Jump to content

Talk:Applause (Lady Gaga song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critical Reception

[edit]

http://idolator.com/7477210/lady-gaga-applause-review-revue This is a nice little summary of all the reviews of the song. Don't you think this is enough to constitute 'generally positive reviews'? The vast majority of the reviews are positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.29.35 (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

positive reviews

[edit]

I have seen over 10 positive reviews and there are only 2 mixed/negative. More positive include the guardian and pop justice. Please change to 'generally positive reviews' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.18.240 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 August 2013

[edit]

Applause was written by Lady Gaga, Paul Blair aka DJ White Shadow, Dino Zisis, Nick Monson and Martin Bresso and produced by Lady Gaga and Paul Blair aka DJ White Shadow Artispopculture (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No source given to back up the claims. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed I have given SEVERAL times a source to the credits of the songs. How often will some people REMOVE it? The file in iTunes (after purchasing or in the column browser) will show you the full line-up of songwriters on APPLAUSE.Coastside2 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the song.

[edit]

I'm not sure if this matters too much, but according to the album on iTunes, the songs length is 3:32. I think it's more important to what the album says rather than the YouTube video. Again, it doesn't matter, just something I wanted to point out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.218 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed, I'm not sure who changed it. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I made the change from 3:32 to 3:33 without being aware of what iTunes said. I was running off the YouTube video. Not sure if this matters, but the French Singles Chart (just a random foreign chart from the database we typically use for international positions) says the song is also 3:33. Here is the link: http://www.lescharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Lady+GaGa&titel=Applause&cat=s . Thoughts? --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BPM

[edit]

Article states the song is 70 bpm, that's a miscounting of 140 surely. It's definitely up-tempo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.41.249 (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

[edit]

First week positions are now available for Australian charts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.59.143 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

[edit]

Full line-up of writers is taken from here: So please do not remove them! 1 Applause 00:03:32 TÉLÉCHARGER ÉCOUTER Lady GaGa, Main Artist, Composer, Author - Paul Blair, Composer, Author - Dino Zisis, Composer, Author - Nick Monson, Author, Composer - Martin Bresso, Author, Composer - Copyright : (P) 2013 Interscope Records Coastside2 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.qobuz.com/album/applause-lady-gaga/0060253752068

Track Listing

[edit]

Applause when preorder on iTunes is track 15. Please add this to the artical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.227.162 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone/Slant Magazine: Applause Video

[edit]

Rolling Stone has done a write up on the video for Applause, albeit a brief one!

Here is the link: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/lady-gaga-writhes-in-new-applause-clip-20130819

Slant Magazine has done a longer review, which is positive in regards to the video.

Here is the link: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2013/19/video-review-lady-gaga-applause

--86.158.171.254 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

APPLAUSE #1 IN SPAIN

[edit]

http://promusicae.es/espanol.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.165.138.98 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud/News

[edit]

The internet is full with news of her wanting to buy fans several copies of Applause and a playlist she posted on her Twitter page where the official video of Applause is played 9 hours straight to increase the views (which now count on the Billboard Hot 100). The Youtube playlist was even mentioned from a Billboard official. I'm not a hater but this should be mentioned as well...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/billboard-bill-werde-lady-gaga-applause-views_n_3789812.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

http://www.spin.com/#articles/lady-gaga-applause-contest-prostitution-controversy/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.118.119.174 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources donot make internet. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/lady-gaga-applause-twitter-contest_n_3772877.html

http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981930585

http://www.3news.co.nz/Lady-Gaga-accused-of-cheating/tabid/418/articleID/309045/Default.aspx

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/lady-gaga-exploits-fans-with-new-twitter-contest/article13820700/

http://www.contactmusic.com/article/lady-gaga-making-fans-buy-copies-of-artpop-to-win-trip-to-london_3819296 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.118.119.174 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and here are more about the playlist stuff:

http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a508616/lady-gaga-criticized-by-billboard-boss-for-inflating-vevo-streams.html

http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/124221/Lady-Gaga-Gets-Criticised-For-Urging-Fans-To-Watch-Applause-Video

http://www.gigwise.com/news/83685/lady-gaga-slammed-for-fixing-youtube-view-us-charts-boss

http://www.newnownext.com/while-you-were-sleeping-lady-gaga-accused-of-applause-streaming-scam-dr-phils-rape-question-outrages-twitter-and-more/08/2013/

http://www.ibtimes.com/lady-gaga-accused-scamming-youtube-applause-views-billboard-editor-bill-werde-1393415

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/08/21/billboard-editorial-director-accuses-lady-gaga-trying-game-system-over-inflating

it was also mentioned internationally: http://palcoprincipal.sapo.pt/noticias/Noticia/diretor_da_billboard_acusa_lady_gaga_de_manipular_visualizacoes_do_video_de_applause/0009810

http://www.lefigaro.fr/musique/2013/08/21/03006-20130821ARTFIG00380-lady-gaga-tricherait-pour-faire-monter-ses-statistiques.php

The last one is from 'Le Figaro', a major French newspaper. I guess this should be enough, if it's not there are plenty more, you only have to search for it.178.118.119.174 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


There is clearly enough reputable sources for the information to be included in the article, but it needs to be done in a neutral way...
Calling it "fraud" is going way over the top.
Stick to the facts and keep it neutral. Perhaps something like: "There has been criticism of the way gaga has encouraged fans to purchase numerous copies of the single. Others have accused the singer of using repeating youtube playlists to improve the single's placement on the Billboard Hot 100." And of course, back it up with the reliable sources and you're good to go.
--Rushton2010 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Done Section added --Rushton2010 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video reception

[edit]

In the section about the Rolling Stone writer mentioning influences in the video, he mentioned Hillary Clinton, not Hillary Duff. 69.55.135.26 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does the opening section no longer accurately summarise critic impressions? It states that it received 'mixed reviews' yet all except one of the reviews (Spin) listed gives a positive review. The final two review comments which have been included after the summary of Spin's review are both clearly jokes, not criticism. Either those reviews were positive or a quote showing the true opinion needs to be included. Tghm1801 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy??

[edit]

The controversy section seems biased. I mean, "prostitute, "charlatan"? This is suppposed to be an encyclopedia. If we had to open sections every time a popstar receives bad press, then Wikipedia would be twice the size. A line referring to the 'accident' in a neutral way under the chart performance section should be enough imo.

217.200.201.226 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, wikipedia is not a receptacle for every piece of throwaway press. However, this piece is very different. It relevant to the article and arguably key to it
The article is about the song, and the key information within it is where that song charted. If we were to just present "the song got to such and such" we are not presenting the whole story -The song may have charted lower than it did without those controversial actions. The fact these allegations exist is key to how people interpret those chart placements.

This is not throwaway, "so and so might be dating so and so", gossip mag trash. Its been widely reported in reputable sources around the world (and its fully cited in the article), and the actions have been denounced by the head of the Billboard Chart. It is key to how people interpret the article and has every place in an encylopedia.


The quotes I added to show the breadth of the critisms. "Prostitute" was the most extreme (The definition of to "prostitute ones self" is not limited to selling sex. The reported used it as Gaga is selling access to herself through the competition- so don't think of it as a throwaway insult.) "charlatan" is some what tamer. "Cheating" and "scamming" were the more tame side. Wikipedia does not allow censorship, and it is entirely encylopedic to demonstrate how severe some of the critisms has been.
I'm not entirely happy with that line. As I said, I'm aiming to show the breadth of the criticism. So feel free to try and rework it.


But yes, the controversy needs to be in the article as it directly and fundamentally impacts how people interpret other aspects of the article.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section, with exact quotes from twitter accounts and newspapers, unnecessary references to fans etc. and the overall writing style of it just don't sound neutral. That's the kind of thing you would read on a popstars forum or something like that. A simple add on the chart performance section, like "it rose to the top10, becoming her 12th single to do so, with x sales, radio impressions... despite claims of video streaming and sales being manipulated by fans, when the singer itself tweeted a link to a loop video playlist and started a contest which would award the fan with the most purchases" would be perfectly fine. If you look at her twitter, she clearly said there's no need to buy the single multiple times to win and she deleted that youtube link as soon as she noticed it was a loop, putting the standard vevo link instead. Look at the 99 cent deal for Born This Way, it too caused a way bigger stir, causing Billboard to even change its rules in order to avoid it happening in the future, but it doesn't have its own section, because it would end up sounding biased and hateful like this one does.

109.116.53.73 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd defend the current version; the troublesome paragraph has been removed, and the rest of it is reasonably written and factual. For an article specifically about a single, a couple of paragraphs on the controversy doesn't seem untoward. 209.99.3.224 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the controversy section is completely wrong.

"Lady Gaga later posted to her Twitter saying "Sorry I didn't check the last link! Hold on please...." and posted a link to the original Vevo video instead."

This is implying Gaga deleted her tweet after Bill Werde spoke about it, which is untrue. Gaga immediately deleted the playlist tweet after she tweeted it and then apologized. Bill Werde did not comment until hours after the tweet was deleted.

Gaga's tweet: 7:10 PM - 20 Aug 13 https://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/370004902166409216 Bill's first tweet about Gaga's tweet: 9:35 PM - 20 Aug 13 https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/370041391256440832

As you can see, Gaga's apology tweet came before Bill even mentioned her tweeting the playlist.

Bill then took to his Twitter to say that people were completely misinterpreting his tweets and skewing them in a way to try and bash Gaga. https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/370194055130800128

Bill also said that he feels Gaga's tweet was a mistake: https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/370196830019391488

"Lady Gaga later posted to her Twitter saying "Sorry I didn't check the last link! Hold on please...." and posted a link to the original Vevo video instead." <--- Should be removed since it is wrong.

This should be added: Bill Werde then took to Twitter to clear things up, saying that he believes Gaga's tweet was a mistake and that he is still a fan. https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/370055296317947905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthagio (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it should be added that she tweeted the offending link by mistake, as referenced by Bill and Gaga herself: https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/370050045372293120 and https://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/370004902166409216. It was clearly an accident and has not been portrayed that way in the article. Tghm1801 (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any news source reporting this mistake? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not site other than the Examiner, unfortunately, which as usual takes a ridiculously biased approach to the whole situation and accuses Bill of trying to cover for Gaga. However, he clearly believes that Gaga's tweet was a mistake - directly referenced in this tweet (https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/370196830019391488) - and this tweet is in accordance with the other tweets suggesting that it was a mistake. Tghm1801 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I also believe it was a mistake... But all of this is just "belief", and that is not how wikipedia works. As the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth states, its what can be verified that can be included, rather than what is "true". The controversy section of the article is verified through the sources; the "truth" that it was an accident, cannot be included unless it backed up with the same sort of reputable and reliable sources.
All of the stuff above must not be used in the article as it is in violation of several of wikipedia's rules. Twitter is not allowed as a source for living people as it is a self published source: WP:BLPSPS. It is also not allowed to be used in such controversial sections as it is a primary source: WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLPPRIMARY.
And with regards to all that listed above with tweet times etc. That is original research and also not allowed on wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research.

Looking at the article's controversy section as it is. The first paragraph (regards the competition) is sound and there is no argument about. It is the youtube playlist, dealt with in the second paragraph, which is where the dispute is.
The first sentence is "Gaga also received criticism when she tweeted a link to a Youtube playlist with "Applause" video on a 9 hour loop." -This is factually accurate. Whether you believe it was on purpose or not, she tweeted it, and she received criticism for it; and that is exactly what the sentence says.
The second sentence is "The tweet provoked criticism by Billboard's Editorial Director Bill Werde" and then there's a quote by Werde about hating to see people " game the charts"
Again this is accurate. Bill Werde did critise, and these sections are again backed up with references.

So the problem really isn't with what's there- its referenced and accurate to those references (actually very tame compared to how accusatory the sources are)- its what's not there that's the issue: its not the full story. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, the last part of the story cannot be backed up with reliable sources.

So people need to start looking for those reliable source to get it included!
--Rushton2010 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea International Chart

[edit]

The International chart is the one always used in Wikipedia's articles and that's the one it should be used here, not the general one, highly dominated by local acts. Otherwise, hundreds of articles should be revised as well...

Damage cr (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The International Chart is the one listed.

I would like to raise a concern with regards to the Neutral Point of View and comparability of the charts:
The majority are the official national charts but thrown in are some unofficial or unusual ones. Luxembourg Digital Songs for example; its not the official nation chart as its Billboard, and its downloads only. Mexican Airplay is airplay not sales.
I wouldn't be against having a separate section for things like downloads and airplay charts, but they shouldn't be included with the official national charts.
A #1 in an unofficial chart is not the same as a #1 in the official national chart; a #1 download is not the same as a number one in the official national chart. But they are being presented as such. Including them all together in one chart encourages comparison which gives undue weight to those unofficial or download/airplay only charts.
It also poses questions. If one unofficial chart can be included, why not another? What makes one official chart more noteworthy than another?
It would be good practice to stick only to the official national charts; it is, after all what people come to the chart section looking for.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

In the 2nd paragraph under "Music Video", the phrase "Suddenly the Koons is me" should say "Suddenly the Kunst is me". Kunst is German for "art". Koons is an American artist/Toyata car dealer, which doesn't make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooper631 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you got in as I was editing. The twitter isn't suitable reference as stated in conversations above. I can't be arsed to listen to the song/watch the lyrics video but I'll take you're word on "Koons" being correct. Though "Kunst" does make far far more sense seeing as she's of German heritage and the whole song is about art.
--Rushton2010 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry too much, I've already changed it. But for future.. you had answered you're on question: its not information about her, its about her song.
Another problem Twitter has is because of its limited characters its not always "obvious" what they are referring to. For example the tweet you quote above is "I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY BLEEPING OUT KOONS THEY THINK IM SAYING THE C WORD". We are interpreting that as referring to the Applause song, but it doesn't actually say so -It could be referring to something completely different, because it doesn't directly say. As such it wouldn't be suitable for a reference, as under Wikipedia:No original research, it must "directly support the material being presented". Its quite a common problem with twitter because of its limited word count.
Anyway; I had already changed it to "koons", with the official video a reliable source for it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Key and chord progression

[edit]

Someone should add information about the key of song - it's Gm - and chord progression - Gm-F-Eb-Cm-F-Gm Gaga's vocal range in "Applause" is 1.8 octave(F3-D5) Sources: http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdFPE.asp?ppn=MN0122709 - in this page you don't have chords but if you know music theory you can find it. Chords you can read here: http://popruntheworld.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/lady-gaga-i-live-for-the-applause/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.34.150 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Performance

[edit]

I noticed the extremely underwhelming Commercial Performance section. It doesn't list other U.S accomplishments such as getting her 11th Top 10 on Billboard's Pop Songs Chart. Also, no mention of being certified Gold in Italy and Australia or Platinum in Canada. You can add that in the U.K the song spent 5 weeks in the Top 10 etcArturo52311 (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applause (song) → Applause (Lady Gaga song) – There is already Applause (Bonnie Franklin song). WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is insignificant and inapplicable to the titling and disambiguation of the song, even if recently popular and well-known at this time. Even when primary topic of "Applause (song)" is the Lady Gaga song, other rules, like titling conventions, would triumph criteria (prominent or not) of primary topic. Now that WP:PDAB is no longer active, we could use WP:DAB (sans PRIMARYTOPIC), WP:AT, and WP:NCM to be in favor of precising the title and eliminating ambiguity... or use WP:AT, WP:IAR or WP:TITLECHANGES to oppose it? We went through cases of concision and precision in popular topics, like Thriller (Michael Jackson album), Psycho (1960 film), and What's Going On (Marvin Gaye album). Perhaps WP:PRECISE would be used to either support ("not precise enough") or oppose ("too precise") such precision. George Ho (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tbhotch: Regarding point #1: I don't entirely disagree – please note that I said "generally" – there may be exceptions, and the two that you mentioned might be appropriate (although the one we are discussing here doesn't appear to be). Regarding point #2, the Bonnie Franklin song is clearly notable – it was already covered in a Wikipedia article, and regardless of the outcome of the ongoing AfD, it will still be covered in a Wikipedia article (although perhaps not in a stand-alone Wikipedia article, which doesn't really make such a substantial difference here). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it is appropiate go then and request their moves. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstood that remark. I didn't say I thought it was appropriate to move them. I said it may be appropriate for them to stay where they are. At least I think that's what I said – I'm not really focused on those other articles at the moment. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until Applause (Bonnie Franklin song)'s AFD concludes. Per WP:D: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" (bold mine). If BF doesn't have an article, there is no "disambiguation required". Also, before Lady Gaga's there was no single reference about BF song, suddenly Gaga releases a song and now it exists? WP:WPDAB has a serious problem with their members' editing. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:D doesn't refer to whether a topic is the subject of a stand-alone article or not – it refers to whether a topic is covered in a Wikipedia article or not. Regardless of whether the Bonnie Franklin song has a stand-alone article or not, it will be covered in a Wikipedia article. Please note that WP:D says "A 'topic covered by Wikipedia' is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject." —BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incredible part of all of this, is that once again WP:D demostrates how ambiguous and contradictory this guide is written. The guide says "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article", but you believe that because it doesn't explicty writes "there is more than one existing Wikipedia stand-alone article" my comment is incorrect. If Wikipedia itself defines an article as "a page that has encyclopedic information on it", a redirect can't be an article and a mention within another article does not make it an article. How can be possible that you can refute my argument when I use WP:D with WP:D, this has no logic. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gave only a partial quote. It doesn't say "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article with an article name that exactly matches the string" – it says "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead". It further clarifies this by the other sentence that says "A 'topic covered by Wikipedia' is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.". To me that seems pretty clear. Incidentally, I don't understand the remark "WP:WPDAB has a serious problem with their members' editing." – what does that refer to? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before Lady Gaga's song Applause didn't mention any song. Then she releases it, and then BF appears. Before Miley Cyrus's "Wrecking Ball" was announced there where three songs, now there are more than 20, Single Ladies was about two articles, I requested a move and there were added more meanings. The constant is always the same: A topic is precise enough until someone finds that it may not be that precise, s/he requests a move and suddenly pro WP:D users and members of the WP:DAB start to find articles or topics that existed before to prove more ambiguity, like in these three cases of many I've lived. They create pages (in most circumstances with lack of notability) to continue proving their point. Why instead of causing too much "headaches over whether to consider some particular topic" is primary, the already existing ambiguous terms and (disambiguation) pages are revisited to verify the terms are ambiguous enough and the (disambiguation) pages are completed. This task is to be performed by members of the WikiProject DAB before non-members and readers find these problems, if they can't do their job, why their project still existing then? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tbhotch. Do I understand from your rant that you object to editors adding to Wikipedia? Is it still OK to nominate for AfD to make a point? You would be better served by reading, understanding and responding to the words in green posted by BarrelProof.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to try to WP:Assume good faith. To me it seems natural that when you start to study a dab situation or a move request (and if you're diligent, that may involve consulting some off-Wiki sources of information as well as searching for topics within Wikipedia) you may discover that there are other topics that you think are missing from a dab page or are missing from Wikipedia altogether. Adding those topics is not being WP:POINTy. It might falsely give that impression (as noted by IIO in at least one recent case when making such an edit), but that doesn't mean that it is. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pointy if you create Thriller (Cold Blood album) and Killer (Swiss band) to prove at talk:Thriller (album)'s RM there are more Thriller albums. CB album is notable per WP:ALBUM? I doubt so, and Killer fails WP:BAND. The more I see IIO recent creations, the more they seem to be pointy creations of barely notable topics just to prove the terms are ambiguous and therefore the term should be disambiguated. It's not bad faith, it is the application of policies, like WP:N, to reverse "Good Faith" creations over topics that in fact nobody cares, like Applause (Bonnie Franklin song), which was never mentioned in 13 years after Wikipedia creation, and it was until Lady Gaga release that it suddenly demostated the song existed despite the fact that in 43 years hasn't proved notability. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tbhotch. I find it hard to AGF when IIO has not posted since 1st October and yes yet, suddenly, since the 4th you have posted five deletion notifications on his talk page - 4 of which are within 10 minutes of each other and relate to completely different subjects. You don't actually have to answer this but I am still waiting to see why you don't think those quotes in green should be ignored!--Richhoncho (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know the answer either way, why you insist to send me notifications. Either way IIO is big enough to defend himself, right?@In ictu oculi: has to explain why:
IIO has been here since late 2009 and he doesn't know there are minimal criteria to establish notability, or that articles about living people can't use fair use images? That's strange and in fact he has to explain these massive creation of many pages that lack of notability, and were created just to create more ambiguity. Either way this page is not to discuss that. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer to that nice tool. I can't believe I've only created 8 (article-space, non-redirect) articles! (But I'm glad to see that 75% of them are related to whiskey.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tbhotch. Quite. This is not the place to attack other editors. You started attacking other editors for improving Wikipedia, whilst at the same time you were deliberately looking at another editor's contributions so you could nominate for deletion. Somebody had to point out the hypocrisy. Now perhaps instead of your ya-boo comments you can actually respond to why BarrelProof's quotes from the guidelines should be disregarded in this instance? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Certifications: Platinum in US

[edit]

The song has been certified platinum in the US for a couple of weeks now. Why is that not listed in the certifications section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.126.147 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple enough to add if you have a reference to prove it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sales in Denmark

[edit]

Under certifications, where Applause has been certified Gold in Denmark, it says it sold 0 copies. The Gold certification in Denmark for a single indicates 15,000 copies sold. Arturo52311 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurodance ?

[edit]

It's not Eurodance at all, you people don't know what Eurodance is - it's not Applause. Gagas Songs Marry the Night, Dance and the Dark and others have Eurodance influences, but not Applause, it's only Electropop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.27.176 (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Applause_(Lady_Gaga_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1140392259"