Talk:Into the Groove

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Into the Groove article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Into the Groove 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.

Into the Groove is part of the Like a Virgin series, a good topic. It is also part of the Celebration (Madonna album) series, a good topic. It is also part of the The Immaculate Collection series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 8, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
October 1, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted
July 6, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
April 21, 2024	Good topic candidate	Promoted
July 8, 2024	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 27, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Good article

Madonna Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna 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.MadonnaWikipedia:WikiProject MadonnaTemplate:WikiProject MadonnaMadonna articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Songs

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

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Original writer

I remember reading that Madonna had originally written this song for another singer, but at the last minute Madonna decided it was too good and kept it for herself. Maybe this could be incorporated into the article. -- Andrew Parodi 06:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The song was also part of the setlist during the Re-Invention Tour, with a bagpipe motif.76.22.201.109 (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK weeks on chart.

I have noticed that someone appears to have adjusted all of Madonnas (or nearly all) 80s singles total weeks on the UK chart to take into consideration the top 100. The OFFICIAL chart for this period was in fact the top 75, and all of these weeks should ideally be reverted back to reflect that. The Guinness book of hit singles uses the top 75, and the source for the current totals, whilst fascinating, and not necessarily a *lie*, is not reflective of actual official data.Turdalina (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legolas - Open any copy of the Guiness book of british hit singles and you will see the true weeks on chart. It is not my fault you have found an online site that doesn't take into consideration the fact that the chart was a TOP 75 throughout the 1980s. ANY Madonna fan would know the actual weeks her songs have spent on the chart, and I don't believe for one minute you think it actually spent 16 weeks on the chart. I do believe however that you are a domineering, arrogant egotist who believes that Wikipedia is his own project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.81.40 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is the official UK chart page - and this link leads you to the Madonna page - which has all the correct weeks on chart for all the singles that have inaccurate totals listed for them. http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/madonna/

Is that OK? Or is it not official enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.81.40 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OCC website posts only the positions inside the top 40, the UK Chart extends upto Top 100, and re-extends to Top 200, though that one is not official. We cannot ignore top 100 positions. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned - the chart from the mid 80s onwards for a considerable amount of years, was Officially a top 75. The OCC does not only post the positions in the top 40, which you would see if you looked at say, Music's or Hung Up's weeks on chart and compared them to your source, it posts all the positions from whatever chart is considered the official. Now...I love Madonna and I would love to extend all her chart careers by a couple of weeks, but the true numbers are the ones mentioned on the OCC/Guiness book of hit singles etc. If you are adamant that you want to include your unofficial totals, then at least state 'Into the groove spent 16 weeks in the top 100' rather than 'the chart'. I will now go and find a link that verifies the history of the UK chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.81.40 (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very frustrating. I see the weeks have been reverted back to 16. So the copy I have of the Guinness Book of UK hit singles I have in front of me is lying then? The official site I gave you a link to is lying as well? For official purposes the chart was a top 75. The numbers from 75-100 or 200 have always been available at various different times, yet they have not always been used when compiling OFFICIAL data. Any Madonna fan, who comes from England knows how many weeks her singles have spent in the chart off the top of their head. Why are you disputing the OFFICIAL site I have linked? If you had the time and inclination you would see, as I have ALREADY stated that it doesn't just post the figures from the top 40, it uses the top 75. Turdalina (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back cover of "Angel"

Should the back cover of "Angel" be uploaded? --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it belongs to "Angel" article and is already present there. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Let's revisit this. This song was made in America; it was released as B-side of "Angel" in the US. Why would we still retain the international front cover instead? --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't? It wasn't released as a single in US, but was a single overseas. Its as clear as daylight that the cover art used is that for the song's single release and no ounce of B-side usage should even be present. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Into the Hollywood Groove" remix

I think that the section giving details about the "Hollywood Groove" remix should be here rather than in the "Hollywood" article. Amzer (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork's Best Songs of the 80s

Into the Groove was considered the 17th best song of the 80s by Pitchfork. Can you add this to the article? http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/9700-the-200-best-songs-of-the-1980s/10/

Jimoincolor (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Into the Groove. 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.

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) 08:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Into the Groove. 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/20100305174105/http://www.blender.com/lists/68125/500-greatest-songs-since-you-were-born-451-500.html to http://www.blender.com/lists/68125/500-greatest-songs-since-you-were-born-451-500.html

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) 10:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Into the Groove. 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/20141129043306/http://www.infodisc.fr/S_Certif_Or.php?debut=275 to http://www.infodisc.fr/S_Certif_Or.php?debut=275

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) 20:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boogi

Bkhsloaho Hrjsd 2.147.148.0 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Chart Performance

I'm glad the chart performance section discusses the song's absence from the Billboard Hot 100, although there are some key issues not addressed. Presently, the article states that "Into the Groove" was ineligible to chart on the Hot 100 and its component sales chart (Hot 100 Singles Sales). This is sourced to a 2003 Fred Bronson book and a 2013 Gary Trust article in Billboard, neither of which actually state that the song was ineligible from appearing on the Hot 100 Sales chart, although since I do believe this is true, I'm not going to delete it. I'm curious though about the fact that the song was also apparently ineligible from charting on the Billboard Hot 100 airplay chart. My assumption is that at the time, Billboard wouldn't chart a song on its Hot 100 Airplay chart if it wasn't available as a commercial single--even if it was getting significant airplay. "Into the Groove" did chart on the similar Top 40 airplay chart published by Radio & Records. On the R&R top 40, the song debuted on May 24, peaked at #6 on June 28, and spent 11 weeks in the top 40. Given that there was substantial overlap at the time between the Radio & Records top 40 and the Hot 100 Airplay chart, its absence from the Hot 100 Airplay chart must have been an intentional omission due to Billboard rules. Curiously, these rules must have changed sometime before 1988, since early that year, Madonna did chart on the Hot 100 Airplay chart with a single that was not available commercially, "Spotlight" (peaked at #32 on Hot 100 Airplay, and similarly, at #31 on the R&R top 40). I've never found any sources though that explain these '80s-era rules, although I continue to look for them. Ww adh77 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]