Talk:Janet (album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Janet (album) 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

Archives: 1

Janet (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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 25, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Janet Jackson Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Janet Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Janet Jackson and associated groups or individuals 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.Janet JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Janet JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Janet JacksonJanet Jackson articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

R&B and Soul Music Top‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal 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 articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Certification

It's impossible that an album that had spend six weeks atop of the Billboard Top 200 sell just 150,000 units from a space between May 18, 1993 and August, 1993 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phonography (talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl?

Does anybody know if this record was released on Vinyl? If so, could you please post a link? Thanks.Ga Be 19 07:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

As per Wikipedia naming and styling policy and guidelines, this album should be referred to as Janet. The lowercase title is ignored as it does not follow the rules of standard English, whereas the "." is eliminated as superfluous punctuation. Even if the title is supposed to be pronounced as Janet Period, this is not the actual written title, and thus the supposed pronunciation of the title can be dealt with by a reliably sourced sentence or two. The styling of the album name is noted in the lead, but subsequent reference to the title should use correct English as per WP:MOSTM and WP:NC. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the problem with it labeling "Janet, Period" as the pronunciation. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 07:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 90s: The Inside Stories From the Decade That Rocked.

According to the "The 90s: The Inside Stories From the Decade That Rocked" book released recently by Rolling Stone, "janet." is #58 in the list of 100 best 90s album.

Does anyone own the book, in order to add the source in the article?

Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.152.93 (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janet (album) → Janet. – According to policy (stated above), the title of this article should be Janet.. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 07:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see no indication that this album is the primary topic. Suggest Janet remain a disambig page.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Maybe you couldn't see it, but the period is the main point here. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 19:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didin't notice, but that simply makes the argument for not moving more solid. The period is a style choice, which wikipedia often ignores.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above section about naming guidelines, which is opposite the claim of the nominator. MOS:TM 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. not the primary topic. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned references in Janet (album)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Janet (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bpi":

From Fearless (Taylor Swift album): "BPI - Certified Awards Search". BPI.co.uk. British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved November 26, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
From Janet Jackson discography: "BPI > Certified Awards Search". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 04-09-2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Reference named "RIAA":

From Dreaming of You (album): "American certifications – Selena – Dreaming of You". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
From What Have You Done for Me Lately: "Janet Jackson RIAA certifications". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
From Damita Jo (album): "Gold & Platinum". Recording Industry Association of America. 2004-05-27. Retrieved 2010-07-04.
From Norah Jones: "Gold & Platinum – August 19, 2010". RIAA. Retrieved 2010-08-19.
From Janet Jackson discography: "Gold & Platinum Search". riaa.com. Retrieved 2010-05-16.
From Industrial music: "Searchable Database". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 28 October 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

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. No prejudice against a new RM with Janet. (album) as the proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janet (album) → Janet. – The album is titled Janet., with a period, per its album cover and multiple sources including Vulture (which notes the proper pronunciation of the album is "Janet Period"), BET, Billboard, Rolling Stone (see the actual review, not just the listing at the top), and Allmusic amongst others. In September 2010, Nouse4aname moved this page citing MOS:TM, which says: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words ... or for normal punctuation." This period is none of the above - it is a part of the title, not solely for decoration, and according to sources it is pronounced.

I wouldn't be opposed to Janet. (album) if the period is not considered strong enough disambiguation, but it should be noted that "Janet." is currently a redirect to this article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, most songs/albums on Wikipedia include punctuation where it is a part of the title - see "Man! I Feel Like a Woman!", "Where Are You, Christmas?", Oops!... I Did It Again (song and album), etc. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. While the nom shows several sources that use "janet." as the title, (in addition to the ones listed, there's also Jet, Rap-Up, Whitney Houston: We Love You Forever, Vibe, Notable Black American Women, Black American Biographies, American R & B, there are lots that drop the period as well: Rock Song Index; Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound; Encyclopedia of Popular Music; African Americans in the Performing Arts; Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television; Janet Jackson; You've Come a Long Way, Baby. It's close, because WP:DIFFPUNCT does allow for this kind of title, but I think that the period-less version is common enough to justify the current title. (Hmm, but what about WP:NATURAL...?) I can be convinced otherwise. Dohn joe (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but with multiple sources (1, 2, 3, 4, and even Janet Jackson's official website, just to name a few) noting the "Janet period" pronunciation, wouldn't that make it worth acknowledging? –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose current title - definitely, the title of the article should include the period. Weakly support move as proposed; I could be talked out of it. Red Slash 23:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DIFFPUNCT and WP:SONGDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the other suggested move? –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly oppose Janet. (album). In fact I think this is the way we are going and hopefully that will fix all the WP:ASTONISH title disasters like Bingo! (note also Bingo! (AKB48 song)). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per IIO and Dohn Joe. Janet. (album) is acceptable though not preferable to the current title. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The tiny detail of punctuation is unlikely to be carefully applied, or even noticed, by many readers (or sources). It is an insufficient disambiguator (especially since punctuation is typically unpronounced, and this is about a work that is primarily an audio experience). I might not be opposed to "Janet. (album)". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 3

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. Consensus is against moving to either proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janet (album) → Janet. (album) – Many editors in the RM directly above expressed that "Janet. (album)" could be a viable alternative to simply "Janet.", and I would boldly make the move myself, but per Dohn joe's argument that the period-less version of the title is common in the press, IP contributor 65.94.171.126's claim that this move would be "acceptable though not preferable", and no obvious support for it among anyone, I figured opening a new discussion would be the most appropriate course of action.

Survey

Sources that use the period include BET, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Allmusic, Jet, Rap-Up, Whitney Houston: We Love You Forever, Vibe, Notable Black American Women, Black American Biographies, and American R&B. Additionally, Vulture, Slant Magazine, Music of the 1990s, and Entertainment Weekly all note that the album title is pronounced "Janet, period" (which indicates that the period in the title is significant). Jackson's official website also makes note of the "period" pronunciation: "In 1993 Janet released her fifth album, 'janet.' which immediately shot to number one and reinvented Janet Jackson into Janet (period)." – Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Chase (talk / contribs) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy support Red Slash 04:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slash, In ictu oculi, BarrelProof, and the two editors pinged in the RM are invited to join this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it remain at the current title, while the proposed title is acceptable to me, it is not my preferred choice. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) (My IP address has rolled over) 04:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask why? –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is decoration, and the album is also mentioned without using the fullstop. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per several sources which note its pronunciation, it is more than merely decoration. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That various sources use or drop the period shows that in common usage, it is decoration. Official naming has a meaning for the fullstop, but in the popular usage, it does not. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I also would prefer the current title. Second choice would be the previous RM attempt, janet.. If we add the period, we don't need "(album)", so I would oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:DIFFCAPS. Dohn joe (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The last RM was opposed because of WP:DIFFPUNCT. And I definitely think the album should be referred to in proper caps. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:DIFFPUNCT allows for the period. And most of the sources that use the period lowercase the title, which makes it proper for us to do so as well. Dohn joe (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - - MoS generally discourages all lower-caps except in the case of individuals who prefer their name that way (such as k.d. lang and will.i.am), programming/mathematical formulas, and trademarks such as iPhone. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry but there is too much noisy use of random . ? + ! in too many song/album article titles already. Janet (album) is fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Janet. (album) would be unnecessary disambiguation. I do support Janet. - favoring WP:NATURAL disambiguation (which is used in reliable sources) over parenthetic disambiguation. I note that there is no policy-based objection to the previous RM. Dohn joe is right; DIFFPUNCT supports Janet. too. --В²C ☎ 17:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why was this discussion relisted? Everyone already opposed "Janet.", and I'm here opposing addition of a period (.) because no one would type in the period after "Janet" nowadays and before the disambiguation. This ain't 1993 or the 90s anymore. --George Ho (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @George Ho: Who's to say that "no one" would type it, especially seeing as that's the way the album has been referred to in sources and is listed on the album cover? Release date is irrelevant. Of course, Janet (album) would still redirect, so I fail to see how that would be an issue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fortunately disabled the AutoComplete thing, which says "Disable the suggestions dropdown-lists of the search fields" in "Preferences" tab under "Appearances" section. In other words, I don't need to let that thing do things for me. As for the period (.) thing, beside precisely matching the album cover, why should a common person type "Janet. (album)" rather than "Janet." or "Janet (album)"? Don't tell me more about AutoComplete, which I disabled in my account. "Janet." was already opposed, and the below proposal should never have been done in the first place. Of course, unsigned user may have AutoComplete, but can he type just "Janet"? --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would anyone type “Janet (album)”? The question of how a user would get here really doesn’t matter when the title’s disambiguated. The real question is whether we should treat the title as if it contains a period. My vote is no, as it would make coherently writing about it somewhat impossible. Every occurrence of Janet. would likely be misread as ending a sentence. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article should stay where it is. we have a guideline that firmly rejects vanity styling, and the trailing full stop is a perfect example of this. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: re-evaluate Janet.

The opposition to Janet. in the previous RM discussion is questionable. I don't think anyone realized it's better supported by policy than is the current title. WP:NATURAL and WP:DIFFPUNCT in particular both support Janet. over Janet (album), and no policy or guideline supports Janet (album) over Janet.. Certainly none were cited. Well, DIFFPUNCT and SONGDAB were cited, but that was incorrect. The essence of DIFFPUNCT is Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail.. That's exactly what we have here, and SONGDAB simply says to use (album) when necessary; with Janet., it's not necessary. Dohn joe, are you convinced? I hereby propose:

Janet (album) → Janet. --В²C ☎ 22:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, give it up. Just wait for one year or two to re-propose it. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close this was just discussed, #Requested move 2 closed on 30 July 2014, 1 week ago. Excessive renomination speed. Further it failed at #Requested move 1 in 2011. I say this particular title "Janet." be not discussed for another year. We have two clear consensuses, and it did not change in the span of 3 years. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close. Give it up, this was just discussed, as above #Requested move 2 closed on 30 July 2014, 1 week ago. B2C Hilary Clinton, Madonna, this, these are all examples of what you were asked to cease: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive245#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_Born2cycle In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few people participated in that discussion and the argument I presented here was not presented there. I had a hunch consensus was misread. I might be wrong. What's wrong with finding out? --В²C ☎ 15:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called WP:MRV. Try it out if you disagree with the last closure. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't disagree with the closure. I just think the issue needs more exposure and discussion. --В²C ☎ 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Like I said last time, I agree that WP:Natural and WP:Diffpunct could support janet. (note lowercase, which is how the album is almost universally styled when the period is included). However, enough sources use "Janet" that I think WP:COMMONNAME fits that bill (the evidence presented shows that it's around 50/50 for "Janet" vs. "janet." If further evidence shows that "janet." is more common, then that's what would sway me here. Dohn joe (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But the question is not whether "Janet" or "janet." is more commonly used. The question is whether "janet." is an appropriate natural disambiguation, and thus preferred to the "Janet (album)" unnatural parenthetic disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 16:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems clear that nobody thinks a period at the end makes a suitable disambiguation, natural or otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close - It's been rejected twice, and this will be rejected again. As for WP:MRV, it's too late because you already did this section. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: WP:NATURAL and WP:DIFFPUNCT in this case are overridden by readability. One cannot coherently write about Janet. if including the period. Sentence-terminating punctuation in the middle of a sentence is problematic, and article titles should not encourage that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for offering a decent argument disfavoring Janet.; a first, though I disagree it's problematic, as I've just shown. --В²C ☎ 18:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is your basis for excluding the period, then what should be done about examples where the sentence-terminating punctuation is more commonly documented in sources, such as Help!? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. I think I was speaking too broadly. Besides the general rule that encyclopedias don’t end sentences with question marks or exclamation points, the exclamation point in “Help!” is visibly italicized, so it’s less likely to be mistaken as part of the sentence. Not so with a period. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose B2C's conciseness-trumps-all-other-criteria algorithm. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with conciseness. --В²C ☎ 18:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the merits: I concur that a) It's procedurally wrong to reopen the debate (again) right after it's closed (so, yes, also speedy procedural close) and that the characterization of the previous debates as inadequate isn't supported; b) Janet fits WP:COMMONNAME well enough to use it (and sorry, but that analysis is not undone by the separate need to disambiguate - if it did we would never disambiguate parenthetically if any alternative name at all were availble); c) it would indeed make writing parseable material about this album essentially impossible (reader friendliness trumps all but the most core policy concerns); and, d) yes, this is yet another case of B2C pushing his already many-times-rejected idea that conciseness is paramount. We're all tired of hearing it. Brevity is a minor goal, always secondary to clarity (note again: The reader's understanding comes first). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think this has anything to do with conciseness? Why are you not addressing the actual points made regarding NATURAL and DIFFPUNCT? --В²C ☎ 23:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose allowing the use of a terminal period to disambiguate. A terminal period is not well understood to be part of title, even is explicit quotes are supposed to clarify. When referring to a title, a period (or comma) can very easily be added, and if this punctuation is part of the composition title, it is very confusing. As discussed at Talk:Free! (anime), the boundary line for where punctuation is acceptable, recognizable, disambiguation lies probably lies between difference cases of a terminal exclamation or question. "Free!" is not unambiguous with "Free", but "Oliver!" is probably almost always clearly different to "Oliver". Terminal commas and periods are definitely on the wrong side of the line of acceptability, alongside non-printing characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename and support close. The horse is long dead. we have a guideline that firmly rejects vanity styling, and the trailing full stop is a perfect example of this. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Post-close meta-comment: Someone's advice above to "Just wait for one year or two to re-propose it" is a terrible idea. Biding one's time to be tendentious after one thinks enough people will have forgotten and you can get away with it is just WP:GAMING the system. It's still disruptive jackassery to flog to death an issue on which consensus has not and is not likely to change. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Janet (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090919000041/http://www.rockhall.com:80/pressroom/definitive-200 to http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://uktop40.republika.pl/najlep%20sprzalbumy%20uk%201993.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 05:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14 million source?

In the source it says OVER 14 million, a big OVER. Not including Control or RN1814. It sold close to 20 million. Please read this and your source after this. Dre7474 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also if it sold over ten million copies worldwide after seven months, do you really think that it just sold an additional 4 million copies after 24 years. Especially from the 4 top ten singles that came after the 7 months, each either platinum or gold. Let's get real. Dre7474 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's been discussed here. It's been discussed on her discography page. Kellymoat (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shipped “over 8 million units” by March 31 1994, while she got certified for 6 million sales in the US a few days later, letting a mere 2 million sales for rest of the World sales. See the source here: [1] . This album is not a big catalog seller in USA, and still less out of there, it is out of catalog in 90% of the world since the nighties too.--88marcus (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current sales of 14 million are more accurate. Her biggest market is United States, but after that, outside this country, the certifications are too low and a disappointment. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 20:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Janet (album). 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/20100621054859/http://www.infodisc.fr/Certif_Album.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Certif_Album.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924015932/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsg.co.za/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230233148/http://www.swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=1993 to http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=1993
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108031204/http://www.ifpi.no/sok/index_trofe.htm to http://www.ifpi.no/sok/index_trofe.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521214300/http://www.ifpi.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/guld-platina-1987-1998.pdf to http://www.ifpi.se/wp-content/uploads/guld-platina-1987-1998.pdf
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jW8qIpnZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mi2n.com%2Fpress.php3%3Fpress_nb%3D47877 to http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877

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) 03:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Janet (album). 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/20100713152201/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30554 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30554
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877

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) 23:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson's album sales. A little bigotry with your Wikipedia.

What I don't understand why haters out there try to minimize Janet's album sales. In fact, while referencing sales for certain albums based upon Janet's press releases, editors pick and choose what stats they use. A reference is made to a press release that said Janet's All For You album sold 7 millions yet they don't update Control and Rythym Nation both sold 14 million albums and Janet. sold 20 million. Can we get some consistency here before I assume the anti-Janet bigots are prevailing Alc1972 (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

familiarize yourself with wikipedia's guidelines. it will help you discover the reasons why the pages say what they say. it will also prevent you from making asinine comments like that one.

also, read up on WP:SOCK. Kellymoat (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The picking and choosing of stats is all about which ones are the most reliable. For instance, which ones use a number without discussing how they arrived at that number? Which ones use a number based on certified sources? Which ones are actually certification sites? Maximizing accuracy – that's the way it's done here. Nothing about haters or bigots. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Janet (album). 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) 02:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WW Sales of 20 Million

I've added this source in multiple times and still do not understand why it keeps getting changed back to 14 million. The source in which the 14 million was retrieved from is from n article from a non-major paper, who most likely got their information from here (Wikipedia). I think the link listed below is a much more reliable source for it's from Virgin Records- her record company she was with at the time of the release of this album- written by Richard Branson- the owner of the label and the man who signed her. If you scroll to the last paragraph it says, "She remained signed to Virgin for 17 years – a period in which she released five top selling albums, including ‘Janet’, which sold more than 20 million copies worldwide."

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/signing-janet-jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithBivian (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial music?

Jackson's previous sound was industrial music? I don't think that's what that sentence is supposed to mean. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 million sales worldwide

I think 15 million is more accurate. Mediatraffic has those sales claims for the last four years.[2]

Meddymarl (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]