# Talk:Hung Up

2005, not 1999!
What in the world is happening with this article
"Hung up" is from 2005, why the year 1999 appears everywhere as year of realease, recording and charting??? That is outrageously wrong you guys!
190.81.73.67 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I KNOW!!!! I mean I know every single song by Madonna. IT WAS NOT MADE IN 1999!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadonnaPenguin (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 

I noticed this comment has been added which is good -
"Hung Up" is the biggest hit single in Madonna's carier. In March 2007, the United World Chart ranked "Hung Up" as the forty third most successful song in music history. Referring to that same list, "Hung Up" is also the seventh most successful song released by a solo female musician. The most successful single in twenty first century and second biggest selling dance song ever.
However Why is this comment below still in here?? as it contradicts the above - 
The United World Chart ranks "Hung Up" as the fourth most successful single since 1999 (behind Cher's Believe, Shakira's Hips Don't Lie and James Blunt's You're Beautiful

According to Media Traffic Website on the all time track chart the top song of the 2000's at no.43 is Hung Up - by Madonna http://www.mediatraffic.de/alltime-track-chart.htm She is not ranked #4th for top singles since 1999? She should be at #2 above Hips Don't Lie - Shakira feat. Wyclef Jean (ranked at no.46) and You're Beautiful - James Blunt (at no.49)
So maybe mention that Madonna has the no.1 song of the 2000's so far?? 

"It has become one of the most successful singles of all time, reaching number one in a record breaking forty-four countries and is the best selling dance single of all time.[1] It became Madonna's first U.S. top-ten single in three years. It is one of her best-selling singles to date, selling nearly five million copies"
It's THE best-selling DANCE single of all times, and ONE OF Madonnas's best-selling singles. Since (almost all) Madonna's music is dance, isn't this song THE best-seeling single from her - and so the info is redundant?

Er, no....I would hardly class "Live To Tell" or "Crazy For You" as dance.  Madonna makes pop music, I don't think all of her work strays into dance.Paul75 00:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Does an instrumental version of hung up actually exist and is it/has it been available to buy/download (itunes, vinyl, limewire etc) if searched for? Because and instrumental version of hung up would be nuts. You just gotta love the vamped up abba sample.

Thanks for adding the Australian chart!! :)
can i just point out that the sample is of "ring, ring" by abba and not "gimmie , gimmie , gimmie"
um no madonna says ring, ring, ring in the song, but the ABBA sample is from a song called "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme (a man after midnight)"
The sample is definitely from Gimme Gimme Gimme, and if you want to be correct the machine Madonna and co. dance on isn't Dance Dance Revolution, but Dancing Stage Fusion (Dancing Stage is the name of the games released for PAL consoles - like UK and Australia - and all officially exported arcade machines outside of Japan and Korea). 81.27.192.19 16:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

also what is up with that picture of a 7", its not the record for this single. she's not even on MGM, i would take it off but im afraid to mess up the formatting --Blehpunk 17:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
if there's no cover (for upcoming singles/ albums) this MGM dummy is used until the real cover is released. --Red-Blue-White 15:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
How was this posted and What type of authority can post this much information?
If this information is correct, Thank you very much!
How long has it been here? Looks like before September 30th! Who wrote it? Voila!

Everyone can post informations. --Red-Blue-White 15:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If this video was filmed in London, then why do the greenish-cab scenes involve a driver sitting on the left and driving on the right side of the road? The palm trees seemed a bit suspicious, too....
part of it (the madonna bits) were filmed in london , but some of the extra 'dancer' bits , like in the cab when somone is leaning out the window and when it says slow on the road and when there are some dancers dancing near the beginning and jumping off buildings was filemed somwhere in america , maybe LA or somthing. i did notice a mistake about that...that some of the dancers were one minute dancing in america...then the next minute (when the video enters the 'night-time' phase) getting out of a cab in london and on the london underground....lol

ummmmm, hey I like Madonna a lot, and this is a great song, but aren't we getting a little carried away with the chart information here?  -- eo 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the iTunes stuff should be mentioned, but they arent an official chart. Does it look better now? OmegaWikipedia 08:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
iTunes are the most important digital sales charts. Of course it does matter and of course their released charts are official. --Red-Blue-White 18:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's worth a mention somewhere on the page about this single that "Hung Up" ties Madonna with Elvis Presley for the most top 10 hits by any artist in the rock era.  This is an amazing feat and it is worth a mention.

"Red-Blue-White" - please show us DETAILED HIGH-RESOLUTION PICTURE of your rumored "promo vinyl" with rumored "Instrumental Version"! We want to see the cover of your rumored "promo vinyl" with the full tracklisting!   
1. A photo or scan of the rumored "Promo Vinyl" with the "Instrumental Version" and CATALOGUE NUMBER of this rumored vinyl!
2. A photo or scan of the rumored vinyl with the "Alternate Version Names" (aka Tracy Young Mix Edit, aka Stuart Price Remix...) and CATALOGUE NUMBER of this rumored vinyl!
User 81.27.192.19

In this article we list all existing official versions. The vinyl wasn't a regular release but some copies arrived at some shops. This 12" promo (12" - catalogue number W695T, release date  - 7th November 2005) includes:
1. Hung Up [Album Version]
2. Hung Up [Instrumental]
3. Hung Up [Stuart Price Full Mix]
4. Hung Up [Tracy Young Mix Edit]
You find it at many sites: [1], [2], [3] and at [4] you can find pictures. --Red-Blue-White 12:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: The published vinyl tracklists are a reference for the missing versions: This site lists released and unreleased versions. --Red-Blue-White 14:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Original conversation: [5]

On which Japanese chart has she been #1? The one for imports or radio station J-Wave's highly unofficial and unreliable Tokyo Hot 100? I'm asking this because Madonna, like most other non-Japanese artists, does not fare that well in any official Japanese charts (like the Oricon).
Chsf 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Madonna has been #1 at all big Japanese charts including Foreign Singles Chart, Zip FM Hot 100 (Radio) and the biggest charts Tokio Hot 100 and Osakan Hot 100 [6]. It's no big surprise - she has been #1 3 times in Japan the last 5 years. Oricon is the biggest national chart - but mainly for Japanese music only (I hope that Information is correct). --Red-Blue-White 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
That is incorrect. "Hung Up" did not make #1 in Japan's official charts. Madonna would be the first U.S. artist to have a #1 hit there in over 30 years. Oricon is the official Japanese charts. She made #1 on imports and Tokyo's chart. However Tokyo's chart isn't representative of the official charts. The song charted on Oricon, and THAT position should be the one listed as this one is INCORRECT. --jmccoymoniz@comcast.net

I can see the effort that has gone into this article, but sorry, I think that it's way too detailed. It starts off well, and then just disintegrates. For example (one of many), I don't think we need a list of almost one hundred charts that the song entered. It's difficult to see the forest for the trees here. Various spelling and formatting errors besides (e.g. names of charts and #1's bolded for no reason). I originally thought my reasons for adding a cleanup tag to the article were obvious, but since it was removed without explanation, I thought I'd leave a comment here. Extraordinary Machine 15:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't seen what needed cleaning up but now I see what you mean. Yes, a lot of it is too detailed and there are plenty of unnecessary bolded words/numerals. For example, the dates of when the video peaked at #1 on TRL had always seemed a bit too much. Now, to clean up that chart... which charts stay and which ones should be removed? Keep the US/UK ones only or..? Kahlen 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the charts from major countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, etc. should stay but I think that the dance charts and the airplay charts should go. I think that only the main single charts are necessary. Underneath-it-All 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hung Up" is a massive successful single - and this article must list every country where it peaked at number 1. But it mustn't be a table. The list can be in textform to make it more compact. Something like.
"Hung Up" has been number one in Argentina, Brazil, Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey....
"Hung Up" has been a top ten hit in....
But I don't think that the actual form is that dramatic problematic. --Red-Blue-White 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
All minor markets should be trimmed, whether the song became a number-one hit in them or not. This may not have been your intention, but it sounds rather POV to mention a country just because it went to number-one there. Let's just write "It reached number-one in [list of major countries] and several other countries" and leave it at that. Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey all country's should be included, it's not because your American or whatever you think you're it all, this is an encyclopedia, all the correct stuff should be in it
As a visitor to this site I find it very informative and well done. I like reading the charts from around the world. Well Done do not change it. I only have to go to 1 site instead of more than 20! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.11.81.64 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 January 2006.

Well, that's nice, but it isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be. This is an encyclopedia: we're here to summarise facts, not collect them all no matter how trivial they are. Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well i am sorry at the moment many of my friends use this site for updates and info if it changes we will leave wikipedia all together. This page is excellent. Extradinary Machine why do you always have to be a wet blanket? Its fine the way it is, very informative so if you want to summarise the article do it yourself. Most of us are fine the way it is. Majority wins.
Well thank you extraordinary machine you boring sourpuss, you prob dont even read this page but i also know about 5 of us who will no longer use this service as it is bullshit, thanks alot - the removal of the chart trajectory (That we all used informativly) was the final straw... take ur valueble wikipedia and stick it

The editors of this page are obviously american as there are 5 us charts shown and only 1 of the australian charts shown. this is a really shit site i am sick of it and will no longer view it. People have ruined it the first one was that fuck head extroadinary machine.

Please, no personal attacks. To quote user:FuriousFreddy: encyclopedias aren't supposed to be "complete"; they are supposed to provide overviews and guide users to further information on a subject if they want to go beyond the standard level. Something like a Madonna fan wiki would be a fine place to have an article on every chart that "Hung Up" appeared on, but a general-purpose encyclopedia is not. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. Extraordinary Machine 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Are there sources for HU 3 mill.?  --Red-Blue-White 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
How can people think the single sold more than the album? The mediatraffic number of 8,7 million are not sold copies, they are points from sales and radio airplay. The single sold 2 million together in  US, UK, Germany & France, in the rest of the world it couldn't sell 6 million more with low single sales like that... 84.0.222.161 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there really the need for all those Billboard magazine chart listings? I've been repeatedly trimming them down for a while, but my edits keep being reverted for unexplained reasons. Also, about the U.S. Hot 100 Singles Sales, Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Airplay: to quote user:FuriousFreddy's explanation, these are used by Billboard to calculate the main Hot 100 chart positions. It's not really necessary to list them unless, for some reason, a song didn't appear on the Hot 100, but did appear on one of these. Extraordinary Machine 12:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The song charted for five weeks at number one on the Billboard Dance Radio Airplay chart. I believe that this is notable without argument. Any objections? –Eternal Equinox 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To the person who has been updating sales figures : it's great that you are doing this, but please ensure that you quote a source for this information - ie website, printed media etc.  It is mandatory as per Wikipedia:Citing sources and by providing this information you would not only be giving other users a way of verifying the information, but may even be providing a link to useful information that could enhance this and other articles.  If you aren't sure how to go about referencing the information please send a message to my talk page, and I'll be happy to help, but I can't stress enough how important this is.  Thanks Rossrs 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The article Hung Up and its talk page are mistitled. As it stands, this article isn't going to be going anywhere if the talk page doesn't even have the same name as its lead article. The error needs to be corrected. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi all
Are 20 weeks the maximum allowed? I am curious if it fell off the Hot 100 after the 20th week or not.PatrickJ83 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If a song is charted below position number fifty after its twentieth week on the Hot 100 (but has not descended position number 100), it will automatically be removed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :-) PatrickJ83 05:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've cleaned up this article, it's needed it for a long long time....not sure if I have condensed it down enough though, hopefully it is not as bloated as it used to be.  What do people think?  Any comments welcome!! Paul75 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
___________
Doesn't Elvis have 38 top ten hits, and not 36?

I removed the succession boxes because I believe they are pointless, and are not encyclopedic in nature.  What was number one before and after "Hung Up" is not relevant to the subject.  This is an article on "HUNG UP", not the Canadian Top 40 or the World Music Charts. A point to think about is the fact that 'Hung Up' had three seperate runs at number one in Canada, and would thus require 3 seperate sucession boxes - pointless and a waste of space. Paul75 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There are succession boxes on most articles for number one songs. I use them all the time. I'm putting them back. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The song was more successful than ABBA's Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! but it was not thier biggest hit. Dancing Queen and Fernando sold more than Hung Up.

That quote was from the Sunday Times, it was not a definitive statement on ABBA's record sales Paul75 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hung Up isn't even ABBA's song, yeah it has a sample but it shouldn't be mixed up with their singles.

Should there really be a link to YouTube?
"It spent a record seven weeks at number one on the UK Download Chart" -- the record is held by "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley with 11 weeks.
The US chart trajectory is wrong, as after 20 weeks on the chart if a song is under number 50 it gets removed. The chart trajectory being fake makes me wonder what else is.
Also, where is the 9 million sales total from? That's over a million more than the album!
First, someone then needs to update the reference to the record on the UK download chart (perhaps yourself?).  "Crazy" was released after Hung Up, and the stats weren't updated, simple error.  Secondly, Billboard compile a Top 100 singles charts, therefore I doubt a song will be removed after it falls below number 50.  If that was the case they would compile a Top 50 singles chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_100#Recurrents

Which are the three most succesful singles of all time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.82.59.204 (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

The article says 43, but when you count them, there are 49 (as of 10/01/07) so, anyone know the actual figure? 60.234.242.196 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Guiness Book of Records 1997 says 41 countries only 60.234.242.196 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
1997?????? Paul75 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
living in the wrong decade/century/millennium. That is 2007 of course .. oops 60.234.242.196 11:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There's something wrong about it, "Hips Don't Lie" by Shakira and Wyclef officialy hit #1 in more than 40 countries and to date it's supposed that there's more countries missing in the #1 list, so i'm not completly sure if "Hung Up" holds the record. --McMare's 04:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This also needs to be checked. Cher's 'Believe' sold 10m, almost twice this and is also considered to be the best-selling dance single. 60.234.242.196 11:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have condensed the charts section of the article because the section was ridiculously bloated.  It doesn't really need the countries Hung Up peaked at number one in listed over and over and over again.....Paul75 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's how its spelt can we get some chart trajactories up for Hung Up please? Thanks!
No, we can't. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Dude why not?

WP:CHARTS ShadowHalo 00:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

American singer songwriter?
I'm pretty sure Madonna is not American....

Er, she was born in America....
Madonna is American. She is from Detroit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.61.49 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC) 

I believe the statement about the song's structure is correct. The song only has one verse, the rest of the song consisting of the chorus and various bridges  (the bridges being those sections starting with "ring ring ring goes the telephone", "I can't keep on waiting for you" and the musical fade down towards the end).  Any comments?
"Ring ring ring.. etc" is not a bridge, it's a verse. It has the same chord pattern and follows the same lyrical structure as the other verse in the song, which starts with "Time goes by so slowly for those who wait, no time to hesitate.. etc."
If "Ring, ring" were a bridge, it would be leading into another bridge--"I can't keep on waiting for you..." (76.22.201.109 20:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
"Ring ring" does lead into the bridge "I can't keep on..."    ?????  
The structure of "Ring Ring ring goes the telephone...." is not ideentical to the first verse of the song however, Paul75 20:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
i disgree, i think the song has 2 verses, the first is:
"time goes by so slowy for those who wait, no time to hesitate, those who run seem to have all the fun, im caught up, im hanging up on you" (or whatever) 
but isnt the:
"ring ring ring goes the telephone, the lights are on but theres no-one home, tick tick tock its a quater to two and im done, im hanging up on you" 
another verse....???? so there is not just 1 verse, both are the same length so if 1 is a verse surely the other is to? 81.1.65.70 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
True, the verses are not identical, however anyone could easily see that the two parts of the song are similar and follow a pattern established by the first verse. Taking that into consideration, and the usual function of a bridge in a song (an indication of a lyrical, thematic or musical transition), I would think that the two parts of the song are close enough to be have an identical function. (76.22.201.109 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
Well, here's my question: who decided that the song only has one verse to begin with? Where's the reference? (76.22.201.109 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
I think the Music Structure and Lyrics section has the wrong key signature and chord progressions. According to this sheet music: http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdVPE.asp?ppn=MN0052448 (of which only the first page is visible for free), the first chord is a Dm, not a D. That page gives two different "Original Published Keys", F major and D minor (which can easily be confused because of the shared key signature). Here's another perhaps less authoritative page will all the chords: http://www.e-chords.com/chords/madonna/hung-up. It seems pretty clearly to resolve to D minor. NoJoy (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I heard the song today, and it goes against every instinct I have as a musician to say that the song is in a major key. The ABBA sample is in D minor (as far as I can tell), which shares its key signature with F major, and this helps to identify the problem. Is there a way to find the intended key without taking it from the sheet music? RichardGHP (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence:

"(It is rumored that they first enacted this policy after the release of Ice Ice Baby and what it did to the reputation to the Queen and David Bowie song Under Pressure.)"
Quite aside from the fact that this is clearly a violation of NPOV, ABBA's anti-sampling policy certainly pre-dates Ice Ice Baby, which came out in 1989 -- in 1987 they'd already forced the JAMS to withdraw a song which heavily sampled 'Dancing Queen'. Gusworld (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Madonna is only the second artist the Swedish band has allowed to sample its music, as ABBA songwriters Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus have a strict "no sample" policy.[4]" seems a bit ridiculous. If they have a 'no sample' policy, then there should be no samples. Mentalbasedoninstrumental (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the CD1 (of 2) of the UK version does NOT contain the long version of the Tracy Young mix, but the edit. [4:16]. I researched this in various sources, and I'm now more than 99% sure about that. Also see http://www.madonnarecords.com/data/record.asp?id=4256 (NOTE ignore the "CD Maxi", it is a CDsingle); and http://www.buysellmadonna.com/hotnews-part4.htm -andy 92.226.132.39 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

""Hung Up" is Madonna's biggest selling single to date" - really? i thought it was vogue and then like a prayer... there is no refference, so i think it should be removed.--93.122.133.67 (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I Know that the single topped the International Charts for many weeks but did it even make it in to the Weekly Top 100??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.209.23 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 

"Hung Up is [...] the 43rd most successful single of all time". The only source for this sentence that I've found is Mediatraffic wich is listed at WP:BADCHARTS. I guess that the contributors who put the sentence in the article had used as source Mediatraffic, so I think the sentence should be removed --♫Smanu! 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with changes made by Legolas about succession boxes. There are several reasons :

1/ There is nothing in WP policies and guidelines or elsewhere to justify this removal
2/ "Succession boxes serve as navigational aids" per WP: SBS. All the countries removed provided links to other articles
3/ Billboard Hot Dance Airplay chart is kept, although it is a component chart that shouldn't be included in the chart table per WP:CHARTS
4/ Keeping only English-speaking countries seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV, as Wikipedia should not favour some countries
5/ The article had these succession boxes when it was promoted WP:GA.
-- Europe22 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

can someone do an expand of the "live Performances" section, now that the song has been performed on the MDNA Tour  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.241.50.90 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 

the video has nothing to do with John Travolta.  Has the person who wrote this even seen the video or extended video?    And to "Oricon"  Madonna's Hung up sold over 9 million copies globally.  Vogue sold high as well but it is at 6 million copies

An indication of certification is one of the intended purposes of infoboxes.  When that entry is omitted, it implies that a song has no certifications at all.  "Hung Up" has gone platinum, if not multi-platinum, almost everywhere.  Therefore the certification field should say something rather than nothing.  If infoboxes cannot be used for "quick facts," then they are pointless and should be eliminated, and readers should be made to search the entire article for whatever information they are looking for.- JGabbard (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude, in the politest way, our readers have eyes and they can read, and the article has a huge box indicating how many certifications it has got from multiple markets. Just saying platinum gives the impression it has only that certification which is a deliberate factual error. Unlike a release history or a song timespan or writer/producer or even record label, a certification box is redundant in the infobox. It is used nowhere because most songs have multiple certifications. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 23:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
To mark "platinum" indicates wide achievement of platinum certification and is basically correct; to make it more correct it could perhaps read "Platinum/Gold."  But to omit this notation is to imply no certification at all, and is by far the greater error. Many facts in the infobox are typically duplicated in the opening paragraph, such as year of issue, writer, et cetera.  Shall we omit those from the infobox too, since they are redundant? The purpose of the infobox is to be "an index of fast facts," and should be fully utilized to function as it is designed. - JGabbard (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Who says that there is no certification at all? There is literally like a whole table of it. Again you are assuming that readers would think something. But to be fair on your logic, the certification field in the infobox itself feels redundant nowadays with so many songs receiving multiple plaques from different markets. The purpose here satisfies greatly, it gives enough information about the song and its time, writer, producer, label chronology etc. To add certification etc there will be no stopping of what we add to an infobox, next it will average MC score, or chart peak etc. Well that would be repetition again. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 18:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hung Up was considered the 26th best single of 2005 by Pitchfork. Can you add this information to the article?
http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/6221-top-50-singles-of-2005/3/
Jimoincolor (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Hung Up. 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/20091101141712/http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080410215424/http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2005 to http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2005
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080417014832/http://www.ultratop.be:80/fr/annual.asp?year=2005 to http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=2005
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017032818/http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=2005 to http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=2005
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6JBCW5Wkj to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100113074049/http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2005 to http://www.swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2005
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131106172712/http://www.aria.com.au:80/pages/ARIACharts-EndofYearCharts-Top100Singles2006.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/ARIACharts-EndofYearCharts-Top100Singles2006.htm
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100914141341/http://www.ultratop.be:80/nl/annual.asp?year=2006 to http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2006
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131019140536/http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=2006 to http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=2006
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150217213338/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20060001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20060001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 21:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Hung Up. 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/20100202065525/http://stylusmagazine.com/reviews/madonna/the-confessions-tour.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/madonna/the-confessions-tour.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100912075103/http://www.austriancharts.at/2005_single.asp to http://www.austriancharts.at/2005_single.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719005955/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20050001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20050001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323165026/http://austriancharts.at/2006_single.asp to http://www.austriancharts.at/2006_single.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006130757/http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w140320.html to http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w140320.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) 16:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hung Up. 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/20100131222715/http://stylusmagazine.com/reviews/madonna/confessions-on-a-dance-floor.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/madonna/confessions-on-a-dance-floor.htm
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) 23:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hung Up. 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/20120315095845/http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=54 to http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=54
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315095850/http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=55 to http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=55
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) 10:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hung Up. 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/20140808144551/http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/people/2005/10/28/6436/Madonna-reaches-1-in-Canada-in-just-two-weeks to http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/people/2005/10/28/6436/Madonna-reaches-1-in-Canada-in-just-two-weeks
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115074525/http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/06/06/madonnas-gonna-dress-herself-up-in-heatherette-for-sticky-sweet-tour/ to http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/06/06/madonnas-gonna-dress-herself-up-in-heatherette-for-sticky-sweet-tour/
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) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not only one of the best selling singles of all time it is her career best seller.  That should be in the opening paragraph  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C400:8C80:FD9E:4B78:E377:61A3 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 

Its cited for years that Hung Up it has sell more than 5 million copies for sure worldwide. 
This ssite is used in another Madonna wikipedia page and it says Hung Up sold 9 million
https://web.archive.org/web/20100304013831/http://today.ninemsn.com.au/travelandlifestyle/1014383/hits-from-1990 
even at sites like mediatraffic and chartmasters (only digital/physical sales) the number is higher than 5 million Johnny Gnecco (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Johnny. I changed the figure. I know that there are many unreported sales from several countries. And sure the single sold more than 5M, but the 9M seems a notorious gap when "Hung Up" only have available sales of 3.7 million copies. I think is fine if there is a source claiming 6-7M because seems closest to available numbers, but I couldn't find it. Unless, anyone desagree personally I "vote" to keep by now the 5M. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The source says that the numbers are taken by a user from UKMIX tho, which is just a site and not an official source as the one i posted above... Johnny Gnecco (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Johnny Gnecco: Sorry for the late response. I also noticed that fact, but I tried to apply WP:CONTEXTMATTERS with available numbers using a secondary source (GWR). Anyway, I changed the source with this one. While "Hung Up" follow the tendecy of most of her releases (or a remarkable amount) in the sense that she matched or outsells her own U.S sales (Gold/Platinum/Multi-platinum levels) around the world unlike many American recording artists, the available numbers (now above 4 million based on certifications/estimated figures) still being a figure below 50% if we put again the 9 million. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

What about Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom!! ? Will Stanwyx (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)