shakira sold more than 75 million albums worldwide, and that's true because if you count the worldwide estimations for each album of her you will find that she sold more than 71 Milion albums worldwide. And here's the last updated numbers of sales worldwide of each album : "Pies Descalzos" : 5m copies "Donde Estan Los Londorz" : 11.5m copies "The Remixes" : 1m copies "MTV Unplugged" " 5m copies "Laundry Service" : 21m copies "Grandes Exitos" : 3m copies "Live & off the record" : 1m copies "Fijacion Oral, Vol 1" : 4m copies "Oral Fixation, Vol 2" : 8m copies "Oral Fixation Tour" : 600k copies "Oral Fixation, Vol 3" : 600km copies "She Wolf/Loba" : 3m copies "Sale El Sol" : 5.5m copies "Live From Paris" : 600k copies "SHAKIRA" : 1.4m copies I hope you guys start editing and updating her albums sales, so we can move to the next step and it is figuring her Singles Sales. Userline303 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What makes Wetpaint a reliable source though? And where are those sales figures coming from? Also we do not use estimated sales in Wikipedia or add up total sales by ourselves as they falls under original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia either. EDIT: Upon further investigation, I can safely say that Wetpaint is not a reliable source as it is a user-generated site (meaning that anyone can write anything without editorial review). See this discussion Erick (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

But why on the Spanish Pages on Wikipedia it's the same as I've told.. And also each album sales comes from different sources some of them are reliable and some are not, so not all of them are not true... Add to that a lot of people proved that Mediatraffic is wrong in many sales figures and both of IFPI and Neilsen soundscan didn't give much information about Shakira's sales, I know fan pages/ websites and unreliable sources are not allowed on Wikipedia but we have to do something, I'm in a 17.000-members music group on facebook, many people are looking for updated numbers but they can't find it here on Wikipedia, everyone knows that the sales here are not updated or realistic.

What the Spanish Wikipedia does is their business and they have a pretty poor record of using reliable source. And I ask again, where are you getting those sources from? If you want to know Shakira's total sales, ask Billboard or IFPI. Even if the sales are not being updated or "realistic", they still need to be verified by a reliable or they will be removed. Verifiability, not truth. Erick (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shakira discography. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130922142539/http://www.terra.com.co/musica/articulo/html/mus11878-shakira-logra-doble-disco-de-platino-en-colombia.htm to http://www.terra.com.co/musica/articulo/html/mus11878-shakira-logra-doble-disco-de-platino-en-colombia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Shakira discography. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amprofon.com.mx/Archivos/PDF/top_anual/Top_100_Album_2005.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mexicancharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Shakira
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202022835/http://www.musikindustrie.de:80/no_cache/gold_platin_datenbank/ to http://www.musikindustrie.de/no_cache/gold_platin_datenbank/#topSearch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160716112934/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radionotas.com/charts_mx.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radionotas.com/charts_mx.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.monitorlatino.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radionotas.com/charts_mx.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://monitorlatino.com.mx/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307065825/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2002.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2002.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64wvT6oq3?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aria.com.au%2Fpages%2FARIACharts-Accreditations-2006Singles.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/ARIACharts-Accreditations-2006Singles.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6QbWDqX3X?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aria.com.au%2Fpages%2Fhttpwww.aria.com.aupagesaria-charts-accreditations-singles-2014.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesaria-charts-accreditations-singles-2014.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shakira discography. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715174856/http://mx.noticias.hispavista.com/espectaculos/20101129134400010/llega-adictiva-banda-jos-monitor-latino/ to http://mx.noticias.hispavista.com/espectaculos/20101129134400010/llega-adictiva-banda-jos-monitor-latino/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shakira discography. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715010110/http://www.fimi.it/classifiche_result_digital.php?anno=%202007&mese=06&id=76 to http://www.fimi.it/classifiche_result_digital.php?anno=%202007&mese=06&id=76

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

EPs

Please include The Pepsi E.P. and Love in the Time of Cholera. --186.28.141.113 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

El Dorado Album Sales

Who has a reliable source for Shakira's El Dorado sales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petertshomela (talk • contribs) 12:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Split

Perhaps this page needs a slip: albums and discography. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)