Talk:Born This Way Ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Lady Gaga (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Concert Tours (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Concert Tours, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of concert tours on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Latin America[edit]

You have articles on the ticket sales in Latin America,Firstly: None of the numbers for attendances are official and Secondly: Promotion does not insight poor sales,EVERYONE uses promotion Beyoncé and also Madonna had 2 for 1 or 50% off tickets in Bazil...ALSO I think the date by date comment on ticket sales in Latin America should be removed,It is not needed as it has not been used for previous dates,PLUS NO OFFICIAL figures have been released,I would put a statement saying 'Promotional offers were in place in South America for some dates as it is a completely new market for the artist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.239.35 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, those number are official, because they appear in very serious newspapers. The official attendances as you speak may appear on billboard, however that takes time (wich doesn't garantee that latin american market attendances of each country would be release at all) , and in the information regarding europe, africa and asia tours wasn't "official" and the sources are newspapers of each country as well. The references (i don't know if you read it), but, it clearly says that the promotions had to be made due low ticket sales, and not for promoting the tour. What you wanna put in might be ok, but there's no source to tell that the concert wasn't a commercial sucess because the territory was "new" for the artist. Even in some of the articles regarding the latinamerican dates the concert was compared to Rihanna, Katy Perry and Britney Spears, who never came to latin american countries before and did much better in marketing concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.116.152 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


Ive seen many articles regarding poor tickets sales in South America and think it should be left on until official numbers are released. It seems to me that "some" here only want to post positive info on the artist but negative press gets omitted. This is not a 'Born This Way Ball' fanpage. --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WRONG none of those figures are official,speculated figures from local media is NOT OFFICIAL,Get that? NOT billboard are the ONLY reliable source for figures it's given to them by live nation...It should be removed now it is WRONG and contains many grammar errors,Firstly you have no clue how many tickets were put on sale so stop speculating.

Newspaper and television networks DO have the information about how many tickets are on sale, this is information that production company has to give in order to get the necesary media coverage, also this information is available for the autorithies to take care of the attendances, more attendances more security, so properly says the information isn't confidential. Again the information used in the other continents also come from local newspapers, and noone seems to complain about that. No one is speculating if you read the references listed below you can easily find that the information on the wikipedia is the same that the media networks gave, so no information is fake or made up. Also at the begining (before all the unjustified editions and deletions) more than one source was supporting the information in every country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.116.152 (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope wrong again...Bilboard is the only reliable source for gross and attendance figures,No scroll to the bottom the official gross numbers and attendance records are in black and white,Nice try...Wikipedia is not for speculation and rumours,once the official figures are released they will be added,that will show the success or failure of each show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDNA-GAGA (talkcontribs) 17:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So apparently all the commercial section should be deleted, since all the sources aren't the officials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.116.152 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


People keep editing the south american tour information, the new information doesn't have a reliable source. Puerto Rico is not considered a part of south america,that country belong to north america. The references made in that new addition is the box score in the billboard page, in which no information of any latinamerican shows is made. Also the information regarding the attendance in the Brazil shows is mistaken, and the 100.000 attendances is the sum of the three concert offered in that country. It's clearly that in this particular section there's a conflict of interest from some editors, who keeps putting only favorable information and doesn't respect the objectivity that wikipedia requires in all their articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.116.152 (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


Why was the info deleted? It had proper sources. Like stated above why not delete the entire commercial section since its all speculation at this point until official numbers are posted, oh wait, it mentions the tour in a positive light, never mind. This is the point I was trying to make only thee negative information gets deleted and only positive ever gets posted. This page has become a fanpage and its ridiculous. --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope wrong none of the info Is official OR correct no official info has been released from the touring company or Bilboard besides 40,000 in Paraguay...date by date report is not needed...especially when it's SPECULATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDNA-GAGA (talkcontribs) 18:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


Those references seems to me very reliable, I mean those are articucles just like the one in New York Times or Rolling Stone (actually one of the references was the brazilian version of rolling Stone), Also I think if many newspapers says about the low attendance to the concert even when the number aren’t the “official”, it must means something. However I think that for avoiding the online dispute, that part of the article should be re-write, and I though something like this:

"Despite being a worldwide success, the concert had a hard time selling the tickets in south American market. Special offers to increase ticket sales were used in all the southamerican countries in the show. Some of the offers included a 2x1 ticket (in stand locations), 50% discount in other locations and installments with no interest payment. Promotions begun 2 weeks prior the show. This promotions were not well receive by the fans who bought tickets at the original price, in some countries like Colombia the production company made an offer to fans who bought tickets at their original price, so they could get another free ticket in the same location and a price adjusted refund, or a full refund"

All the before has strong references, newspapers and portal nets, also don't be naive, billboard or the production company won't make articles about the special offers, and course this should be edited when (or if) the officials number get released by apparently the final word of Billboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.241.34 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As MDNA-GAGA said, "date by date report is not needed...especially when it's SPECULATION". Stop being childish and please, stop changing that. WAIT FOR BILLBOARD. This seems pretty goood: "Despite being a worldwide success, the concert had a hard time selling tickets in the South American market. Since then, several special offers to increase ticket sales were used. Some tickets were sold at half of their original price in Colombia, generating a wide criticism from fans who bought tickets at the original price. Many shows also weren’t able to sell all the locations immediately, forcing the production companies to set up a 2x1 policy in stand locations and reducing the price in most of the tickets." Do not change it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagasUnicorn (talkcontribs) 22:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not true: "keeps putting only favorable information and doesn't respect the objectivity that wikipedia requires in all their articles". You guys are just persisting on an unnecessary thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagasUnicorn (talkcontribs) 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is something that was mentioned many times on the news. It can be included as it properly sourced. Lets remember this is not a fanpage and we include the negative and the positive. If it was a date by date of positive info no one would even make a fuss.--Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

MDNA-GAGA and GagasUnicorn are right. These numbers are not even accurate, and not everything got deleted (of course we know it's not a fan page). One paragraph is good enough to explain the ticket sales situation in South America. Why you keep insisting on that? The Rio de Janeiro venue, for example, is an OPEN PARK just like the ones in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. That place can fit 90,000 people, but it doesn't mean 90,000 tickets were needed to be sold in order to sell out the show. Plus, the random people who write these reviews can have access to the attendance numbers of each night, but not to the number of tickets which were available. Wait for Billboard. It was already said a million times here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissamppaio (talkcontribs) 13:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

But you guys treat it like a fanpage. It may not be the official numbers but it requires a mention, since billboard will not report the deals that were made to have the tickets sold (2x1) and how they weren't in high demand from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefaithmonster1 (talkcontribs) 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

But the deals ARE reported in that paragraph. Can't you see it? I'm not saying her shows were a complete success in South America ('cause they probably were not), but those numbers which were reported are INACCURATE. I'm sorry, but I see a lot of other people besides me who keep undoing your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissamppaio (talkcontribs) 15:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How are they inaccurate? You expect us to change the section just because YOU say its inaccurate? They are all properly sourced with many sources saying the same thing. Im tired of seeing this page get only the positive info added but all negative gets deleted. I have seen Negative reviews but none are posted on the section and if they do, they get deleted fast. --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And YOU think you're the owner of this page, but you are not, and no one is. can't you understand this: "The Rio de Janeiro venue, for example, is an OPEN PARK just like the ones in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. That place can fit 90,000 people, but it doesn't mean 90,000 tickets were needed to be sold in order to sell out the show"? also, the Porto Alegre venue can't even fit 30,000 people like someone has already said. what got removed were the NUMBERS, but the negative info about poor ticket sales and special offers is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagasUnicorn (talkcontribs) 16:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

until now, me, MDNA-GAGA, Marissamppaio, GagasUnicorn, 189.4.62.241, Joe71941 all deleted your editions, Thefaithmonster1. you're the only who thinks this info is necessary and reliable. wait for Billboard,, is this that hard? you're getting ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.85.33.19 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

All of you claim to know how many people attended but hve no sources to back it up. The section provided has sources and deserves a mention. Ill say this again, this is NOT a fanpage. I am not here to bash this page, if you see my history I have helped to maintain it but many people here have only one goal and its to only add positive stuff and keep the negative stuff out. That is the thing thats getting ridiculous, not me keeping properly sourced info.--Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The articles mention sales, attendance, etc and they are reliable sources. When Billboard will publich the info about the tour, we will confront what they said with what it's already been written. Until then, the section is good as it is. Alecsdaniel (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against including the information as long as it's properly sourced...but it really needs to be re-written and condensed. There's nor need for three countries to take up that much space on the page compared to the other legs of the tour. --Shadow (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree on condensing it. Can we also take out the attendance #s part because we will just get all the info deleted over and over again. --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with this: "it really needs to be re-written and condensed. There's nor need for three countries to take up that much space on the page compared to the other legs of the tour". Of course I know it's not a fan page and my goal is NOT to keep the negative stuff out. In Wikipedia, we must be as neutral as possible. The info about poor ticket sales and special offers to increase them can obviously stay on the page, but NONE of the tour promoters in Latin America disclosed OFFICIAL numbers. These articles are doing ESTIMATIONS, that's my point. Just condense the text and wait for Billboard. I believe the others who keep undoing Thefaithmonster1's editions will understand as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissamppaio (talkcontribs) 01:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm also ok with condensing it and removing the attendance #s part. The low sales and all the promotions which were made actually happenned, but Billboard is the only legit source for attendance numbers, you guys should know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.85.33.19 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The same article (http://musica.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2012/11/15/turne-de-lady-gaga-termina-com-pouco-mais-da-metade-dos-ingressos-vendidos-entenda-os-numeros.htm) that says Gaga performed for 50,000 people in São Paulo, 40,000 in Rio de Janeiro and 16,000 in Porto Alegre also says Beyoncé performed for 60,000 people in São Paulo, 25,000 in Florianópolis and 50,000 in Salvador. Billboard revealed it was actually 52,757, 20,362 and 28,776, respectively. Same for Coldplay: they say 94,000 people attended their tour in Brazil, but Billboard revealed that only 79,881 did (53,060 in SP and 26,821 in Rio). Britney Spears: the article says she performed for 50,000 people the last time she toured Brazil. Billboard revealed the actual number was 33,712 (20,664 in SP and 13,048 in Rio). I mean, look at these huge differences. This article is not reliable at all. "Billboard is the only legit source for attendance numbers, you guys should know that". Can we finally reach a consensus now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagasUnicorn (talkcontribs) 14:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


Billboard does not reveal the promotions and the lack of interest of these shows when compared to her good numbers in Europe, asia, and oceania. We have agreed to remove the attendance numbers but will leave the low demand for tickets.--Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"There's nor need for three countries to take up that much space on the page compared to the other legs of the tour." -> Things already got discussed but you still keep insiting on doing it the way you think it's good. "Billboard does not reveal the promotions and the lack of interest of these shows when compared to her good numbers in Europe, asia, and oceania." -> Everyone knows that and said this here. Reporting the low ticket sales is OK, we know Billboard only reveals the numbers. "We have agreed to remove the attendance numbers but will leave the low demand for tickets." -> I'm sorry, but you're being incoherent and the 'supposed to be new' edit still says some attendance numbers. I changed it, and please don't change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.196.5 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Thats not true, I only undid it because someone decided to delete everything. --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, then. I think everyone agrees with this: "Despite the worldwide commercial success of the tour, it was not very well received by the South American market. In Colombia, some tickets were sold at half of their original price to increase ticket sales. This generated a wide criticism from fans who bought tickets at the original price; the production company also made an offer to fans who bought tickets at their original price, so they could get another free ticket in the same location and a price adjusted refund, or a full refund. To increase ticket sales of the three concerts in Brazil, special offers were made, one of to include a two for one in some stand locations, and a 10 installments with no interest payment for tickets. In Chile, ticket sales were higher than in the rest of the South American countries. However, the show wasn’t able to sell all the locations immediately, and the production company for the concert had to make special offers 2 weeks before the show to sell more tickets. This included a 2x1 offer in stand locations, and reducing the price in most of the tickets. Peru was another country with low sales of tickets, where they were sold in a two for the price of one offer, and some of them at half of their original price." I hope no one deletes everything again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.106.205.103 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good--Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Despite the worldwide commercial success of the tour, it was not very well received by the South American market. In Colombia, some tickets were sold at half of their original price to increase ticket sales. This generated a wide criticism from fans who bought tickets at the original price; the production company also made an offer to fans who bought tickets at their original price, so they could get another free ticket in the same location and a price adjusted refund, or a full refund. To increase ticket sales of the three concerts in Brazil, special offers were made, one of to include a two for one in some stand locations, and a 10 installments with no interest payment for tickets. In Chile, ticket sales were higher than in the rest of the South American countries. However, the show wasn’t able to sell all the locations immediately, and the production company for the concert had to make special offers 2 weeks before the show to sell more tickets. This included a 2x1 offer in stand locations, and reducing the price in most of the tickets. In Peru, tickets were sold in a two for the price of one offer, and some of them at half of their original price." I made a small change. Since Billboard confirmed Lady Gaga sold out her show in Lima, Peru with 36,163 tickets sold, it is NOT considered "low sales of tickets" (it is completely incoherent to state this). Anyway, the deals and promotions were not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissamppaio (talkcontribs) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Both articles I deleted contained false information about the ticket sales situation in Latin America. This one (http://elcomercio.pe/espectaculos/1495131/noticia-concierto-lady-gaga-registra-bajas-ventas-entradas-peru-sudamerica) says only 15,000 tickets were sold in Lima, 14,000 in Rio de Janeiro and 33,000 in São Paulo, yet Billboard (a reputable and reliable source) officially revealed that 36,163 tickets were sold in Peru, 26,167 in Rio de Janeiro and 43,137 in São Paulo (http://www.freezepage.com/1357566049IANLXYVBOK). This another one (http://www.nme.com/news/madonna/67632) has the Examiner as its only source and also says 17,000 tickets were sold in Peru. Examiner is not a reliable source (if you don't know, anyone can create an account there and become part of Examiner's team - it's like having random Twitter or Facebook accounts as sources). Not to mention that Jemuel DaSilva is the author (he is a declared Gaga hater and known for constantly defaming Gaga and making up stories about her, her tour, her foundantion and the Born Brave Bus). Oh, and Jemuel had as a source for his article a Gaga hate blog (http://pawsdownlittlemonsters.tumblr.com/). So the "New statistics" NME says are actually fake/doesn't exist. They were created by Gaga haters. PLEASE, NOTE THAT I ONLY REMOVED THESE TWO SOURCES. THE INFO ABOUT THE TICKET SALES SITUATION IN LATIN AMERICA REMAINS INTACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissamppaio (talkcontribs) 01:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 26 September 2012[edit]

Could you please remove the date by date report on sales in South America because the figures stated are not official and a date-by-date report has not been done before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDNA-GAGA (talkcontribs) 13:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Setlist[edit]

Is it really necessary to mention when songs were not performed? I don't really think it is. But that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintblonde (talkcontribs) 23:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's really necessary. I mean, some songs are also performed for the first time (like The Queen in São Paulo). This Wikipedia page is to give info about the tour. If the setlist is changed, it must be reported. And as I have said before, a lot of tour pages here has this kind of notes. Why the Born This Way Ball page can't have? That's my opinion, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagasUnicorn (talkcontribs) 19:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Performing a new song is indeed notable, but you need proper sourcing, and that isn't Youtube and word of mouth. Not performing songs due to time is not. It's not uncommon for an artist to do that, many have done it. --Shadow (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're really thinking we are going to find a source which says Gaga performed a new song in a show? You know this isn't possible. I mean, an article wouldn't be wrote just to tell she performed it. YouTube was put as a source because some people didn't believe she actually sang The Queen in São Paulo, for instance. The video is just a proof she did it, but how "proper sourcing" is needed for this kind of note? Many pages here in Wikipedia feature setlist notes which aren't even sourced. Certain thing happened (and it's 100% accurate in this case) and that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.106.187.111 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

One page doing something doesn't mean every page should follow suit. And it is possible to find proper sources for things. On The Monster Ball Gaga would perform a song one time and you could easily find that mentioned in a review of that particular concert. As show on the Manual of Style: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --Shadow (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No cynicism please[edit]

Those infos about the ticket sales for bazil have to be deleted, cause it's a huge lie. Even my grandmom knows that any of the concerts in Brazil sold out. Noone likes to read this kind of thing about their idols, but this is a place for facts, not illusions.201.66.207.106 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Billboard is the only LEGIT/OFFICIAL/RELIABLE source when it comes to attendance/gross numbers of tours. NOTHING is going to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.210.9.157 (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Your 'grandmom' is not a reliable source. Everything posted is properly sourced and even though billboard numbers are official, they dont mention the deep discounts or the trouble they had selling tickets. --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

I think this might be worth adding to the controversy section of the article:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4741868/lady-gaga-rifle-bra-outfit-on-tour.html

This article discusses how she wears a bra with plastic guns attached. This comes within a month of the tragic school shooting in Connecticut. Does anyone think this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Many websites have mentioned this, so probably it probably wouldn't be a bad thing to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.140.79 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Australasia/ Oceania[edit]

Why do we use Australasia instead of Oceania? The Fame Ball and The Monster Ball both use Oceania. I know that every page always shouldn't follow suit, but it seems right to change ito Oceania. Also for the rest of the page it uses Oceania not Australasia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.140.79 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved due to consensus below. Suggest requesting the other pages be evaluated for removing THE from the name. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


Born This Way BallThe Born This Way BallThis discussion from April resulted in a consensus to move the page to "Born This Way Ball" per WP:THE. However, that guideline page says "the" should be included as a part of the article title when the word is a part of the work, ie The New York Times. The name of this tour is clearly "The Born This Way Ball" as evidenced by the official poster, Ticketmaster pages, multiple reliable sources, etc. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • It's not a matter of official names. For those of us unfamiliar with the topic, can you link to evidence? Especially helpful would be independent secondary sources capitalizing "The" in running text. .--BDD (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The OFFICIALNAMES essay usually applies only when the official name is obscure/unknown, which isn't the case here. Some sources that capitalize "The" in running text include 1, 2, 3. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm fascinated by the claim that The OFFICIALNAMES essay usually applies only when the official name is obscure/unknown. So far as I can see that's not what the page at WP:official names says at all... let me quote part of it, sorry it's longish: The preference for common names avoids several problems with official names: Obscurity. Some official names are never used except in legal or other esoteric documents, or for theatrical effect. Competing authorities. In some cases, an article subject may have several competing names, all of them in some sense official. Changes to names. Official names may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current. It then goes on to describe each of these three in detail with examples. and while this is an essay it does claim (and in my opinion accurately) to explain the current policy, and if not it should be updated. In short the above argument has little to recommend it, am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OTOH most of the one hundred-odd sources in the article itself use "Born This Way Ball" without the definite article, including MTV and Billboard. You could also add Rolling Stone to that list. A Google search gives twice as many hits for the unarticled title as for the articled one, and (as the previous discussion pointed out) the "The" is not esential for identification.
The previous discussion also mentioned the other two tours (The Fame Ball and The Monster Ball) should be moved for the same reason, but they are still at those titles: Can they be moved (or confirmed) with this RM or should they be approached separately? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It would be good to place a wikilink on the talk pages of those pages pointing to this discussion, particularly if a clear conclusion is reached here to move. Or, if that conclusion is not to move, then I suggest that should take the form of a multiple move request for the other two, again citing this discussion. Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying; I think if the conclusion here is to move, the other pages might as well stay (for consistency). But if the conclusion is to stay, I'll put a RM to move the other two. The circumstances are the same for all three articles. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If I didn't make it clear before, I am opposing this request to move back to the previous title. The sources for this page do not support inclusion of the definite article per WP:THE. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no demonstration that the article move is supported on a common name basis. Moonraker12's post appears to show that, in fact, the opposite is true.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

review[edit]

please add bad review to reception section

http://www.mercurynews.com/music/ci_22400716/review-lady-gaga-concert-disappoints-san-jose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.34.22 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ticket sales in North America[edit]

"The low ticket sales followed in North America, where price of the tickets were dropped from 60$ to 23$, since many shows weren't sold out, despite the date of the concerts being as close as two weeks." ---> This is completely FAKE. From BILLBOARD (http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/record-labels/five-hot-tours-to-watch-for-in-2013-1008051102.story#x2qAyxprE7etP4K3.99 ): "Despite ill-founded scuttlebutt about a softening in demand, Gaga will sell out arenas coast-to-coast, with doubles in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York at both Barclays Center in Brooklyn and Madison Square Garden. The tour is produced by Live Nation Global Touring and booked by WME." Can you guys read? "DESPITE ILL-FOUNDED SCUTTLEBUTT ABOUT A SOFTENING IN DEMAND, GAGA WILL SELL OUT ARENAS COAST-TO-COAST". Are you guys really that dumb and stupid to believe ANYTHING you find online? StubHub is NOT an official ticket seller and the fact that there are tickets being sold for $23 dollars is NOT an indicator of poor sales and NEVER will be. P!nk has tickets being sold for $20 dollars for her The Truth About Love Tour (http://www.stubhub.com/pink-tickets/); Rihanna has tickets being sold for $11 dollars for her Diamonds World Tour (http://www.stubhub.com/rihanna-tickets/); Taylor Swift has tickets being sold for $35 dollars for her RED Tour (http://www.stubhub.com/taylor-swift-tickets/); Justin Bieber has tickets being sold for $25 dollars for his Believe Tour (http://www.stubhub.com/justin-bieber-tickets/), etc. In short: it happens to EVERY SINGLE TOUR and is NO WAY connected to low sales. The guy in this article (http://www.inquisitr.com/464309/lady-gagas-ticket-prices-drop-dramatically-due-to-poor-sales/) is just ASSUMING it with NO solid evidence. Even Billboard denied rumors about "a softening in demand" like I have said before. Gaga did 4 shows in the US so far and ALL OF THEM in PACKED arenas. Billboard is going to confirm these shows as SOLD OUT very soon. This false information is NOT going to stay in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissamppaio (talkcontribs) 19:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Marissamppaio has many valid points. Billboard made everything clear and is obviously more reliable than "INQUISITR". Ticketmaster is the only official ticket seller and the reduced ticket prices aren't coming from the company. Tickets being sold for low prices in StubHub is completely normal and happens even if certain tour is a massive success (Taylor Swift's RED Tour, for instance). Please, stop being childish and ignorant and let this fake info removed from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagasUnicorn (talkcontribs) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree "stubhub" is not a reliable place to check if a tour is doing good or not. If the article mentioned that "ticketMaster" still had many tickets available then that would warrant a mention. So i think it should be removed. Just my opinion --Thefaithmonster1 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, Thefaithmonster1! Reduced ticket prices in StubHub happens to every artist and doesn't mean "poor ticket sales". It's something normal (like Marissamppaio explained). Ticketmaster is still selling tickets for their original price and that's all that matters (remember that in South America the discounts came from the official ticket sellers, so they are mentioned in the tour page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.106.144.139 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"According to the LA Times, tickets for the second L.A. show were still available, a day before the concert, with the stadium for the first date not being fully "packed to the rafters" as her 2011 concert there." This is not true and even if it was, it is completely unnecessary and will not stay in the page. From another review (http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/gaga-408721-yet-one.html): "The second half of that notion might irritate many who were on hand Sunday night at Staples Center for the provocateur’s first of two sold-out dates at the arena, the long-awaited Southern California arrival of her spectacular Born This Way Ball." 'TWO SOLD-OUT DATES'. Besides, the official STAPLES Center Twitter account confirmed the first Los Angeles show was sold out (https://twitter.com/STAPLESCenter/status/293233557407662080): ".@LadyGaga is absolutely rocking the sold out #BornThisWayBall in LA @STAPLESCenter tonight! #BTWBall #littlemonsters pic.twitter.com/LEZYkOAS". 'SOLD OUT'. DO NOT undo the last edit. The info mentioned before is false and unnecessary.

The Billboard article made a point in saying that Live Nation had to refund "roughly 200,000" tickets for the 22 dates that were cancelled. 200,000 tickets divided by 22 tour dates equals an average ticket sell of 9,090. The average seating capacity of the venues listed was over double that figure, at 19,000. The portrayal in this article of the North American tour as a major sell-out is completely illogical and clearly not true. It needs to be re-written ASAP. Also, I know for a fact that the official capacity of the Aviva Stadium in Dublin is just shy of 66,000. How it can be claimed that Gaga's 37,005 tickets sold for the same venue was "100%" is beyond me. Some serious problems with these tour articles. Between the Billboard Box Score irregularities and all the obvious fancruft these kinds of pages tend to attract, I think it's time for a major debate on whether these kinds of articles should be allowed on Wiki. The majority of their content could be serviced within a "Tour" section of the album's article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Princess Die[edit]

It was never performed @ Barcelona, I was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.214.226 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

"The show began with "Highway Unicorn (Road to Love)" accompanied by an extended intro, which Gaga performed while atop of a mechanical horse out of the three-story medieval castle prop."

I've kept changing this over and over again, but someone keeps changing it back. Gaga performs Highway Unicorn on a mechanical UNICORN, not atop of a horse. Look at the pictures, horses don't have a horn on their head. Jeez... Squidoh (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2013[edit]

ok. started reading this, spotted a mistake in the first line so massive its embarassing. the Born this way ball is the THIRD tour for the THIRD studio album by lady gaga. Her first album was the Fame, her second was the Fame Monster, and her third was Born this way. 50.81.95.106 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. According to Lady_Gaga_discography#Studio_albums, Born This Way was the second studio album. RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Final gross[edit]

The Born This Way Ball has now grossed $181.1m http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/011413top50.pdf http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2013/2013MidYearTop100WorldwideTours.pdf

Page Title[edit]

Shouldn't the title have 'The' in front (The Born This Way Ball Tour)? All her other tours have it and it's like that on the official poster. 78.0.23.218 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on January 7, 2014[edit]

The boxscore for Santiago, Chile Show on November 20, 2012 is $2,849,707 , not $1,849,707 as the article says. This according to the same source the article has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmegeorge (talkcontribs) 00:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you. Adabow (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)