Talk:Dance in the Dark

Depeche Mode

Something important is missing from the article, and it is strange that it is. In the beginning of Dance in the Dark is a sample from an old Depeche Mode song. Can't remember which one (Enjoy the Silence?) but it should be noted in the article. abelson (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's Strangelove. abelson (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a promo but cant source it

Look, there are no doubts that this song and Alejandro were released as promo's, but they were removed 2 days later off iTunes in certain countries. Once the fame monster was released, they removed from the remaining iTunes stores, such as the Australian (i still have the downloads from it in my purchased history). But the problem is that they no longer exist so to keep them on wikipedia is hard becuase now there are nothing to source them, unless we can look around online to find a source--58.161.68.159 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Reasoned discussion for this please. SunCreator (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect. Creating an unsourced article and then hoping others would add source is despicable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well assuming good faith by the newbie that created it, I guess they didn't know of wikipedia's requirement to add sources. That why I tagged it wildly do there was no mistake.

So why have you redirect/deleted this article without discussion again? SunCreator (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Being unsourced is not good enough for you? Then please read WP:V. By the way there are a few songs from The Fame Monster, namely "Teeth", "Monster", and "So Happy I Could Die" that do not have an article. Would you like to create them too? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this article requires a redirect. Is completely unverified. Please, do not make this difficult. • вяαdcяochat 10:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

← Not sourced and not notable on any level. I'm redirecting this. - eo (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Credits

i dont think those credits are correct for this song, they seem to be the ones for Speechless not Dance in the Dark. 190.233.125.138 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They are the same, its true as per the liner notes. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

then why did you change them if there were correct. obviously not true. 190.233.125.138 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sampled from George Michael's Careless Whisper

I don't really know how to edit these pages very well, but this song is a sample of George Michael/Wham's "Carless Whisper", shouldn't that be added in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.0.201 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't hear any part of the song has careless whisper in it. where did you even know about it? 222.79.156.151 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Add This Info?

Should we add the Belgium itune slink? [1] And The Australian Radio Add? [2]--Apeaboutsims (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The belgium link doesnot give any new info, other than being a download link, hence not acceptable. The Australian link can be added. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please add it in. I am struggling on where to put it. Thanks --Apeaboutsims (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Canditate for deletion?

Why? Imho just leave it as it is. What's the point in deleting it? It would be better to have a stub of an article rather than nothing at all about it. ⓈⓓⓌ④^{•talk•contribs•} 16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Dance in the Dark is a great article not to be deleted. The song has already been released as a single in Belgium actually. It is going to be the fourth single from The Fame Monster, and Wikipedia makes pages for singles, so why delete it now if we have to rewrite it less than two months later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.58.192 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Its already closed as keep. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Music video in production

Add this info. the source is http://www.zimbio.com/Lady+Gaga/articles/KC6cdT_Wj6u/Lady+Gaga+next+single+will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearofthe (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Unreliable source. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:@

Why the hell is this article not semi-protected? It was before wasn't it? And then when someone edits it, you change it and say there' no reliable source. Semi-protect this page please :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.74.182 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

An article is protected only if there is enough vandalism from IPs. If such a case happens the article will be semi-protected again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Single

Why is this categorized under the singles category if it hasn't been confirmed as a single? If it has been, then I don't see anywhere in the article a source, or a line that says "This is to be Gaga's next single!" Unless we can properly source it, I say take it out of the singles category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.55.131 (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

New wave

Is it fair to call this song New Wave? It does not match the New Wave article's citations of the genres style and era definitions on the article. I recommend we change it to match Lady Gaga's other albums style relations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources provided calls it new wave. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Being influenced by New Wave is not the same as being new wave. That's very clear. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The minute you opened the argument it was doomed. An album itself as a whole is likely to have 2-3 genres but then inidividual songs have genres which stray away from the album. "Speechless" for example is poprock but you wouldn't say The Fame Monster is Poprock right? Slant Magazine clearly says "Dance in the Dark" is new wave ... "but songs like 'Bad Romance' and 'Dance in the Dark' are stacked with towering new-wave synths". Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. That's very true Lil-unique1. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a synthesizer sound that emulates a given genre makes it part of that genre. For example a song with turntablism would not imply it's hip hop, a song with a 2-tone beat would not necessarily make it ska. I'd also provide this source to state that "New wave finally died out in 1984" here. This book here also notes that New Wave was between the late 1970s and early 1980s. I suggest both of you look up into genre before placing it so carelessly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of music genre revival? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Content must be encylopedia which means WP:verifiable. Calling the song dancepop because Gaga's album is dance-pop would be WP:OR. The article in slant magazine clearly speaks of the album have retro elements as show in another source. When Allmusic says things like "New Wave" is dead it refers to how the masses aren't producing new wave. A song can quite easily have new wave elements to it, just because everyone isnt doing new wave songs. Its no physically dead is it. Unless you have other sources which reliably source alternative genres synthpop and new wave are here to stay. The genre wasn't place carelessly quite the opposite in fact. And FYI I intervened as someone who's had little input into this article to offer a neutral opinion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's carelessly put if one doesn't have an understanding of the genre or it's era. I've provided my sources saying why New Wave should not be used (in fact, I placed two). Just you can provide a cite (and only one two my contrary two). You aren't going to find many articles saying what song isn't part of a specific genre unless it's controversial, but it's not coinciding with this my other information provided. Most comparisons I find this song through google searches is with comparisons to Madonna, who is not a new wave artist. My main point is that we are placing the term out of context as are the sources. I'd like to note that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance that if you want to have a neutral point of view then it should be sided with more prominent sources. My sources are from a music site and book on music genre history and I believe mine are more prominent. I suggest removing the information on New Wave still. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that new wave is dead but the whole review from Slant Magazine is specific to The Fame Monster and speaks of the album combining many influences. The alternative source speaks of the album containing retro elements. Like i said just because the genre is 'dead' doesnt mean a song can't contain elements of it. Slant Magazine is a relevant and highly respectible industry relevant publication. To assume that a book talking restrospectively of the decline of a genre doesn't mean that "Dance in the Dark" can't be classified as new wave. Allmusic in fairness is just as good a source as Slant Magazine but again it speaks of the decline of the genre amongst the masses. Its a different context. If we were claiming Lady Gaga was a new wave artist i would understand and completely support your POV. Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with this still is that New Wave is categorized as generally music from this era. Since it is such a catch all term, placing new wave as this song is still just as incorrect as if someone called it "beatle-esque pop" and then placing that in the genre. If allmusic is as good as slant and they contradict each other then we still have the heads up with that book. It's still generally incorrect just as Rolling Stone calling Justin Bieber's song "Baby" as blending "winks at Fifties doo-wop with hip-hop chants" and "fifties pop music like "Tears on My Pillow", "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" and "Earth Angel". But you still wouldn't call it a doo wop song or a 50s pop song. Because it would be historically inaccurate. Just as calling this song new wave would be inappropriate. Slant offers no definition of the genre as allmusic does when it labels it. I do not think reference to style makes it. Can we find any more sources? If we are basing it on a one off song based on a b-side that was never released as a single, we are striving pretty weakly for sources that are somewhat sketchy in their description. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the Justin Beiber thing... you would call "Baby" a pop song with hip-hop elements a.k.a. infobox: Pop, hip-hop. The problem is new wave is kind of a big of genres rather than a derivative of them. 50s Pop is still pop. What's new wave derived from? Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call baby anything. I was just noting how the they critics made several notices that it sounded like a 1950s doo wop song. But it would be inappropriate to add to the genre. Just as New Wave is inappropriate as songs based on older styles do not and should not necessarily be placed within the genre's confines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a single.

http://www.soundfiends.com/2010/07/and-the-fourth-single-is/

This website is some Australian music shit. It gets it's info straight from the record companies. Dance in the Dark is the 4th single. Finally LOL!

No. Unreliable source. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source - check the comments section of this page for the press release. If a press release isn't considered a reliable source, then what is....? http://auspop.blogspot.com/2010/07/australias-next-gaga-single.html220.236.81.177 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, that information appears false because it does not appear on Lady Gaga's website as mentioned. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7034/gaga4n.png

saw this on the discography page. it seems legit GOPTeen1995 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just *dead* at using an imageshack picture as source! That cracked me up. Seriously, untilla nd unless a confirmation comes from Gaga's label, such WP:CRYSTAL like things cannot be included in the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an official press release - as with most press releases, the artist's website is listed for promotional purposes. It does not say anything like, "for more information, got to www.ladygaga.com" Believe me, this website is never wrong and reports only official news, even being the only source of official detailed sales data in Australia. They have verifiable contacts at every record label and are sent official press releases all the time. To dismiss the press release as false simply because the release itself contains Lady Gaga's website is very short-sighted, in my opinion. Does her website feature other official press releases? What are we actually waiting for? Lady Gaga herself to go on TV and say, "I solemnly swear that my new single in Australia is 'Dance In The Dark'" or will it only be official once it's on her website?220.236.81.177 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of providing links for images of the press release provide links for the press release itself otherwise you need to explain where/how you gained access to it. We're waiting for official confirmation that means Gaga announcing the video or some WP:reliable source e.g. Rap-Up, People magazine etc to cover the story. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, let me make something clear. It's only been released in Australia. And it's been released on radio only and to be released digitally in a month's time. No video or promotion will be made. That's all, radio and digital release. It's an Australian single, just like Eh Eh -_-" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.196.204 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's "just like Eh Eh" wouldn't there be a video? Also Eh Eh was not just digital... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.191.79 (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well either way it would still recieve some sort of coverage. So until that happens it won't be changed in the article. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

All of Gaga's singles received official notification from Gaga's website or Interscope. This, if released, being an official release would not be a deviation of it and hence we have to wait for something like that. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what happens if the song leaps into the Australian Top 10 *before* the "official" announcement of its release as a single (since a press release obviously isn't considered "official" these days)? Will it count as a single then, or will it be described as a "track that reached the Top 10 on the official Australian singles chart, even though it wasn't a single...so it shouldn't appear on the singles chart anyway...or something....")? Incidentally, it will probably be one of the most added tracks at Australian radio next week - Australian commercial stations only play official singles, but of course that's irrelevant ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.81.177 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're being pedantic. You can't actually prove what you're saying with a credible source. Even "Eh Eh Eh" and promo single "Beautiful, Dirty Rich" recieved indepedent coverage. There is no rush to mention the release (if its true right now) and even if the song lept up the charts it will not be mentioned as an official release until coverage proves so. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one being pedantic, but I'll let this one go. AuspOp (the source of the press release) said that the news and the press release were 100% official, so at some stage in the near future, this page will become an official single page. The pedants can insist that it remain a tracks page for the moment. 220.236.81.177 (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Auspop is a blog. Anyone can start a blog. So if i started one tomorrow called Aus Gaga and said "I recieved official confirmation that 'Dance in the Dark' is being released in Australia" would you consider that to be official confirmation? Would my blog be a WP:reliable source? (hint: the answer is NO) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I guess it's a blog, but most blogs don't tend to receive official information from record companies, the Australian Recording Industry Association, touring promoters and artists themselves. Most blogs are definitely not granted exclusive interviews with artists. Clearly you do not know much about auspOp, so nothing anyone says is going to convince you that they are 100% reliable. They are as reliable a source as undercover.com.au, which is considered a WP:reliable source, but I guess because they originally started with a "blogspot.com" domain, they're not considered worthy of official status. Oh well. As I said, this page will become an official single page, because ausPop only report official information, provided to them by record companies. 220.236.81.177 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You still fail to understand. If wikipedia publishes unsourced information this damaging not only to our reputation but also to the artist and fans. Unless the single is announced properly without coverage it cannot be added into the article. Blogs in general are not allowed to be used as a source because they can never 100% prove where they got their information from and are reluctant to share their sources for fear that other blogs will 'steal' the information. Therefore for the reasons I've just stated it is best to wait before adding such info. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not failing to understand anything. If it was auspop.com.au, it would end up being a WP:reliable source. In spite of its reputation, though, it is officially considered here as a blog, so even if the single goes to #1, it won't be considered officially a single in Australia unless someone else categorically describes it us such. If people.com said that it was a single and quoted auspOp as the source, would it then become official, though? Incidentally, according to the WP:reliable source page, even if Lady Gaga herself tweets that it's a single, it still can't be described as such, since tweets aren't considered WP:reliable source. I completely support maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia - it's a brilliant resource. Sometimes, though, its definition of a WP:reliable source can be a bit narrow, especially when it comes to reliable and trustworthy digital sources (we're not talking about some teenaged kid's blog here - we're talking about a source that is given exclusive interviews with international artists). Anyway, in the end, the result will be the same. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue, though!220.236.81.177 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If people.com quote Gaga's twitter then yes the source could be added because they would have to have done some variation. If it really is being released don't worry I'm sure it will recieve some coverage. I respect you for engaging in discussion rather than just trying to edit the article. In the future you might want to consider making an account and joing wikipedia as an editor. The very definition of a single is "to release a song, usually from an album, independent of the main body of work". Therefore if the song is sent to radio this alone is not proof of it being a single. It has to be marketed and promoted as a single. That might just be one performance, or one mention by an artist or reliable source. etc. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just find a source that shows Dance In The Dark added to radio. That's a start. Don't find sites that say it's a single, find sites that have an official add. If there isn't one, just wait. But there should be soon because Dance In The Dark has already gone to No.12 on the Today Networks Hot 30.--58.161.71.92 (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://popline.mtv.uol.com.br/lady-gaga-lanca-novo-single-extraido-do-album-the-fame-monster-na-australia&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dplay%2Bmpe%2Bdance%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bdark%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DokW%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official&rurl=translate.google.com.au&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjsTnABoFrMkdaVclGCmgW7XrCrhw. Very Reliable Source as they source "PlayMPE" which can only be used by Radio Station's and record companies. Should be added.--58.161.71.92 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is another:UOL (official Source). another:94fm (official)--58.161.71.92 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)