Jump to content

Talk:Artpop/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Artpop → Artpop – This article has been incubating way too long. We know Artpop is coming this year, probably soon. We know promotion for the new album will start soon. Please, let this article sit in the mainspace with a release date. Its notable enough to go a little while without one. There are other notable articles in the mainspace without dates (i.e. Broke with Expensive Taste). Please move it. ARTPOPist (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Requested move 2

Artpop (2013 Lady Gaga album) → Artpop – The page should just be named Artpop, but the page was locked, so I couldn't move it to that page and instead I had to move it here. Somebody please just movie it to Artpop. Also, PLEASE leave it in the mainspace. We know Artpop is coming this year, probably soon. We know promotion for the new album will start soon. Please, let this article sit in the mainspace without a release date. Its notable enough to go a little while without one. There are other notable articles in the mainspace without dates (i.e. Broke with Expensive Taste). ARTPOPist (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Confirmed Songs

There are songs that are confirmed by Gaga herself. These songs have been confirmed recently, confirming that these are indeed songs on the record, not songs that have been scrapped in earlier recordings, including:

ARTPOP, Applause, Gypsy, G.U.Y (Guy Under You), Sex Dreams, Mary Jane Holland, Swine, Donatella

These songs have been confirmed in either radio interviews done by Gaga herself or tweets by the singer. She confirmed in an interview with MTV on the VMA red carpet that she collaborated with rapper Too $hort on the album. She also confirmed that the collaborations with Azealia Banks are not on the record. Please add these to a confirmed songs section, as well as adding the information above.

Yesterday evening, September 1, 2013, Lady Gaga debuted 7 new songs from ARTPOP, including the titular ARTPOP, Sex Dreams, Jewels & Drugs, Swine, MANiCURE, Aura, and I Wanna Be with You. These are now officially confirmed tracks by several news organizations: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/02/lady-gaga-itunes-festival-review-artpop-new-songs_n_3854641.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23925003 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/lady-gaga-debuts-new-artpop-songs-at-itunes-festival-20130902 While there is still no official track listing, these songs are now confirmed for the album, and should be mentioned in the article. Thechungling (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaga herself TWEETED that these songs are on the album, i don't know what more confirmation wikipedia needs to add them. Katy Perry's PRISM article has a confirmed songs section. why not ARTPOP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.80.255 (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaga herself has confirmed names of songs to be included on the album OR ON THE APP. The app will feature other songs that aren't on youtube. Gaga herself has confirmed this in various tweets. She has confirmed the songs (to be included in the ARTPOP experience in some way, not necessarily on the album) to be;
Applause
Aura
ARTPOP
I Wanna Be With You
Swine
Jewels & Drugs (feat. T.I, Twista, and Too $hort)
Sex Dreams
MANiCURE
Brooklyn Nights
Do What You Want (With My Body)
Temple
Donatella
G.U.Y (Girl Under You)
Gypsy
Mary Jane Holland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.99.177 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of title

MOS:CAPS says to reduce all-caps writings to mixed case. However, does that apply to the title of the article as well? Should this be moved to Artpop? Again, we're talking about complying with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and not with pronouncements by Gaga. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It also applies to the title of the article (see Janet (album)). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I say we should keep it "Artpop" as it is only stylized by Lady Gaga as "ARTPOP", if she stylized it as @RtP0P we wouldn't create an article called @RtP0P. 41.141.131.152 (talk)

I'm under the impression that stylization involves alternative symbols, not capitalization. If the entire title of the album is capitalized, I believe it should be on here as well. Ke$ha is an example of stylization; ARTPOP is not. However, if the rule is to reduce all-caps writing to mixed case, then I suppose it should stay the way it is.

68.69.54.232 (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga specifically tweeted (see below) that, for grammatical purposes, ARTPOP should be capitalized. As the creator of this content, she should have the final say over how it's spelled. I understand that Wikipedia has stylistic rules, but it would be inaccurate to write the title in a way that Gaga has stated is wrong. Furthermore, she probably knows something we don't. It could be an acronym. https://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/232114376067403776 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechungling (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Many trusted sources including Lady Gaga (the concerned artist), Reuters and MTV.com have confirmed the release of this album, there is no reason to delete this. 41.141.131.152 (talk)

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here it is a cool album) --76.186.2.168 (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


Reuters, a very reliable source, has just confirmed that the album will be called ARTPOP. Therefore there is no real reason to remove this page. As far as most people are concerned, ARTPOP is lady gaga's next album and this is a page with as much information about it so far. Lady gaga has confirmed that more details will be announced next month, in September 2012, to accompany the launch of her fragrance, FAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.10.28 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed^. Check out LittleMonsters.com for more details about ARTPOP spilled by Gaga herself. And she will be also announcing more details about the next album on VOGUE Magazine next month. (09/12) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.111.243 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A link for the Reuters story would help to evaluate the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

2013 CSD DB-MOVE

{{holdon}} This is the result of an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTPOP ; the page history should be displaced to elsewhere, if this is to be reused by the incubator article. Content from the toosoon version might be relevant to the new version. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This Artpop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is related also to Artpop (Lady Gaga album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and ARTPOP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Artpop (2013 Lady Gaga album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so lots of parallel histories? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Move?

Artpop (2013 Lady Gaga album) → Artpop (2013 album) –

Move?: Discussion 1 moved here from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Move?: continued discussion 1

Nothing else, DAvid Bowie created this word during his "Space oddity" era by blending the art form with pop music, somethign Gaga draws from still today. So this can very well be moved to Artpop I think. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It actually derives from pop art. Randomuser112 (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There likely were several whole and partial cut-and-pastes and copy-and-pastes between these 4 pages. Trying to stick bits of history together here would create more mess than it would clean up. Best put in Talk:Artpop (album) a history section explaining what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • And just leave the history at /2/3/4? I am showing the following edits:
      • Artpop (album) - 3 August 2012 - 14:05 28 October 2012‎, 22:18 28 October 2012‎ - 1 November 2012‎, 3 December 2012‎ - 1 January 2013‎, 4 January 2013‎ - 15 January 2013, 26 January 2013 - 27 February 2013, 26 March 2013 - 31 May 2013‎, 8 June 2013‎ - 3 July 2013
      • Artpop (album)/version 2 - 30 November 2012‎
      • Artpop (album)/version 3 - 3 January 2013, 19 January 2013, 25 March 2013, 1 June 2013
      • Artpop (album)/version 4 - 14:06 28 October 2012 - 19:25 28 October 2012
--Apteva (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Move?: Discussion 2 moved here from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Move?: continued discussion 2

Thanks Anthony for your tireless efforts in merging and moving all the pages. Really appreciated. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, there are two more versions of this article (versions 6 and 7) ARTPOP (2013 Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and ARTPOP (2013 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Move?: Discussion 3

Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Artpop → Artpop – The article was not moved originally because it did not have a release date. It now does. Please move it. Thank you. ARTPOPist (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I did try it, however, the original article Artpop is still there as a redirect, hence it moved to this name and I'm sorry for ARTPOPist coz I yelled at him for no reason. :( —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Use {{db-move}} on the redirect to ask it to be deleted. Requested move discussions are only for deciding if an article in article space should have a different title, and are not for deciding if or assisting with the move of an article out of incubator space. Apteva (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Errr...it's been moved (twice) today already (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
While I completely give up with you people, it still doesn't have a confirmed tracklist, and thus should not have a standalone article. Why the impatience? Why have an article when it clearly doesn't meet the criteria for having one?—Kww(talk) 17:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

All recorded songs

There is a lady gaga forum known as GagaDaily, where we have compiled all of the known recorded songs Gaga has recorded for the project. Could someone add the rest of these to where it says recorded songs? http://gagadaily.com/index.php?showtopic=8493 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.100.191 (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. In fact, people using sources like that is precisely why this article cannot be edited by people without accounts.—Kww(talk) 04:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we make a section of tracks confirmed to be on ARTPOP and songs know to be recorded? ARTPOPist (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
No, as there is no confirmed relationship between any of those songs and this topic. As above, this is why we don't have articles like this: they become long lists of rumours and peripherally related material.—Kww(talk) 16:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Expanding on Kww's comment, we really should not have a section for "all recorded songs". We should only list songs that are reported—preferably by independent sources—as being included on the album. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
With emphasis on "included" and not as recorded for Artpop only. They have to be confirmed as part of the main tracklist (which I hope would be revealed soon). —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't just the three mentioned titles. Gaga has included the following titles as recorded songs: "G.U.Y. (Girl Under You)", "Tea", "Sex Dreams", "ARTPOP", "Red Flame" and "Ratchet". There are a couple other song titles being put around, but those aren't confirmed in any way. Gaga made a tweet some time ago with the lyrics "We could we could belong together, ARTPOP" on it. All of her songs have had some title track on them in some way or form. The title isn't even a rumor for a track; it's just a confirmed recorded track. Also, Azealia Banks confirmed that she recorded the songs "Red Flame" and "Ratchet" with Gaga, and it was recorded for this album, but it may not be used in the final tracklisting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s07ienpbn8Y 75.26.253.200 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
"But it may not be used in the final tracklisting." The article should not be a random collection of every song she's recorded since her last album, so until it's confirmed to be on the album, it shouldn't be mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Then "Tea" shouldn't be on the list, either. Neither the article used as its source nor the original tweet from Gaga confirm that the song is on the album. They just state it is a song. The other two are confirmed to be on the album, though. 75.26.253.200 (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Remove that whole section tbqh. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Lady Gaga herself announced that the first single is Applause, to be released on August 19th, through her social-networking site, Little Monsters, as well as colleagues. Can we acknowledge it as the first single, or a recorded track? Her lyrics have been posted and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.99.177 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
"Tea" is sourced to a statement by Gaga. I see no reason we couldn't use Gaga's statements as a source for "Applause"; have you got links so that other editors can verify and properly format it? —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
She just announced it officially today http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a501881/lady-gaga-confirms-applause-as-first-artpop-single.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.99.177 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


There are songs that are confirmed by Gaga herself. These songs have been confirmed recently, confirming that these are indeed songs on the record, not songs that have been scrapped in earlier recordings, including: ARTPOP, Applause, Gypsy, G.U.Y (Guy Under You), Sex Dreams, Mary Jane Holland, Swine, Donatella These songs have been confirmed in either radio interviews done by Gaga herself or tweets by the singer. She confirmed in an interview with MTV on the VMA red carpet that she collaborated with rapper Too $hort on the album. She also confirmed that the collaborations with Azealia Banks are not on the record. Please add these to a confirmed songs section, as well as adding the information above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.99.177 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Other Recorded Tracks

Jinx Ratchet Tea Burqa Red Flame The Applause Martyr For Fame Nothing On But The Radio Living On The Radio Indestructible Artpop (song) Princess Die CRWTH Candy ART Kick It Cold Hearted Bitch & Beauty In The Mirror Are confirmed songs

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FameKillsMe (talk • contribs)

There's no way that a completely unsourced listed of songs should get added to the article. If you care to find a reliable source for each of these songs that states that they will be on this album, please provide those sources in your next request.—Kww(talk) 05:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"Princess Die" and "Artpop" are the only songs confirmed to be on the album. "Princess Die" was performed, and Lady Gaga mentioned an upbeat version of it will be on the album. "Artpop" is a title track, so there's no question in there. "Burqa", "Red Flame", "Ratchet" and "Tea" are possible titles, but they aren't 100% confirmed. "Living On the Radio" was never mentioned to be on any album at all. "The Applause" is a POSSIBLE title, but never mentioned anywhere official. The rest are just rumored tracks that should not be added in any form until they are actually confirmed; they're just nonsensical rumors. 75.26.253.200 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Need to remove Princess Die (ft. Lana del Rey)

Having this page protected from unregistered users isn't doing much good. Princess Die is not confirmed to appear on the album at all (in fact, Gaga herself has said it likely will not be on ARTPOP) and it does NOT feature Lana del Rey. The cited MTV article is based on a fake littlemonsters.com chat. 96.242.20.84 (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, she did confirm that the original version isn't on the album. It is not guaranteed that she'll have the song on the album, however, it is a RECORDED song. Along with Red Flame and Ratchet, both featuring Azealia Banks. I think there should be a list of recorded songs along with confirmed tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.99.177 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2013

Elackie1999 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No request found, quit fooling around. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to Applause page

There is a page already created for Applause, the lead single, named, Applause (Lady Gaga song). Please link this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.99.177 (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done —MelbourneStar☆talk 23:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
But it doesn't show and the page always redirects. Is there a way for Applause to be linked on the ARTPOP page to Applause (Lady Gaga song)?
First of all, it should be in Applause (song), secondly, I recommend you to read WP:NSONGS. Unless it charts (see WP:GOODCHARTS) or it is backed up by multiple non-trivial references (all of the current says it will be released), it can't have an independent article. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Aura" song leak

A song from Artpop has leaked online, called "Aura", here's the article for it [1] I think there should be a "Leaks" section somewhere soon on this article, or you could just mention the song elsewhere. --Matt723star (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAK. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Aura/Burqa leak and potential controversy

The demo for the song Aura/Burqa was leaked online several days ago, and is widely accepted to be a legitimate leak. After listening to it myself, it's very obvious that it is Lady Gaga. But until the track is officially released or announced, it should not appear on this article. Considering that Lady Gaga constantly is pushing the limits of what is "too far", perhaps an article focusing on the controversy she tries to generate should be created, if it hasn't already. Or should the controversy be made into a separate section in this article?Thechungling (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

See above, leaks have no place in the article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that it is Lady Gaga's work, but what about the controversy she generates, especially after that song is officially released? She does it often enough that it could have it's own page. Regardless of whether or not the song itself should belong in this article, Lady Gaga is clearly promoting something related to burquas with her new album, and that should be mentioned. See:
http://omidsafi.religionnews.com/2013/08/10/ladygaga/
http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/58441/lady-gaga-s-burqa-is-supposed-to-empower-muslim-women-but-does-the-opposite
Thechungling (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The way I've read about it in the SPIEGEL is that it's a controversy because it made Gaga look like a racist (at the very least, it made a number of people and organizations attack her as such), which is why she and her management had to put a stop to the Burqa "leaks" originally meant as merchandizing, and now the song's either not gonna be released at all, or at the very least in a very different form. In any case, the controvery is obviously big enough already (making headlines across the Pond and all) that it should be included here, with appropriate sources. --93.232.167.181 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

New Song Called Swine

According to an interview by lady gaga with Vogue(she tweeted the article here, she talked about a new song on the album called Swine. We might want to put this in the article.--108.227.116.150 (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie'sWorld (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed Songs and Possible Songs

Please add the confirmed songs to the article in a Confirmed tracks section

  • Applause
  • Tea
  • G. U. Y (Girl Under You)
  • Aura
  • Burqa
  • ARTPOP
  • Princess Die
  • Swine
  • Red Flame
  • Rachet
  • Show Business
  • Mary Jane Holland
  • Donatella
  • Gypsy

Rumored Songs

  • Nothing On But The Radio
  • Living On The Radio
  • Shades Of Grey
  • Cake Like Lady Gaga
  • Taylor
  • Glitter & Grease
  • Candy ART
  • CRWTH
  • Cold Hearted Bitch
  • Behind The Music
  • Kisses Are Quarters
  • Dollar Bills

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie'sWorld (talk • contribs) 05:12, 20 August 2013‎ (UTC)

NO sources, NO addition. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Heres a good list of all of the confirmed songs from before. Please add this to the page. They are all referenced properly.
  1. ^ "Lady Gaga's new song love letter to Donatella Versace". The Indian Express. 2013-08-25. Retrieved 2013-08-26.
  2. ^ "Lady Gaga : découvrez l'interview évènement!". funRADIO. 2013-08-26. Retrieved 2013-08-26.
  3. ^ "Lady Gaga Interview - 103.5 KTU". Retrieved 2013-08-20.
  4. ^ "Twitter/@ladygaga:". Retrieved 2013-08-26.

ARTPOPist (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

See above section where it was discussed that such section is just WP:CRYSTAL and reeks of WP:RECENTISM. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
These in no way fit with WP:CRYSTAL! How is this speculation when it is confirmed? Its not! And this doesn't fit in to WP:RECENTISM either! Examples of recentism are, and I quote, "articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens, articles created on flimsy, transient merits, or the muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus." One new section with song names is not overburdening! This article was created on nothing but tried-and-trued merit, this is going to be one of the biggest albums of 2013, it deserves a Wikipedia page! Its release and pure existence has been confirmed and announced repeatedly, just as these song titles have been! Please add them, they deserve a section. ARTPOPist (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This section was removed earlier because it caused so much trouble. If you want to have it in the article, get a consensus for the section first, don't just keep adding it. Your sources do not specifically state that the tracks will appear on Artpop, so they don't belong in this article.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
All these songs state specifically in the articles that these songs will be included in the album. This is ridiculous. Why do you have a personal vendetta agaist this article? ARTPOPist (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a personal vendetta against this article: I simply don't believe articles about albums should exist until there's a published tracklist. I oppose your constant efforts to jam material into Wikipedia early. This section is simply an example of why this article shouldn't exist yet: you can't build a stable article built on promotional press releases and rumours instead of facts.—Kww(talk) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Things like this cement the point: the list of what's going to be on this thing changes with every interview. No one knows what will be on this album until the official tracklist is announced. This list of "confirmed" songs is nothing more than rumours until the tracklist is announced.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I just want to add that not-yet-released albums are particularly volatile when compared to other things, such as films. "Confirmed tracks" does fall within the scope of WP:CRYSTAL as one cannot confirm a track will appear on an album without a crystal ball. Most of the tracks that get listed in these sections also tend to cite months – and sometimes even years – old sources, as well. To get a little more biased, I want to take issue with the list of "confirmed tracks" that you've listed. "Red Flame" and "Rachet" will most likely not be appearing on the album as it has been confirmed Azealia Banks will not appear, and "Aura" is simply "Burqa" renamed and the possibility of "Aura" appearing on the album is questionable. Scarce2 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You can confirm if a song is going to be on album or not if the artist who is releasing the album themselves confimrs it, and all of the sources I have posted mention that. ARTPOPist (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You aren't seriously claiming that Lady GaGa never changes her mind, are you? Or lies for publicity purposes? It's not confirmed until it's confirmed by the label on a production tracklist.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • So let me get this straight - words straight from the mouth of the artist can confirm that a song will NOT be included on an album, but they can't confirm that a song WILL be? While I agree that a "Confirmed tracks" section doesn't really have a place in the article, whether it can be reliably sourced or not, I don't agree with the reasons being given against it.
    And regarding the Aura/Burqa thing, that whole scenario is speculation. It's entirely possible that Aura and Burqa are two separate songs. It was mostly Gaga's fans hearing the word "Burqa" and jumping to conclusions that brought that up as a title in the first place, when clearly the more obvious title for it is Aura. Of course, they might be the same song, but there's really no place to comment right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.222.89 (talk • contribs)
Confirmed it's on, confirmed it's off, it's all the same to me. Until there's a confirmed tracklist, the article shouldn't exist at all. If someone manages to force one to exist, it shouldn't discuss the songs that may or may not be on it because it's all speculation until the final tracklist is announced.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Kww. The article can wait, it's not going anywhere. Erick (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Not to sound WP:WAXy, I think this consensus would benefit the overload of "Confirmed songs" being added to the Katy Perry album article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 02:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
These songs are confirmed and performed at the iTunes Festival in London:
  • "Aura"
  • "Manicue"
  • "I Wanna Be With You"
  • "Jewels And Dugs"
  • "Applause"
  • "Swine"
  • "Sex Dreams"
  • "ARTPOP"

77.167.249.7 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed by which secondary sources? Also, performing the songs at a festival does not equate to including them on the album. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fourth Album?

I can't link to it for some reason, but Gaga or her team sent out a link to pre-order ARTPOP and email and her shop label it as her fourth studio album.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.180.64 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Confirmed tracks drama".

Sources at the end. It's ridiculous that the amount of speculation is not adding these songs. She's said in numerous interviews she will be premiering seven new tracks from ARTPOP & I have some sources that agree.

Here's the ones confirmed and performed at iTunes fest (in alphabetical order):

  • Applause (this one is obvious)
  • ARTPOP (do we really need to source this? I mean, there is one, but it doesn't take more than 0.001 seconds it's an ARTPOP track since she made titled tracks on all her albums including her EP)
  • Aura
  • Jewels and Drugs [1]
  • I Wanna Be With You
  • MANiCURE
  • Sex Dreams
  • Swine
  • [1] I would steer clear on the collaborations. She has confirmed Too $hort and Twista, but you never know if they will switch them around songs. For ex. Ratchet & Red Flame (below) were to feature Azealia Banks (source at the very bottom of this post) they could take Too $hort on these tracks leaving him out on Jewels & Drugs.

Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/lady-gaga-artpop-itunes-festival_n_3855571.html http://www.nme.com/news/lady-gaga/72393 http://uk.omg.yahoo.com/news/lady-gaga-premiere-7-new-songs-artpop-album-135408897.html www.justjared.com/2013/09/01/lady-gaga-debuts-new-artpop-songs-at-itunes-festival-watch-now/


The following I don't believe are confirmed. These I understand not adding since there is little to no source and all she does is mention them, but if you don't make an 'Unconfirmed' list, I understand and these aren't just bs titles fans have pulled out of their bottoms.

  • Donatella [1]
  • G.U.Y. (Girl Under You)
  • Gypsy [1]
  • Mary Jane Holland [1]
  • Nothing on (But the Radio) [Lady Gaga was seen playing this track in her car during a paparazzi.]
  • PARTYNAUSEOUS
  • Princess Die [2]
  • Red Flame [3] (this one is probably a cut track, since Azealia Banks was to feature in this one. You can find a video of her on YouTube singing a verse and mentioning the song, but with disputes between her & Gaga, it didn't make it.)
  • Ratchet [3] [4] (Azealia was also to feature on this track, but she said on Twitter she didn't finish her lines in this song, so this one is lost to).
  • Tea (she only released a verse for this song, still don't know rather it would make the album.)


  • [1]Donatella, Gypsy, and Mary Jane Holland were all mentioned in an interview describing the songs at Elle Magazie Oct. issue, but don't confirm to be tracks on ARTPOP)
  • [2]She has performed this and said it would end up on the album, but rumors are spreading around that it won't end up being on the album. So hold up on this
  • [3] She confirmed in this video that Azealia Banks is not on the album, though at 2:33 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QY4TTYddKw So these could've been real tracks at one point, but still not confirmed for the album.
  • [4] There is an instrumental of this song on soundcloud.


EXTRA ----

MARY JANE HOLLAND (Produced by Madeon) - Has being confirmed on her twitter account BY HER. SO I'm pretty sure it would be on the album and a "reliable source" PRINCESS DIE - Has being confirmed to not be on the album but on the app. Vincexgaga (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of tracks.

Should we also include there would be 15 tracks on the standard edition as said on iTunes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.218 (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes IloveAnn (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Sexxx Dreams"

For future reference, here is the version of "Sexxx Dreams" prior to being redirected. I still think the article is justified, but I yield to consensus. Posting here in case it proves to be helpful in the future. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This one is better (see reference formatting). --Another Believer (Talk) 19:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

edit on the track 11 Fashion!, male vocals.

After the bridge of the song Fashion!, there is a man singing in French the verse. This is a french Artist and friend of Lady Gaga: Arnaud HENRY. Lady Gaga mentionned it in the M. Abrhamovitch interview prior to the ARTPOP release and expressed her choice as "bringing art and fashion together" 222.7.45.238 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, please provide a source and the exact information that you want to get changed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE"

NAC: There is consensus against the use of the stylized or non-standard capitalization. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The song "MANiCURE" has been listed as "Manicure" for some time now. I tried editing this a few times back in October or November, but it continued being reverted, and between business with school and forgetting to come back to this article, I never really got to have a discussion on it. For what it's worth, I think it should be listed as "MANiCURE", because it's not purely stylization. In this interview (beginning around 2:54), Ryan Seacrest and Lady Gaga have a discussion on the song where Seacrest notes (and Gaga confirms) that it is a play on words which can also mean "being cured by a man". This spelling of the song is common in the media including Billboard, MTV (which notes that the lower-case "i" in the song is silent, further showing the emphasis on the words "MAN" and "CURE"), MuuMuse, Celebuzz, PopDust, Digital Spy, Rolling Stone, Spin, New Zealand Herald, etc. Similar discussions for Michael Jackson's HIStory resulted in consensus for its proper, uniquely-capitalized title, because of the emphasis on "HIS" and the title's presence in the media; therefore, I think we should follow suit with the title of this song. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

By that logic of Gaga's explanation, then the correct spelling should be ManICure, however this is nothing more than mere stylization from her part. And of course the media would represent it as how the track list gives it or how the label choses to represent it. So I have to oppose this change per the usual norm in Wikipedia against stylizations. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion, but wanted to suggest that if "Manicure" is chosen for the current two locations where the title is mentioned (once in some prose, once in a tracklist), it would seem reasonable to include a footnote or parenthetical comment like "written as MANiCURE on the album's tracklist". Maybe even add "– the i is silent", or a short summary of Gaga's comment...although MTV isn't clear if they meant just the title is pronounced that way, or if the word is pronounced that way in the song; a clearer source would be nice, to make a clearer statement.

Also, while it has no bearing on Wikipedia guidelines/interpretations, I did a quick spot-check some other sources out of curiosity:

  • Los Angeles Times used Manicure (5 articles)
  • New York Times used Manicure (1 article)
  • Wall Street Journal used Manicure (1 article, in their "Speakeasy" blog's concert review).
  • Forbes used Manicure (1 article)
  • BBC News (bbc.co.uk/news) used Manicure (1 article)
  • Chicago Tribune was split (3 Manicure, 1 MANiCURE)
  • The Guardian was split (3 Manicure, 1 MANiCURE)
  • Spin was split (3 Manicure, 2 MANiCURE)
  • Rolling Stone was split (2 Manicure, 2 MANiCURE)
  • Buzzworthy.mtv.com was split (3 Manicure, 5 MANiCURE)
  • Mtv.com/news was split (1 Manicure, 1 MANiCure, 7 MANiCURE)
  • USA Today was split (1 Manicure, 4 MANiCURE; perhaps significantly, the 1 referred to a concert performance, the 4 to the album)
  • The Hindu used MANiCURE (1 article)
None of the sources used all uppercase for the other titles, which were listed as uppercase on the back of the US CD release. It's a good question, I think! ––Agyle (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Agyle for your detailed analysis. Yes that's what I was also thinking that there is no clear consensus in the media also on the representation of the song name. Perhaps, like Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse, we can have an internal wikilink note to indicate what stylization the song has in the album's backpage? I think that is a great way of listing the representation of "Manicure" versus "MANiCURE". —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the only obvious solution, in my view.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
"ManICure" would be inappropriate because no source refers to the song as such. "Manicure" is used in some sources, but I would say the combination of the fact that "MANiCURE" is present in many and that's the way the song is listed on the album, on iTunes, the way the artist has spelled it anytime she has referred to the song, etc, that would probably be the most appropriate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty sure most stylization rules refer to stylized adverts (ie Macy*s, when the brand is called Macy's but only decorated the former way in ads) or when titles are in all-caps for no apparent reason (TIME, KISS, and even this article's subject ARTPOP). "MANiCURE" is neither because the word is not fully capitalized and that is actually what the song is called, not simply a back cover decoration. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(←) It's been more than a month since anyone's contributed here. @IndianBio and Agyle: would either of you care to comment any further? There's clearly division among sources as to which is more commonly used, but since "MANiCURE" is the title Gaga and her label clearly prefer, it's the official title of the song, and it is commonly used in sources, that would make me continue to lean towards that. I'll notify WP:GAGA so more people can discuss this.

Also, IndianBio, in regards to your comment "of course the media would represent it as how the track list gives it or how the label choses to represent it", that's not necessarily true. For instance, Gaga's label and especially Gaga herself have made it clear that they prefer the album title be written as ARTPOP, yet most media outlets have referred to it as Artpop. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, whereas MOS:TM is only a guideline. Policy trumps guideline. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

More comments from the same participants, and from a wikiproject inclined to always do what Gaga says instead of what WP rules say, are not needed. It needs more participants. I'll "advertise" it neutrally a little to get more eyes on it, at WT:AT and WT:MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In that view Chase, Gaga no where says she wants the song as Man I Cure, because then it would be named that. There is clearly a disvision of sources between MANiCURE and Manicure so referring to the original would be WP:OR and against COMMONNAME. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
COMMONNAME doesn't apply to stylizations, though, Chase. For example, singers Pink and Kesha have often been stylized as P!nk and Ke$ha. Stylizations such as those are no different than this or writing Artpop itself as ARTPOP. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Pink and Kesha are commonly referred to by their non-stylized names in the media, which is why their articles as titled as such. For every example like them, there are examples such as deadmau5 and Sunn O))), which were the subject of multiple heated debates before consensus settled on their "stylized" names per COMMONNAME. As I said, MOS:TM is only a guideline, whereas COMMONNAME is policy. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Repeat: COMMONNAME doesn't apply to stylization (or style at all). It is absolutely not true that "for every example like [Kesha and Pink] ther are examples such as deadmau5"; there are very, very examples like deadmau5 at all; the small number that exist on the system are because virtually all sources, all of the time, ever, everywhere, use the stylized version. Another case is iPod. That's essentially the only type of case under titling policy for using a stylized name. It's not the case here; we already have sourcing galore here that shows that the usage in the real world is inconsistent. Finally, there is no conflict between MOS and AT; AT defers to MOS (in about 6 places) on all style matters. The deadmau5/iPod case never really triggers any MOS concerns because it's not a matter of a choice between a stylized version and a normal-English-orthography version, as the latter essentially doesn't exist. The kind of argument that says things like "AT is a policy and MOS is just a guideline" not only does not understand AT and MOS properly, they don't understand the difference between policies and guidelines clearly either, nor that it's not a pissing match to see which wins - if you detect a disagreement between a policy and a well-established guideline, you're misunderstanding one, the other, or both.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@IndianBio: I never said anything about "Man I Cure", and that would be completely inappropriate as that title does not even appear in sources. Yes, there is a division between MANiCURE and Manicure, and ordinarily I would say to go with "Manicure" - but in this instance, there is footage from a televised interview where Gaga has stated the capitalization represents a double meaning, and at least one RS that notes the capitalization affects the proper pronunciation. I fail to see how my proposal violates COMMONNAME unless you can demonstrate that "Manicure" is overwhelmingly more common than "MANiCURE" in the press, and I don't see the NOR violation at all. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the double meaning behind it? Has Gaga explained anything as such? If I listen to the song also, I don't see any stress on the words differently than uttering Manicure. She doesn't even utter it as MANiCURE. And what exactly does Rolling Stone say? COMMONNAME dictates us to go with the most used name for such instances. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
<smalll>I think "double entendre" was the term intended.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
See the interview linked in the first post of this discussion. And COMMONNAME applies when there is one clear preference in RSes; as noted above, RSes are split with capitalization. Thus, in this instance, it seems appropriate to use the artist's preferred title, as it's one of the commonly used capitalizations in RSes. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
While RS's are split, it should be without all caps per standard MoS. The MoS exists for a reason, and it should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The title is not, however, all caps. It's non-standard capitalization. WP:MOS is only a guideline, as the top of the page says, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Seeing as the title has been acknowledged by the artist as having a double meaning affected by its unique capitalization, at least one reliable source has noted that the unique capitalization possibly affects the pronunciation, and the song is listed with this capitalization on the back cover of the Artpop album and on iTunes - which makes this formatting recognizable and less confusing for readers familiar with the song and/or album - this seems like a pretty obvious "common sense" exception. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Every time you say "MOS is only a guideline" you're shooting your own position in the face.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You know what I meant, though. Not exactly seeing how this would be "a pretty obvious common sense exception", and "only guideline" comes off as an unconvincing excuse to disregard guidelines as it undervalues the insight they provide. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah even I'm not getting the commonsense usage of "MANiCURE" over "Manicure". Why would my commonsense ask me to write a decorative title because Gaga said so? I see that You and I, another Gaga song is also represented as You and I only, although it is noted in Born This Way album with a different "u" (I don't know what it is called). About recognition, I would very much argue that other than fanboys visiting the page and trying to change it, general crowd does not give any attention to how Manicure is listed. Since this is Wikipedia, we do not go by stylizations, unless that stylization itself results in a phonetic change of the name (Mötley Crüe). We have enough precedence all over the encyclopedia to address this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization?

The song "Manicure" is officially listed on iTunes and the back cover/liner notes of this album as "MANiCURE". According to an interview with the artist/songwriter, Lady Gaga, the title has a double meaning - "being cured by a man" in addition to the obvious "manicure" inferral. At least one reliable source notes that the official spelling affects the pronunciation (silent i), though the aforementioned Lady Gaga interview shows she prefers to pronounce it simply as "manicure". Commonality in sources is split - some use the "MANiCURE" spelling; others use "Manicure". MOS:TM has been cited in favor of maintaining the listing as "Manicure"; the "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" portion of WP:GUIDES (and WP:IAR, implied) have been cited in favor of listing it as "MANiCURE".

See above discussion for relevant links and sources. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:IAR is basically being used as an unconvincing excuse to disregard essays, guidelines, and policies. As IndianBio and I have emphasized, "MANiCURE" doesn't comply with long-running standards. Even when sources are split on stylizations, standard has always been against using stylizations. I can't think of any convincing reason why MoS wouldn't apply here. Standards exist for a reason, and should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the stylisation of "MANiCURE", per reasons pointed out by Snuggums above. Stylisations are a slippery slope, and if you start stylising Manicure as MANiCURE, it's only a matter of time before someone comes along requestion Artpop be stylised as ARTPOP (with italics and all). Plus, a notable enough reason hasn't been provided to facilitate such a change. If an article about Manicure (song) would ever be created, you'd be better off including all of this in a "Song meaning" or "Background information" section of the article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per my reasoning just above the starting of the RFC. No concrete reason is being provided for changing into an absurd stylization from the artist, over standard representation of a name. When sources are split, we go with the common name here. Also I believe we already have precedence from You and I, another Gaga song, by our very own OP. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
"Sources split" and "common name" is a contradiction. And "You and I" is not exactly the same situation - the umlaut in that song's official title does not have significant influence on the meaning of the song, and many sources exclude it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I meant the face-value name, not the COMMONNAME policy. And umlaut does not have significant influence on You and I, then what significance does MANiCURE has on this song name? Gaga herself refutes to pronounce it anything else other than "manicure". She might go on and on (like she usually does) about how meaningful the term is, at the end of the day its not being represented as "Man I Cure" in wordcase, the representation comes back to the style she chose, again a stylization nonetheless. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Because, as already discussed above, "MAN" and "CURE" are in all capitals which relates to the double meaning discussed in the Seacrest interview about "being cured by a man" (it has nothing to do with the nonexistent "Man I Cure" title you keep referencing). You've made it clear you think it's a stylization which goes against MOS:TM; I've made it clear I think ignoring MOSTM would improve the article by making the title less confusing to readers since it's listed as "MANiCURE" on iTunes and the back cover of Artpop and referred to as "MANiCURE" in a number of sources (WP:IAR). Now, I'd rather not continue arguing in circles - I opened this RfC to get comments from editors who have not already left input. No disrespect intended. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
And if you want to do a comparison for a precedent discussion, HIStory is a better example than Yoü and I since it's similar. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Why not "ManICure"? Like "LoveGame"? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it's not significantly attested in sources. We have a) normal English, and b) the stylized title. Our default is always normal English. This is not a case like deadmau5 and iPod where 99.9% or so of real-world usage is stylized, and "Deadmaus" and "Ipod" are almost nonexistent in reliable sources. That's pretty much the end of it right there; we have piles of evidence that this song is conventionally referred to as "Manicure". The songwriter herself indicating that there's a pun in the name doesn't mean we have to spell it the way she or the label spelled it. Many songs have word-play titles, the obviousness of which might be enhanced by typhographic games, but that's not our concern. Likewise we should not use the CraZy-@ss TyP0gЯapHy preferred by Nivek Ogre and his sideprojects, etc., even if some interview or other says these spelling are "official" or trademarked or whatever, and even if some music magazines may reproduce the titles exactly as given like that on the album cover. WP is not a music zine. [PS: "ManICure" wouldn't make any sense anyway; she said the hidden meaning was "cured by a man" not "curing a man"; i.e. the title is ostensibly about manicures, but also about "man cures", but "some man I cured", which is the opposite of her intent.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per the reasoning I gave immediately above this, in reply to IndianBio. As IndianBio suggested earlier (pre-RfC), the obvious solution to the problem here is to leave the title at plain English, and use a note in the article to indicate what stylization the song has on the album, and cite the artist interview in which an explanation of the pun is given.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If sources go both ways, matching Wikipedia's MOS and not, follow the MOS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am going to address this purely from the perspective of WP:AT... "MANiCURE" may well be the Official Name of the song... however Wikipedia does not necessarily favor official name. It favors the WP:COMMONNAME. That means we should look at how the capitalization of the song's title is presented in reliable sources (such as print media reviews, etc.) If they use the the "official" capitalization, so should we... but if they don't (and quick look at Google News seems to indicate that while a few do... a significant majority of sources don't) then we should not either. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:AT isn't applicable to section headings or other in-article content at all, only article titles. Since AT defers to WP:MOS on style matters anyway, an MOS analysis arrives as the same conclusion, just by a path that's actually applicable.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To the question in the section title: Maybe. It depends on which way reliable sources go with it. To the question of “MANiCURE”: No, not if “Manicure” enjoys support among reliable sources. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have had some very lengthy and involved discussions of this issue at the MOS:TM talk page (now taking up the bulk of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 14 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 15. I grant that those were primarily about article titles, and the variations were not capitalization, but artists substituting numbers or punctuation marks for letters, but the principle applies. If the artist is consistent in their own usage, and there is some special meaning or double entendre invoked by that usage, then we are providing inaccurate or incomplete information if we do not include that in the article. We could, for example, say something like "Manicure (stylized by the artist as MANiCURE to emphasize the words 'man' and 'cure')", which would preserve use of the conventional form while also informing the reader of the intent of the title. I would add that I am a strong believer that Wikipedia should respect the moral rights of artists (including the right to the title of their work) to the same degree that we respect the copyrights of artists. bd2412 T 15:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Use standard spelling. The double meaning "man, cure" is not lost. I concur with user BD2412 that the artist's preferred spelling should be acknowledged in the article text, like we do for all subjects with alternate names. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No reason why not. That's why I said I concurred with it. That's what I was talking about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Vote with sources: Manicure/MANiCURE

One of the issues in the RfC above is the claim that the sources are split on the spelling of the title of this song. Sometimes these matters can be resolved by simply lining up the sources and taking a look at which ones say what. Sometimes a clear majority becomes visible. Sometimes it becomes clear that high-quality sources do one thing and low-quality sources do another. Sometimes general and specialist sources are split. There are no real rules but the way this usually works is that everyone adds a source to the list with the highest quality sources at the top, so feel free to put your local newspaper source in between someone else's Billboard magazine and MuzikSite.com. Links if you got 'em. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm not a music expert, so if any of these sources are not RS, go ahead and remove them. If I've mistaken their relative importance, go ahead and reorder the lists. However, do not remove sources on the basis of being general-news rather than specific to music or music news. Wikipedia is a general-audience publication and generalist sources are often better guidance for presentation issues than specialist sources are. If anyone with sufficient expertise wants to mark any or all of these sources as "general" or "music," go ahead. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about Capital FM or Idolator, but USA Today has a long history. This is an article with a named author. I don't see why it wouldn't be RS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
USA Today is certainly reliable, and Idolator and Capital are also viable, but..... Us Weekly? Not exactly. They're not as bad as Perez Hilton, but are a gossip magazine like Star, OK!, and InTouch. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see. I mistook USA Today for US Weekly. Even so, it's probably relevant to a discussion of the prevalence of spelling variants. To the bottom of the list it goes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a waste of time, because WP doesn't honor font-styling "flair" except in cases like iPod and Deadmau5 where the stylized usage verges on unanimous and universal; as soon as we know that a significant number of mainstream reliable sources use the unstylized version, so do we. Always. Just the fact that loads of music- and entertainment-industry publications, as well as the L.A. Times (i.e. Hollywood's own major newspaper) use the plain English version of the name is enough to nail this coffin shut, hard. PS: Billboard always does exactly what artists/labels do; it's part of their editorial policy. That makes them a partisan on the matter, not a reliable style source. Not that specialist music mags are reliable sources on style at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
And lo: We have demonstrated clearly that usage is not unanimous nor universal. You're welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
MANiCURE sources
  1. Billboard [2]
  2. The Daily Beast [3]
  3. USA Today [4]
  4. Capital FM [5]
  5. US Weekly [6]
Manicure sources
  1. Los Angeles Times [7]
  2. Entertainment Weekly [8]
  3. MTV News [9]
  4. NME [10]
  5. Idolator [11]
  6. Vibe [12]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

Please change "Jewels n' Drugs" to "Jewels N' Drugs" due to the fact that it is represented as that on the "Artpop" track listing. Please change "Manicure" to "MANiCURE" due to the fact that it is represented as that on the "Artpop" track listing. Ambererich (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, unusual capitalizations are reduced to standard title capitalization; short linking words like and do not get capitalized, even when appearing as a contraction. —C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ambererich: "MANiCURE"/"Manicure" is being discussed in the section directly above this one; feel free to weigh in. As noted above by C.Fred, "Jewels n' Drugs" is standard MoS. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

I would like to put the genre for the album. Mrabc123 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No reliable source was provided along with the request. Please put your request as what exactly you want to add and where and supporting references. —IB [ Poke ] 19:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
True, but the article should provide sourced genre(s), no? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Artpop. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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) 04:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sound sample

Resolved

The sound sample of "Applause" in the Music and lyrics section has a note in it, saying "The above file's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for deletion." But the file is not up for deletion. It was nominated for deletion once, but that case got closed long ago. Anybody knows how to remove this note? --Sricsi (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sricsi, Perhaps the "log" field should be removed? @CoolSkittle and SNUGGUMS: Do you know? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I just did so here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! --Sricsi (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Lady Gaga's third studio album" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lady Gaga's third studio album. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Lady Gaga's third studio album until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. HĐ (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Original version of song Lady Gaga bought for Artpop leaked online"

--Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, although I hardly see any similarity, or am I hearing a different clip? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps another clip? The music is almost exactly the same! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Click on the orange circle in the top-left corner of the box with the Artpop cover art, or click here. ----Another Believer (Talk) 14:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Release date was not November 6, it was November 11th.

The date of release on the album is incorrect.

Proof:

MTV Article about release date of Artpop

iTunes page for Artpop

Please change it. --SethKesler (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Done There were already sources in the article for an 11 November release date, but I couldn't find anything to support 6 November. The article has been changed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, C.Fred and SethKesler, this supports November 6th. Just thought I'd mention so. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Is there anything other than that one iTunes sales page that mentions an early release date in Japan? I'd rather go to a more independent sources than a seller of the album. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I generally opt for things other than iTunes myself when possible, though did find World Music Awards and News.com. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User Homeostatis07 edit warring over adding valid sales

@Homeostasis07: has been reverting and edit warring over the addition of Worldwide sales in the certification and sales table of Artpop. I would like to gather a consensus over this with the fellow editors here at the music related articles as well as listen to Homeostasis' response on this. so pinging @HĐ, Adabow, Lolcakes25, My love is love, SNUGGUMS, JennKR, and Prism: —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, this mentions nothing of a certification, only worldwide sales for the album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: you are absolutely correct, and that is what is added to the table. There is no mention of a certification in the certification column. We can have sales from a reliable source to be added to a list, most recent being Beyoncé, and old examples as far as I can see being Daydream. It is no different than adding sales for a country, when it is uncertified there, like the US market here as well as Prism. And my OP clarified about "Worldwide sales" only. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Noted, I was under the impression that certifications were automatically involved since the table is called "Certifications and sales". Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that worldwide sales should definitely be included, though perhaps we should hear his thoughts on it and see if he would be open to placing it somewhere else? Not sure where, though. I would suggest protecting the page, since the edit war has been going on for sometime and he has been warned about this, but I just don't know how much good it could do. Gagaluv1 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gagaluv1:: I don't know where you've gotten your information from. The edit warring has not been "going on for some time" and I have not been "warned about this". (continue reading for info...). @IndianBio: This is a fairly juvenile tactic, if I do say so myself. Trying to drag as many other users in to this perfectly valid discussion amid claims of me "edit warring" is immediately misleading. I reverted two of your edits over the course of 49 hours, which hardly counts as "WP:EDIT WARRING" by any Wikipedia guideline. The main issue I have is that you are misusing table formatting to give overwrought credence to a random sales figure. The Buffalo News article you've sourced IN NO WAY claims that the 2.5 million sales figure originates from IFPI, which the table formatting you are currently using tries to suggest. The "Worldwide (IFPI)" stat in the Certifications section was clearly designed to support the inclusion of the IFPI's annual *.PDF report, and the IFPI-based formatting shouldn't be misused to include any other random source that you might come across from Google searches. You've already included the updated info in the Commercial performance section, and that's where a link like Buffalo News belongs. And BTW, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, such as "the Beyoncé and Daydream articles" isn't a valid reason or excuse for your completely disproportionate and dishonest course of action here. I mean... really? You couldn't have discussed this on my talk page first, instead of resorting to this in such a public manner? I feel like filing an ANI, just so you know. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: calm down, and address the question directly. And then if you wanna proceed with ANI please, go ahead, IDGAF. "The "Worldwide (IFPI)" stat in the Certifications section was clearly designed to support the inclusion of the IFPI's annual *.PDF report, and the IFPI-based formatting shouldn't be misused to include any other random source that you might come across from Google searches." Buffalo News isn't just any random source and your problem is with the word IFPI included? There is a reason for the sales provision in the table, and that is to represent the sales from the most recent verifiable source. IFPI lists in December 2013 sales of 2.3 million for the album, whereas Buffalo gives a minor updating account of about 200K in June 2014. I have carefully considered about the source and then only added it, and its not just some random World Music Award source using mediatraffic. And in both areas, the article should represent the correct sales as of now. You can also note or find out that the IFPI info is also present as well. And Homeo, please read WP:BRD on this, and discuss first which I started before this went into 3RR. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@IndianBio: If you read "WP:EDIT WARRING", you'd have seen that 3RR applies to edits within any 24 hour period. There's no chance of that happening at this point, so it was fairly pointless mentioning it. And instead of being argumentative and telling me to calm down, why didn't you attempt to address the issue I raised? The source you're using is in no way related to the IFPI, it doesn't once claim to have sourced its figure via IFPI, so it's misleading and - in fact - a flat out lie to use that table formatting for that source. Just because the formatting is there, doesn't mean it has to be used in every article. And in situations like this, it's actually more appropriate to leave it out and instead have the updated worldwide sales source in prose in the Commercial performance section, which has already been done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: can you point me anywhere I'm advocating that the source and its claimed sales are from IFPI? I'm not. I'm using that source based on the reliable number they posted. You do not see me posting any random source asking for a 3 million sales even if it was from the New York Times. Because that would just not be true for a moderate album like Artpop. However, a 200K increase is within the territory and that's what was being added. The documentation does not say anywhere that only IFPI can be used to source worldwide sales, that is just for the Europe Platinum awards. And can you explain how is it misleading? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Sounds to me like you're trying to synth sources. As I've said twice here - and as you yourself have quoted - the formatting you've instigated in the Certifications and sales section suggests that the Buffalo News source got its information from the IFPI, which is completely misleading.
Region Certification Certified units/sales
Worldwide (IFPI) — 2,500,000[1]

* Sales figures based on certification alone.
^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.

  1. ^ Siegel, Ben (July 7, 2014). "Lady Gaga dazzles fans with fun, solid show". The Buffalo News. Stanford Lipsey. Retrieved July 8, 2014.
But you know what... I'm sick of this and I'm sick of your nonsensical nonsense. I'm removing your completely false and unjust IFPI claim from the Cert table, and the next time you try to blacken my name and instigate a hitstorm like this, I won't even bother replying to you. I've spent at least 3 of the last 24 hours logging several dozen instances of all the rude and WP:BADFAITH assumptions you've made over the past 3 months, and I'm more than prepared to take your ill-tempered attitude to ANI the next time you try to do something like this. Telling me that you "don't give a fuck" (abbreviations still count, JSYK) about any possible counter-argument I might make, and pinging 7 of your buddies (the majority of which have not made a single edit to this article over the past 150 edits) amid false claims of me edit warring in order to cosy favour from the onset is completely disingenuous. Instead of discussing this in any sort of constructive manner, you've resorted to this juvenility. You've developed a massively argumentative and non-constructive attitude since Reece Leonard, and I've had just about enough of being on the receiving end of it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07:, again, calm down, sip a beer or whatever it is that soothes you. When an ongoing discussion is still on, you do not revert content so I have reverted this to the original content. And as I said, you are more than welcome to take this to ANI, but first address the solution. And I'm not voting for removing a valid source from table, simple as that. I'm fine with removing IFPI from the table as I explained above, however, not the sales. We can move ahead to WP:DR also if you feel like this is going nowhere. But "do not" revert content because you are "sick of this and sick of your nonsensical nonsense". —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I removed IFPI also, does that look fine to you? If you want I can also ask of @Kww:'s opinion since he is associated with the chart table processes. There must be a reason why the Summary was added. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of IFPI was the issue all along. I never had a problem with the Worldwide figure being included in the table, nor a problem with the source used, it was the incorrect connection between the Buffalo News source and the IFPI name in the formatting that I objected to. You've removed IFPI from the table, so there's no longer an issue. You can remove the hidden formatting, if you like. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful, we have reached a decision (Tyra Banks)! —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Platinum in France is 100,000 copies of an Album sold not 60,000.

In France the album has sold 100,000 copies according to SNEP.[1] In 201 108.213.57.110 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stickee: I believe you have an incorrect understanding like the IP. Albums can be certified for the amount of copies they have shipped to retailers, which in this case is 100,000. However the actual sales as indicated by PureCharts of France is at 60,000 approx which is noted. I will revert back your edit to the orginal version. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 03:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I was just patrolling CAT:ESP for semi-protected edit requests and have no specific expertise in this area. The IP's proposed changes looked correct, so I had implemented them. Stickee (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Lady GaGa – Artpop". SNEP Les Certifications (in French). Retrieved January 16, 2015. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); External link in |archive url= (help); Unknown parameter |archive url= ignored (|archive-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

The album release date was on November 11, 2013 and not on November 6, 2013 as stated in the article. [1] Ivancalet (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.mtv.com/news/1710440/lady-gaga-artpop-announcement/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
 Not done – Citations in the article support a Japanese release date of November 6; November 11 is the US release date and you are using a US source. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Genre

Of course ARTPOP has many songs with various genres. DWUW is R&B, Swine is EDM, Jewels and Drugs is Hip-Hop, but the album its self is dance-pop. I found this source that states: "The album is an undisciplined sprawl of genres (most of them variations on dance pop)". If you buy ARTPOP on iTunes or any other store, the album will be classified as dance/pop. That's why I think the genre on the article should be Dance-pop.[1]

I reverted this per WP:SYNTH; the article from The Washington Post doesn't explicitly say the album as a whole is a dance-pop record. Also, iTunes is not a good source for genres as they often oversimplify an album's overall genre(s). Additionally, there's no harm in leaving "genre" field blank, especially when an album has so much diversity within its songs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS:I agree with you when you said about the genre's diversity and leave it blank. I believe this is the best choice for an album that has multiple genres and is not stuck in only one.Raulkul (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In addition to what Snuggums said about iTunes, genre listings are determined by iTunes and/or record labels for commercial purposes. The powers that be put songs into categories based on what demographics are most likely to listen; example songs like "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" being listed in the country section when it's clearly a pop song.
As far as the genre field, I'm sure plenty of reliable sources discuss the musical style in reviews of the album; I don't think it should be left blank. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, this album is mostly dance-pop, but there are some songs that doesn't fit in this category/genre. It would be nice not let it blank, but I'm seeing it's gonna be difficult to find an answer for "what's the correct genre for ARTPOP?" Is Metacritic reliable for genres? http://www.metacritic.com/music/artpop/lady-gaga/details Raulkul (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stewart, Allison (November 11, 2013). "Lady Gaga's 'Artpop' doesn't live up to its avant-garde ambitions". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 15, 2015.

Good article?

I think this article looks pretty good, but do others have a sense of what needs to be done before nominating for good article status? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Basically an overhaul lol. There's too many stuff missing including expansion of the composition, the development, then the aftermath about how Artpop and its disappointment heralded a career swivel for Gaga and all. —IB [ Poke ] 15:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
See also: User_talk:SNUGGUMS § Artpop

@Cartoon network freak and SNUGGUMS: Feel free to discuss further here. @IndianBio: It'd be nice if you could offer some feedback here. I think there's a group of editors here who are all interested in seeing this article promoted. Can we all work together to make this happen? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

CNF definitely did a good job editing the article lately. Just waiting for further input on the matter. I personally can't find any glaring issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
We might also go through this talk page to archive resolved discussions and see if there are any outstanding issues. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That'll be a good idea! Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sricsi: I see you've been overhauling this article. Do you have Good article nomination plans? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That hasn't really been in my mind. But the article was lacking almost any information about the songs on the album, so it needed some serious expansion. There's still room for improvement, like a summary of the disappointing sales reports. --Sricsi (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Spain sales

I'm challenging the authenticity of the Spain sales source listed in the article from ABC.es. It seems the whole crux of the sales reported by this source is from a "supposedly" leaked document by hackers (La web www.lareputada.com ha conseguido hacerse con él a través de una filtración, y las cifras que arroja han resultado ser muy distintas a lo que se cuenta al público) and based on it the source is downplaying the Spanish market. There is even glaring contradiction in the article itself which says Gaga sold 12,000 (Con el Disco de Oro lo mismo: se les dio a Lady Gaga con 12.000, ya Abraham Mateo con 8.700) and then again says that she sold 7,959 (Sin embargo, un mes después todavía anda muy lejos: 7.959). Therefore, this source cannot be a viable means to add sales for this market when PROMUSICAE lists that it is for the shipment that they certified not actual sales. —IB [ Poke ] 09:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

aftermath/ reconsideration

Shouldn't a section on the aftermath of the album be included? I see some critics are starting to revisit Artpop as a significant output in Gaga's carreer (see:[13]). Christgau had already pointed that out after all, I bet more self critique is about to come in the following years. 5.94.242.178 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Genre

I noticed that no genre is listed for this album. I'm not going to personally add one, because I assume there's a good reason, but if someone else wants to, I have some sources that may be of help:

I have no idea if these sources will be of help, but it seems like there should be a genre (or genres) listed, so I just thought I'd put them up here. (And I know the sources are already in the article, but it can be hard to wade through to find sources that list the genre.) Cheers! —Anotheronewiki (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the Rolling Stone article can be used to list it as Disco. I will wait for what others say. —IB [ Poke ] 17:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The RS review is not explicitly listing any genre, it uses "disco" as a metonym for popular dance music. The only acceptable definition - musically-wise, which I intend might not be the preferable standpoint here - is electronic dance music as it used to be. It would be inaccurate and misleading to list it as dance pop too, musically-wise, since this is clearly an experimental work as intended by many different critics which cannot be considered representative of the whole of dance music as a genre. Otherwise, you should clarify that irrespective of other variables such as commerciability and distribution the album invents on the paradigm from which it derives but stays largely out of the main lane. If anything this record is hardly pop music at all - Swine, Aura, G.U.Y. that is dance pop just like Le Tigre was punk 2.42.106.40 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote

@IndianBio: What is the rationale of this rvt? Why force the user to take 2 jumps if they want to get to Art pop?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The user is intelligent enough to search for it. —IB [ Poke ] 05:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
But artpop and art pop are both common spellings for the genre. WP:DISAMBIG:
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."
Maybe we should move this article to Artpop (Lady Gaga album)?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not, a quick search reveals that this one is clearly the primary topic in comparison to the genre. —IB [ Poke ] 05:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Artpop. 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) 08:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Artpop: Romandie charts

Hi,

I think it's important to add the chart for the french-speaking part of Switzerland. This region has its own independant sales charts, and it shouldn't be neglected:

Here's the link (number-one spot) : [1]

But the article is locked and impossible to modify...

Mchappa1 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC) mchappa1

References

  1. ^ http://lescharts.ch/weekchart.asp?year=2013&date=20131124&cat=a

Critical reception

Can we change the critical reception from mixed reviews to generally favorable reviews? It lists as such on Metacrtic, which is biggest website with reviews and collected 30 reviews by critics for Artpop. The album scored 61, the same number as Prism by Katy Perry, however Prism's wikipedia page says it garnered generally favorable reviews not mixed reviews as Artpop's page.

Links: http://www.metacritic.com/music/artpop/lady-gaga/critic-reviews http://www.metacritic.com/music/prism/katy-perry/critic-reviews http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Prism_(Katy_Perry_album)#Critical_reception

Marteen729 (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively 3 years ago, see Talk:Artpop/Archive_3#RfC: Should an unverifiable statement in this article that is based on consensus be replaced by one that is verifiable? for details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Future GAN

@SNUGGUMS:; @Another Believer:; @IndianBio: I would start by identifying all problems that need to be fixed. Can we do a list of issues? Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi CNF, sure that sounds like a good plan. Let me take a look into the article once. —IB [ Poke ] 04:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, IB! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay so here's the thing. The major issue here is structuring now. And a huge chunk of content is missed in terms of the songs composition and analysis. I can help in those developments. Plus a number of charts are incorrectly archived so would have to correct that also. Please give me a few days time CNF. —IB [ Poke ] 04:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Thank you! Just make sure you make a kind of list, so we can know exactly what we have to work on. When resolved, we can add a  Done tag to each comment. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artpop. 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) 01:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Switzerland

Please change the Swiss sales to 10,000 instead of 15,000! It was released after 2013 and therefore Gold = 10,000 copies sold. --2A02:B98:4730:2DF4:64C2:C177:D870:FC00 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017

Change: "Artpop received mixed reviews from music critics." to: "Upon release, Artpop received generally favorable reviews from music critics." On Metacritic is 61 which indicates generally favorable reviews. http://www.metacritic.com/music/artpop/lady-gaga (Generally favorable reviews based on 30 Critics) JoDash (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. A consensus for this sentence had already been reached at Talk:Artpop/Archive 3#Agyle's proposal, and a hidden notice prevents me from making the change. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Impact of 2019 R Kelly controversy

"Do What U Want" just got removed from iTunes, and all streaming platfroms from the album. Should we update the tracklist and the 'Release' section of the article? --Sricsi (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not the track list, since the article should reflect the original release information, but yes, the article should be updated in general. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Another Believer, we should NOT remove from tracklist as the song is still present on physical albums and to be honest Kelly still gets royalty from its sales as a songwriter. The album article can be updated with a one-liner as its more for the DWUW article. —IB [ Poke ] 09:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Do What U Want (ft. Xtina NOT R Kelly)

On January 19, 2019, the version of "Do What U Want" (ft. R Kelly) was removed from streaming services, due to the 2019 assault allegations. However, it should be noted that the song is not entirely gone and that the version featuring Christina Aguilera is still available for purchase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8300:1475:D045:662C:F3BA:F172 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-Release of Artpop

Could anyone add to the Release Hitory the Re Release of the Album. The album do not include the track Do What You Want. It will release on the 11th November 2019 as Vinyl and CD https://store.hmv.com/music/vinyl/artpop-(1) https://store.hmv.com/music/cd/artpop-(1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.116.148 (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect for Mary Jane Holland

Should Mary Jane Holland redirect into the Artpop page? There's not much about the song on the page and its unique history, I'd say, is enough to warrant its own article, considering the original track's notoriety of changing hands, its lyrical construct and various iterations done by Lady Gaga and others. GWR 2019 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

GWR 2019, Do you want to get a page started at Mary Jane Holland (song)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Mixed response?

I'm a little confused as to why ARTPOP's critical reception is 'mixed' while Miley Cyrus' Bangerz is 'mixed to positive' and Katy Perry's Prism is 'generally favorable', when they all were released at the same time and have the exact same score of 61. Which should be edited? Mightbeaquarian (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

Lady Gaga said that over 90 songs were recorded,but only 15 were released.She wanted to release Artpop Act II but it was never released. Mateja.despotovic.13 (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What are you trying to say about these other tracks and this second act? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

As a result of the ARTPOP campaign, ARTPOP reached #3 in the Billboard Electronic Dance Music albums charts. Lady Gaga occupied the entire top 3 positions of the Top Dance/Electronic Albums chart for the 13th time in her career, and for the first time since 2011. ARTPOP also landed at the 21st spot in the Billboard Top Album Sales Chart. 76.21.62.34 (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

Change "on" to "in." In quote from Rob Moran's article, "Listen to Lady Gaga's Track-by-Track Explanation of Artpop, 'Cause Maybe You Just Didn't Get It," Under "Music and Lyrics," then under "Songs," at the end of the first paragraph, discussing "Venus," Moran is misquoted as: "...about sex ON the most mythological way." The correct quote, which makes sense, is "...about sex IN the most mythological way." 2600:1000:B161:5244:25B3:1E57:A6DE:D0C6 (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC) 2600:1000:B161:5244:25B3:1E57:A6DE:D0C6 (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Of the universe (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

I think the album genres should be changed to EDM, synth-pop, Europop, rock, techno, R&B as these are the main genres of the album 2A02:C7C:382E:8E00:61E4:3DA2:8A94:316B (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

Need to add a certification sales


Why is this page still protected? Lucasergiooo (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artpop/Archive_1&oldid=1152319732"