Talk:Born This Way (album)/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pitchfork: "Born This Way is a bombastic record."

Not that it's a big deal, but I thought it should be brought to attention. While reviewing Rihanna's "Talk That Talk", they said "Born This Way" (alongside Beyonce's "4") breathed new life into the CD format this year and called it a "bombastic record that also explores the nuance of her persona".

Last paragraph.

http://www.pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16072-rihanna-talk-that-talk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobercool (talkcontribs) 06:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

edit request

in the "Singles" section, it currently says "and the song will be released in the UK on November 21, 2011". Change it to "and the song will be released in the UK on December 4, 2011" because November 21 has passed, and Marry The Night is not in iTunes UK nor Amazon UK. The UK date got pushed back to December 4. {Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.148.120 (talkcontribs)

Once again, thank you for your help. Your edit request has been answered and addressed. [Note: Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).] —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre

I would be inclined to add "pop rock" to the list of genres. "You and I" is definitely more guitar driven as opposed to her other songs on this album. 120.144.159.106 (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree, but not only due to "You and I", but "Electric Chapel", "Edge of Glory" and "Bad Kids" all containing elements of rock and metal, with the album heavily associated with stadium rock in which Gaga calls inspiration from. However, I'd state that it should be "electro rock" rather then "pop rock".--Talenthiel (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good point! She has even described the album - in "Lady Gaga: On The Record with Fuse" http://fuse.tv/music/columns/listen-closely/52411-1.html - as "fantasy-techno-rock", and I would think techno-rock to be the same/similar to electro rock. - Christianrxx 10 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianrxx (talkcontribs) 04:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So the current genre has been changed back to pop, dance, and electronic. I think those are too broad of genres. What does everyone else think? --Christianrxx (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Christianrxx

I would agree. I can't help but feel they are default genres placed with the record without closer consideration. If you look over the page of the album, at quotes from Gaga's label, producers, critics and Gaga herself, you will see electro rock and stadium rock popping up repeatedly, as well as house music, industrial music and techno. That said, the broder genres envelop both of thouse, albeit slightly.--Talenthiel (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
So do we have somewhat of a consensus that electro-rock should be added? --Christianrxx (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Christianrxx
Dance-pop and synthpop are too specific and not encompassing of the album's genres. The album, in essence, is a pop ("The Edge of Glory", "Hair"), dance ("Born This Way", "Marry the Night", "Heavy Metal Lover") and electronic ("Bloody Mary", "Judas", "Government Hooker", "Bad Kids", "Scheiße") record, with occasional elements of rock ("You and I", "Highway Unicorn", "Bad Kids", "Electric Chapel", etc). Many songs in the album also overlap (i.e. "Government Hooker" is both a dance and an electronic song), but these are the main ones, and virtually every single song, with the slight exception of the more rock 'n' roll-fuelled "You and I", fall into one of these categories. But dance-pop and synthpop assumes all these songs are either genres; You and I is more "pop" than it is synthpop (would you call "You and I" a dance-pop or a synthpop song? It's less pure pop than other album songs, but it's neither a dance or a synthpop tune). Would you call "Bloody Mary" a dance-pop song? Pop, dance, and electronic incorporate all of the album's major genres, which are dance-pop, pop rock, electro rock, house, techno, electro-industrial and disco.--&レア (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Adding to that, I expressed myself wrongly. When I mean that they are too specific, I refer to the fact that they are specific "areas" of a genre. Dance can encompass dance-pop, disco, house, Hi-NRG, pop can mean synthpop, pop rock, country pop, also dance-pop, and electronic can mean industrial, techno, trance, etc. Dance-pop and synthpop are specific sides of dance, pop and electronic music, whilst not all album songs are necessarily dance-pop or synthpop. To make myself clear, "Electric Chapel", for instance, is a pop metal (pop) song, whilst "Government Hooker" a Hi-NRG/techno-industrial fusion; whilst pop metal and Hi-NRG are, respectively, subgenres of pop and electronic dance, they are not subgenres of dance-pop or synthpop. I have heard claims saying that the album should include "rock" in the genres list; with the term "pop", rock can also be implied, as pop rock is a subgenre of pop, but with "synthpop", there is no suggestion of any rock influences, as synthpop is a highly specific subgenre of pop and electronic music.--&レア (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way: The Collection

The album Born This Way: The Collection is number 66 in Greek Albums Chart (ifpi.gr and Webcitation) source for information for the article. Lucas Brígido msg 12:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

She has sold 5 Million but has shipped 8

The sales figure is inaccurate and needs to removed. Her stupid delusional fans keep changing this information. Several reliable sources state that it has sold 5 million (4.9 to be exact). Please change this immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Her fans are not "stupid and delusional" there's no need to be rude. And, IBTimes is a reliable source. Where did you get 4.9 million as an exact figure? - Christianrxx

He's right. 4.9 is correct. Source: the same source that keeps track of everyone elses sales; mediatraffic. Shipments mean nothing until its sold. And yes, stans are "stupid and delusional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.141.193 (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's miraculous how the album seemed to stall at 4.9m copies until September, then -- without any noticeable chart rebound in any significant chart in the world -- suddenly seemed to sell an extra 3+ million copies in the past two months. The first increase seemed to come in October, directly as a result of her manager [an extremely biased and unreliable source that should have never been included on Wikipedia] saying it sold another 2 million copies. And this new figure of 8 million seems incredibly unbelievable. The IB Times doesn't even confirm the figure; they simply state "sold 8 million". The author doesn't even credit themselves in the article, they merely identify themselves as "IBTimes Staff Reporter". No chance of ever confirming based on this source. I say revert. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I think it's sold 5.1 million but yes the person who made this is right. As a fan I can admit that its been majorly inflated. The line "sales of the album exceed 8 million" needs to be removed. It makes no sense when you look at the certifications. 219.89.131.188 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 December 2011

Born this Way has not sold 8 million copies worldwide. Could we get a credible source to cite that number? If not, could we remove that number and state the accurate number. Shipments, do not equal sales. And most music forums have her worldwide sales for this album at 5.5 million.

68.181.182.23 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done The source provided is credible and reliable. And please only use the edit template when you have credible sources and concrete arguments to back up your claim. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking where is the reliable source saying 'sales of the album exceed 8 million"????????219.89.131.188 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2011

Internationally successful, Born This Way debuted in the top five spots in every major market, including the Billboard 200. In the United States, Born This Way sold 1.108 million copies in its first week – the largest first week album sales in five years – while the album's four singles – "Born This Way", "Judas", "The Edge of Glory", and "You and I" – went on to chart in the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100. "Born This Way" became the fastest-selling single in iTunes history[3] and the promotional track "Hair" charted in sixteen countries. Gaga has performed songs from the album on different occasions, including at prominent award ceremonies including the 53rd Grammy Awards and the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards, as well as in other events and television appearances. As of October 2011, worldwide sales of the album have exceeded 8 million copies. Mongosul 02:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Internationally successful, Born This Way debuted in the top five spots in every major market, including the Billboard 200. In the United States, Born This Way sold 1.108 million copies in its first week – the largest first week album sales in five years – while the album's four singles – "Born This Way", "Judas", "The Edge of Glory", and "You and I" – went on to chart in the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100. "Born This Way" became the fastest-selling single in iTunes history[3] and the promotional track "Hair" charted in sixteen countries. Gaga has performed songs from the album on different occasions, including at prominent award ceremonies including the 53rd Grammy Awards and the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards, as well as in other events and television appearances. As of October 2011, worldwide sales of the album have exceeded 5 million copies.

Mongosul 02:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can you provide a source for changing sales from 8 million to 5 million? Also, it's standard practice to include a link to your userpage or talk page in your signature. You can change it in your preferences. — Bility (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Year-End #1 in Taiwan, 10xPlatinum

台灣西洋專輯銷售榜 女神卡卡2連霸

2011年12月28日01:02 蘋果即時 《蘋果娛樂新聞》整理台灣西洋專輯銷售榜,女神卡卡今年再度蟬連冠軍寶座,《天生完美》實體加數位專輯銷量10萬張。

第二名則是加拿大小天后艾薇兒《再見搖籃曲》,銷售4.9萬張;而第三名則是火星人布魯諾《情歌正傳》,銷售3.6萬張。

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spaXURPFbyg&feature=player_embedded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.115.195 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please make your request in English. Thanks! — Bility (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add better tags to this article.

Please add the correct tag for the song Born This Way, in the Born This Way#Contents section. It is bold and hyperlinked to the page Born This Way. Please correct this fix or give me permission to do so. Thank you! Sincerely, User:Žach264 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach464 (talkcontribs) 00:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Austria

BTW is No. 15 on the Year-End-Chart of 2011 in Austria and No. 10 in Switzerland. Please add that! http://oe3.orf.at/charts/stories/albumyear/ http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2011--93.229.98.15 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Germany

Born This Way is Platinum in Germany... Please add! http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/#topSearch --93.229.107.94 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All answered. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Germany

Born This Way is the 17th best-selling album of 2011 in Germany. http://www.mtv.de/charts/Album_Jahrescharts_2011 Please add that =) ! --79.199.51.26 (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Stadium rock

Stadium rock should be added to the genre section of the info-box. Multiple sources 1, 2, 3 as well as Gaga herself, 4, express that Born This Way draws heavily from a stadium rock influence. Especially in songs such as: "You and I", "The Edge of Glory", "Bad Kids" and "Electric Chapel" --Christianrxx (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Christianrxx

Stadium rock is not a genre of music. It's the type of rock music that utilizes the vast space of a stadium or arena to bifurcate or expand the sound upon itself. Type of music? Yes. Genre? No. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Stadium/arena rock maybe no (it's not a genre and too specific), but I am having mixed feelings regarding adding something to do with rock music in the infobox. "Marry The Night", "Hair", "Bad Kids", "Highway Unicorn", "Electric Chapel", "You and I" and "The Edge of Glory" are all either electro/pop rock songs, or have strong rock influences, making them seven out of fourteen songs (50%). On the other hand, however, it may not be enough to qualify the album as an electronic rock one as well, but its rock influences are far, far greater than her previous album and EP (Gaga even stated that the album was more rock-inclined in an interview with Yahoo!)[1], and not only, but the album includes several rock subgenres, ranging from rock and roll, country rock, heavy metal, electro rock, etc. I don't want to jump to conclusions, thus I am not going to add electronic/pop rock as a genre in the infobox, but does anyone have any suggestions or agree/disagree?--&レア (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. &レア, I highly agree with what you're saying. I think electro rock has the strongest influence on the album versus all the other subgenres of rock. So, I vote for electro rock to be added. --Christianrxx (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Christianrxx
I believe that electro rock should be added to the genre list for the same reason, especialy as there is no electronic music hinted in the genre list anymore which is one of the core genres of music on the album.--Talenthiel (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very good point. --Christianrxx (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Christianrxx

Do we have a consensus to add electro rock? --Christianrxx (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Christianrxx

Wait, lemme check the sources. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright --Christianrxx (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Christianrxx

Has the decision been made?--81.154.120.49 (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm still weighing opinions. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Legolas, have you reached a consensus yet? --Christianrxx (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Christianrxx
Have you made any progress? --Christianrxx (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Christianrxx

Although I'm not a Wikipedian but I was shocked to not find the word "rock" anywhere is the infobox. The album is very rock-oriented as seen in songs like "The Edge of Glory", "Hair", "Electric Chapel", "Bad Kids", "Highway Unicorn" and of course "You and I". I do think it should be added.

I think we can add it. It does seem to have been called so by those sources. However, how many of them are actualoly present in the article? Need to check that. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Legolas, when you say "those sources" what sources do you mean, specifically? --Christianrxx (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Christianrxx
So are we adding it or no?--Jakeriederer (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Lover 6th single

Apparently Heavy Metal Lover will be the 6th single.

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Metal-Lover-Single/dp/B006WFZBGU/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1327439520&sr=8-6 --It's Flo (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't say anything about being released as a single. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

it has been sold 5,5 mln copies of the album not 8

why it is still incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaazia (talkcontribs) 20:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This has already been answered. Please refer to previous sections. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Legolas2186 -- I think you should preclude yourself from acting as any sort of authority on this issue. It's clear from your profile that you're a Lady Gaga fan, so to archive relevant discussions that raise genuine concerns regarding the reliability of source material is unhelpful and quite frankly disruptive to proceedings here. There are serious issues pertaining to the 8-million sales claim, and you attempting to sweep things under the rug is not what Wikipedia is for. See everything I said in the archived discussion about why this 8 million figure should be removed. It came from Gaga's management [an extremely biased and unreliable source that should have never been included].Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
And where is your proof that Gaga's manager has actually promoted it / paying the said websites like Time and Billboard to write it? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I never made any such claim. That came from your own mouth. Why? Do you have your own suspicions? And you seem to be completely unaware of how major record labels and media outlets operate. You ever hear the phrase, "You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours"? You watch Billboard's exclusives come next album. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

but the source is not reliable, even a little. check mediatrffic http://www.mediatraffic.de/year-end-albums.htm

Mediatraffic is an unreliable source. TIME Magazine - a very reliable source - also clarifies that Born This Way has sold 8 million copies http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102309_2102316,00.html --Christianrxx (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Christianrxx
A reprint of Gaga's managers' claim of 8 million sold in a random Time website article about Adele is hardly a more reliable source.Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
PopJustice confirms "5.4 million worldwide sales and shipping almost double that figure"

http://thatgrapejuice.net/2012/01/billboard-singles-lady-gagas-born/ http://www.ranker.com/list/top-ten-best-selling-albums-of-2011/music-lover The 8 million figure is clearly a promotional lie perpetuated by Gaga's management to make it sound more successful than it actually is. This needs to be rectified. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Popjustice is not an authoritative source for sales in lieu of reliable sources like Billboard and Time magazine. And I care less about the other unreliable sources like thatgrapejuice and ranker.com — Legolas (talk2me) 05:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Special edition artwork

Yahoo! included the special edition artwork among their list of the most iconic album covers of all time. With this considered, could we include it as alternative artwork? –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should! --Christianrxx (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Christianrxx

Los Angeles Times Review

After reading the Los Angeles Time review, as opposed to unfavourable as it is stated in the reviews section, I found it to come across more as mixed. I decided to check metacritic as a result and see what rating it was given, which turn out to be 50/100. Surely this would classify it as a mixed review rather than unfavourable?--31.205.74.39 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic ratings: http://www.metacritic.com/music/born-this-way/critic-reviews

L.A. Times Review: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2011/05/album-review-lady-gagas-born-this-way.html

Born This Way sales

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral?

Why then some decided the "8 million" figure was "very disputed"? Disputed by who? Haters? Of course that figure is based on shipments... Like every single figure the media / record companies publish. But if we're going to be that meticulous, we should do the same for EVERY artist page in Wikipedia... As I see astronomical figures in Michael Jackson and many others' pages, especially those of the pre-internet era, figures that in many cases are just hilarious (like 'Never Gone' by the Backstreet Boys selling 10 million copies, when real sales are not even half of that, or Oral Fixation 2 , by Shakira selling 8 million according to her site when she sold like 5 million, and many many others), but a single source from a local newspaper is enough to prove it's true...

But with Gaga is a different thing... hundreds of sources in the net with the 8 million figure are not enough... Haters must make this clear, that's shipped not sold... they prefer to rely on Mediatraffic figure than Billboard's and many other media sources... Wasn't Mediatraffic in the black list for charts???? Or it's just depending on the interests of the moderator?

If we're not believing shipments figures as a source, then I should go to every other artists' pages and check and then add that same comment about that figure being shipped and not sold like a zillion times across their wikipedia pages. Pathetic.

I've removed all references to this controversial sales figure as much of the information was improperly sourced and the figure was undue weight. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've already been reverted once, so I may as well elaborate:
  • The interview with Gaga's manager is reliably sourced and the fact that this has been reported without confirmation has a reliable source as well.
  • However, all the other sources regarding the dispute (JPS Pop Files, Grape Juice.net, Musicharts) are not reliable sources, so I had to remove those.
  • With that information removed, all we have is the apparent fact that the album sold 8 million and that this has been reported without confirmation. There is no discussion of the fact that this may be untrue. We are essentially thus putting undue weight on a controversial figure that will be faced with disagreement.
  • It's best to omit this information for now as its too controversial and improperly sourced in general. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
And now we have another source to Billboard. Normally, we could consider this source reliable, but the sources are all so inconsistent, it's hard to say this one's actually correct. It's almost obviously taken from Gaga's manager's interview. Gaga later tweeted that actual sales are around 5 million. Whom do we trust?WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
We have many reliable sources claiming it sold 8 million. Newspapers, online magazines, Time magazine, Billboard... Billboard has always been a reliable and trusted source of information. The sources claiming it sold 5 million are blogs and forums. I think it is clear whom we should trust.(Nympho wiki (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC))
With other sources reporting different figures, and Billboard basing their sales from Nielsen SoundScan (tracks North American sales), I'd say removing it for now is reasonable. Dan56 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I read the comments above and I can say that we are discussion a complicated source issue. So for I can further comment here, can I see the actual sources? Both who state that Born This Way sold both 5 and 8 million respectively? And the Twitter thing is also something that worries me. Who would know better than the singer (and of course his/her label company) how many copies the album sold/shipped? — Tomica (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've restored what was cited by reliable sources, but reluctantly. I also made a mistake: the tweet by Gaga was last June. Oops. Anyway, I've left the attribution. It looks like a temporary adjustment. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you sentence Penguin. It sounds good to me. — Tomica (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess the most obvious issue was the poor sources (JPS Pop Files, etc.). It's just that the information on its own that it sold 8 million is somewhat controversial. Oh well. The sources are there and proper attribution has been given. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

All you people know exactly why this figure is disputed: you even partook in most of the discussions that were previously here on this page. Some of you have also unhelpfully archived those same discussions without any resolution being delivered. The main reason you've given for the removal of certain information was that this information came from "unreliable sources": but a major source removed was a Billboard article:

Billboard's a good enough source for every other artist and album related article, but not in this case, apparently? All the information you removed was fully sourced and verifiable. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool. Its purpose is to make widely available all relevant facts pertaining to a subject. But you knew that. Wikipedia is not an extension of her forum. This page is the facts, all of which are neutral and fully sourced. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points, but usually when Billboard names figures, they are US sales, since they are the secondary source for Nielsen SoundScan, which tracks sales in North America. However, the article here does not mention according to who the worldwide figure is, which I'll admit, I don't know how anyone figures that one out. But it is worth discussing. Dan56 (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The Billboard article discusses in length worldwide sales data tracked by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, who would in turn be possibly the most reliable source for worldwide sales data, since every major chart publisher and record label in the world would be in near-constant contact with them. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Billboard CONFIRMED that Born This Way did infact sell 8 million copies. And according to wikipedia policy - WP:Record charts - Billboard is the source you use; the current sources claiming the album sold 5+ million need to be changed. --Christianrxx (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Christianrxx
Is someone denying Billboard? I hope Wikipedia is not becoming the new ATRL. We have reliable sources that mention 8 million. So, the sales remain. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I wake up this morning and again the info is gone and we have this "other sources claim 5.4 million" stuff... Billboard, Time, even in an interview with CNN they talked about the 8 million... But those are not releiable? A page taking the info from Mediatraffic year end chart (5.4 million) is a reliable source? Musiccharts is a reliable source? Since when? I cannot believe that just because some haters do want to harm this page they're getting credit. The same thing with that article from that woman about the album falling like a bomb. Wtf? It's just her opinion... Is a journalist personal opinion a FACT? Something interesting to be considered in the info of the commercial performance? I can see the album in the Top 100 of Billboard 200 this week, 46 weeks after the release, still on top 100 in the UK and other countries... It's not like it fell of the charts after 10 weeks. So, for me, that reference is untrue and just used by haters to make it look like something it isn't. And the "8 million were shipped but other sources claim it really sold X" is stupid too... In every article in wikipedia a reliable source in enough. We have like 2 or 3 here... but she's treated differently?? (Rub rb (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)).
THANK YOU Rub rb (talk) --Christianrxx (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Christianrxx
It was not removed as a means of propaganda. The biggest issue was actually the sources that disputed the figure. With them removed, the figure looked as though it was getting undue weight, so I temporarily hid it and waited for further discussion. I've gotten the response: it looks fine as is right now then. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

When Adele's record label state sales in excess of 18 million copies for 21, Mediatraffic is there with sales of 18.3 million. When Rihanna's record label state sales of of over 3 million for Loud, Mediatraffic states sales of 3.4 million. Why do you people suddenly accuse the site of having some sort of bias towards your mother monster? The site has been confirmed accurate time and time again when it comes to analysing chart data. Your complaints have nothing to do with the site as it operates, your complaint is to do with the fact that it undermines claims made by Lady Gaga's manager, an extremely biased, non-third party source that should have never been included on Wikipedia. Artists and managers have a severe and palpable vested interest in over-exaggerating their own statistics. It's happened here: they've exaggerated claims to make the record sound a bigger success than it was, and now people think it's a bigger success than it was. Compare certifications of The Fame with certifications of Born This Way. There's no comparison - yet somehow the latter has sold over half of what the former did. The fact other sources have reprinted claims made by vested interests does nothing to dispel the obvious irregularities. The issue is not resolved, Pengiun. I am removing Lady Gaga's managers' claim - since it shouldn't have been included in the first place - and I'm re-including the issue of Interscope themselves refusing to make public their exact sales figures. Isn't it funny how the record sold 5 million copies up to August, then various claims stated another 2+ million sales in September without any noticeable chart rebound. Then another 0.8+ million by October, again without any noticeable chart rebound. Now it seems sales have completely collapsed for the past 6 months. None of this sounding fishy to you? Just because 2 fans dislike what we're trying to resolve, Penguin, does not a consensus make. Issue is far from resolved. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

All your points are very valid. There was a discussion regarding this issue some time ago. It was archived automatically. However, I am a bit confused: do you support or oppose the inclusion of the sales figure? Your initial post said that the source was OK. Is this post implying that this figure is unreliable and biased? I may have mistaken you. If I have, please clarify. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
My opposition stems from the inclusion of sales figures initially disclosed by Troy Carter. My main gripe being that he is a biased, unreliable source, my unofficial gripe being that he exposed himself previously as being pathological liar. You may disregard this if you wish, because the article looks fine as it is now. People have serious opposition to the inclusion of the 5.4 - 5.7 million statistic, but the article as it stands still informs people of the discrepancies on the issue. Until confirmed, concrete statistics are released, we won't ever be able to put this to bed one way or the other. The article, as it is now, is the only appropriate middle ground we're likely to find in the meantime. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It's an adequate adjustment for now as you say. Time will tell if we'll get a more solid figure, but what we have now suffices. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

Please add that Born This Way is 2x Platinum in Ireland http://www.irishcharts.ie/awards/multi_platinum11.htm --79.199.34.12 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Already done. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

4xPlatinum in Portugal

Born This Way is 4xPlatinum in Portugal: http://www.artistas-espectaculos.com/topafp/pt/201124.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.36.155 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Special Edition Cover

This article should include the Special Edition cover. LurganShmith (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No it shouldn't - WP:NFCC. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it? You can look at other pages, a good article, would include both covers in the info box. The deluxe/special/alternate cover on bottom.

LurganShmith (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the same cover it's just her face being zoomed in. To reiterate, it fails WP:NFCC criteria 3 and 8. It's not allowed and won't be added. Further, please don't use other articles as an argument. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Platinum in the UK

It just went X3 Platinum in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.111.246 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No it didn't. In fact, it's not even 2x Platinum. Still regular old 1x Platinum, according to the BPI website. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Philippines 3 x Platinum

She even took a photo with it :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.41.70 (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC) http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=222207

Songwriters.

Songwriters are credited with their real name, not a stage name. This entire section should be fixed. DanielDPeterson + talk 02:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Album sales

Can we get an accurate sales figure. The 8 million seems to be inflated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefaithmonster1 (talkcontribs) 09:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source that provides a different number, then by all means bring it to attention. The closest and most reliable estimations (already included at the article) however point the afforementioned number or perhaps a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.226.208.3 (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
And a figure from an official source finally arises: Big Concerts and Live Nation state in both their joint and individual press releases (the official promoters of The Born This Way Ball) that the album has sold "nearly 6 million copies worldwide." Live Nation - down the bottom of the page, in the "Bio" section. Big Concerts - it's on the 2nd page of the PDF file, 3rd full paragraph. So can we finally change the figure we all knew was inflated all along? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 not moved. Based on the stats provided, it appears that this is currently the primary topic. --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

– I completely understand WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but if you think about it, the song and the album both have the same amount of popularity. I think both the album and the song are the primary topics, and it's a war between the two pages, so this page should have album in parenthesees. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 68.44.51.49 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Semi-support the album should be moved, but it should be replaced by the song, which should be the primary topic. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment – As I said, the album and the song have the same amount of popularity. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the (album), not the dab move. The term "born this way" is not Gaga-specific and the disambiguation page needs to remain since there are six other non-Gaga-related titles, even if they all do not have articles. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Semi-support; per 76.65, I believe the song is the primary topic. Powers T 01:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support original proposal - "Born This Way" is ambiguous, but I never realize that it becomes part of Lady Gaga. People say, "I'm born this way", to prove their points often. Neither the song nor album is a primary topic: see album and song. Album is more popular than song right now, but how long? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The fact that "born this way" is a common phrase has no impact on whether this is the primary encyclopedic topic that uses that phrase. Powers T 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Convert Born This Way to a disambiguation page. The song and album are not PRIMARYTOPIC beyond recent pop music. "Born this way" is a very old, well known phrase, one that no recent artist has a hope of a claim of ownership. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would propose that the disambiguation page be Born this way, the song be Born This Way and the album be Born This Way (album). I know the album is massively well-known and has been very successful, but the song - more so. Unreal7 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree with Unreal7 and SmokeyJoe in part given the popularity and primary notability of the song Born This Way compared to the full album.
Born this way = disambiguation
Born This Way = song
Born This Way (album) = album ...is what I support. Teammm TM 18:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stats given by George Ho indicate that the album is currently the primary topic (75K to 21K -- and the dab has only 548). "But for how long?" is irrelevant -- if and when the usage changes, that's when we'd move the articles. (CAWylie, if the dab page were moved to the base name, in the case of no primary topic, the dab page would remain, so I don't understand that oppose.) "Born this way" is a bad choice for the title of the disambiguation, since all of the Wikipedia topics are title cased "Born This Way". If there's a primary topic for that title (and there appears to be), then the dab page for the topics with that title goes to "Born This Way (disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Judging by the statistics it appears that the album is by far the primary topic. Neither the song's article, nor all the other articles combined, come close.--Cúchullain t/c 18:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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.

Image removal

I removed an image of Lady Gaga from the commercial performance section here. The removal has been challenged by two other editors who cite other Wikipedia articles having an excess of image illustrating the recording artist in those articles. I cited guidelines at WP:Image and WP:Other stuff exists in response, and explained further at their talk pages (User talk:Kirtap92#Born This Way, User talk:Sricsi), and recommended to the one who reverted multiple times to discuss it here or at my talk page or theirs. To avoid dragging out a content dispute, I made this post here. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." That's what the guideline say. But I can't help but compare this article to other ones, because if you think using THREE pictures in one articxle is excessive, then why don't you do it with all the other articles? There is scarcely an album article that has less than 3 pictures, and if it does, it is because there aren't more photos uploaded.

So once again, is THREE pictures "excessive" and "overwhelming the article"? --Sricsi (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an authority on all other articles. I felt this article could be improved by not having an image that isnt tied to the text. It's not about how many, it's about the rationale. There's not reason to have a picture of Lady Gaga in concert for a section that strictly deals with the album's chart and sales performance. Dan56 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I also dont know which articles you are referring to when you say there are few with less than three pictures. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think the article is improved by having one less photo? I understand your problem, that the Commercial performance section is not strictly connected with any photo. But we can't place each and every photos under the Promotion/Live performances section. By your terms, all album articles should be having only one picture, because the live performances section is the only one that is truly in strong connection with a photo depicting a live performance. But I don't think this article is improved in your way at all. If it was the 6th picture, I would say okay, maybe that's too much, and not necessary, but it was far away from being excessive. I hope some other editors have an opinion concerning the topic. --Sricsi (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You sound like the only pictures available are those of the artist. Why do you feel the need for this? There's a recording section that can mentions Abbey Road Studios, of which free-commons images are available to place it there. The religious criticism section can be illustrated with an image of one of the critics. Different articles have different information available for them and different means of distributing them into an article. Dan56 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, is there anyone else beside Dan56, that thinks that picture is unnecessary? Obviously, when almost EVERY major album article's Commercial Performance session HAS a picture, than Born This Way can have a picture there too. Here is some example "Hard Candy", "The Fame", "Confessions on a Dance Floor", and hundreds and hundreds more. We should be all happy that there are so many beautiful pictures about this singer, we should use them for gods sake. Oh and don't come up again with that "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" thing. That problem has nothing to do with what that article says. Kirtap92 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Those articles you cited were all done by the same editor, their editorial judgement. Your position is that other examples exist, which is not a guideline. "Beautiful pictures"? Is your judgement clouded a bit? Dan56 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say the singer is beautiful, I said, the picture, the quality of it. I think your judgement is clouded. You must be a hater of that singer, and you're trying to sabotage her album's article. Kirtap92 (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, that's why I've been correcting its grammar and links. Dan56 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature, "be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Didnt think removing an image was "sabotage". Dan56 (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Kirtap, in answer to your question, the picture is certainly not "necessary". However, as a general note, as this content is free, it doesn't have to be necessary in order for it to be used in an article- it's just up to the editors of the article to decide whether it's worth adding. Frankly, I don't see any harm in using an image; the section is a little blank, visually, and so I wouldn't worry about it cluttering the article. Perhaps the best question to ask would be whether there was another image which would be more suitable to readers than just another picture of Gaga. J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
A picture of a sales certification; album was certified platinum twice ([2]) Dan56 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
You can only put Gaga's image in that section, there's no need for another picture of some other performers, or a building. An album's lead single is really important, and making an impact for the album's sales.
Where is her "impact for the album's sales" mentioned in that section? Readers know what she looks like already with two images of her before that section. Dan56 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Dan56, are you kidding me? You can put this image for EVERY platinum album in history. Don't you think that would be a little bit boring? Kirtap92 (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"Are you kidding me?" How does this not make sense to you? Either an image that illustrates something in the text or none. There's no need for every section to have an image, but if you really desire one, then I suggested one for you. Relax. Dan56 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Back to your "are you kidding me" comment, yes you can put that image for every platinum album, just like you can put an image of Lady Gaga in every article on one of her works. This is my point. Just because you can add an image doesnt necessarily mean you should (WP:IMAGE) Dan56 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
We have already decided that there is going to be a picture there. The only question remained, that which one would be the best. Now if you have a picture about Born This Way's platinum record, that it'd be fantastic. But look what you just linked. There are picture of Thriller, and Band of Gypsys. We cant use any of them. So the most appropriate photo right now we have is the one about Born This Way performance. So I'll just go and edit in the article, and if you find a better, more appropriate picture, you can change it. Until that, don't bother. Just because you can delete an image doesnt necessarily mean you should. Kirtap92 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Who decided that? All J Milburn said was "don't see any harm in using an image". Dan56 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If you really wanted to improve this article instead of being Gaga over Gaga pictures (LOL), then you'd take heed to what I said about the recording section and Abbey Road Studios. Plenty of pictures of something actually relevant to its respective section. Dan56 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
How bout one of these? [3] The Billboard 200 trajectory is clearly tied to the text of this section. Dan56 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
@Kirtap92 - First of all, it's not solely at your discretion to include a useless image to an article or not. In fact, I'd go so far as to remove all bar 1 of those images that are currently displayed in the article - they add nothing of merit to the article as it stands; 1 "pretty" picture of Lady Gaga performing at her brand new shiny tour is enough. Add some pictures about the album's development, or leave it alone. This is now the third time this has been explained to you: stop using WP:Other stuff exists as a justification for your actions. You have shown blatant disregard for the talk process. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
It actually looks enyclopedic with that trajectory image in that section. Dan56 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If that image is to be included, it would be better if the Spanish (or Portuguese?) writing was translated to English. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Like in the caption or the alternative text option? Dan56 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Saying that we are only "fighting" for a picture as we are fans of the artist is merely your personal opinion. I'm sure there is no Wikipedia xyz guideline about being personal if you can't 'win' an argument. If you really want to remove the picture, replace it with something really releavnt. A picture of a Platinum record? I must agree with Kirtap. Abbey Road? Most of the songs were recorded on a tour bus. Putting a chart with spanish subtitles from the Portugues Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia? That's real smart. Yes, that's a lot better!! If you can't replace it with something that's truly more relevant to the article than a performance of a song from it, than just leave it there. --Sricsi (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a picture of her tour bus? Dan56 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The Portuguese words "Desempenho de Born This Way na Billboard 200" in the actual image itself, which according to Google Translate means "Performance of Born This Way on the Billboard 200". And Sricsi, please keep in mind that we are currently trying to work out an acceptable resolution here. The sort of response you made above isn't particularly helpful. In fact, it comes across more like a scorned editor - upset that the image he uploaded is currently the subject of this very discussion. Keep it cool. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Would this caption suffice, Homeostasis07? Dan56 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Well look whose using the argument of whether an image is relevant. An image of something mentioned in the section is more suitable than one not mentioned. Dan56 (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a guideline (WP:Personal attack), and there's no guideline on there having to be a picture. If a relevant one for that section isnt there, then the logical option is to leave it without an illustration. There's the chart trajectory, whose translation in English can be placed in the caption. This persistence for a third picture of Gaga in a section where it doesnt seem fit is telling. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Translation: "Performance of Born This Way in the United States" (top), "position" (left side), "week" (bottom). Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
These trajectory images are absolutely ridiculous. They are not english, they are useless, and not updated. What if the album gets back on the billboard 200? Would you make a new picture every time that happens? An album's lead singles has a great impact for the album's sales. So this picture is really appropriate to put there. Oh and Lady Gaga haters, like Homeostasis07 should not be a part of that conversation, because making rude, useless comments about nothing, is not helping at all. Kirtap92 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are trying to say I'm overreacting, well I'm not, and it's not about the fact that I uploaded the picture, because basically I uploaded 90% of the Lady Gaga photos, and I'm not crying only some of them are in use. But this whole argument was about one person's belief that a picture is invalid just because is portrays a live performance in a section written about sales details. Please at least translate that chart as this is not the Portuguese, nor the Spanish wikipedia. --Sricsi (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, if im advised to "keep it cool", then you (Homeostasis07) should keep it "neutral". Making comments such as '1 "pretty" picture of Lady Gaga performing at her brand new shiny tour is enough' suggests that you are actually dislike the artist, which makes all your argument points hard to be taken seriously. --Sricsi (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
A translation will be provided. Uploading dozens of live photos and adding them to areas they should never have been added to is not constructive editing. Wikipedia is not a fan site. That photo you uploaded had no business being put in the commercial performance section of any article. Not every single field requires illustration. And this talk of "haters" is pointless. Either keep it civil, Kirtap82, or an ANI report will be filed. You've already broken WP:3RR by a massive margin. We can add personal attacks to that soon enough. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you threatening me? Now that's a personal attack! Kirtap92 (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, Dan56 also broke WP:3RR. It's just so ridiculous how you truly believe that removing that picture is a great improvement on this article. Thank god, the savior has arrived. --Sricsi (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted three times; my replacement of the image wasnt a revert, it was what I proposed here. Why are you hung over on this picture? Dan56 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not hung over on that picture. But any live performance picture is better than an out of date, Spanish language sales chart. --Sricsi (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"Better" how? Not for this section. I thought yall would appreciate a chart trajectory. The chart performance in the US is the main thing in the section's first paragraph. Dan56 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Still you should remove it until translation. --Sricsi (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? I did translate it. ([4]) Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure he means the text in the actual image, which I agree with. A Portuguese-language image shouldn't be on the English Wiki. But, in all honesty, was this so offensive that it ever needed an image in the first place? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe vertifical and horizontal are delineated by "×", so "position" (posição) × "week" (semana). Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I still think that a picture about Gaga performing the lead single of that album to promote and MAKE SALES is more appropriate, than putting in a soon out of date (if not already), non-english trajectory. And also, how did you even check that these are the real positions of the album? Can you write a source for it? I don't think so. Kirtap92 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
WOW, answering your own questions for me? That's some arogant isht. Dan56 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Dont be upset, and use words like isht. I didn't answer it, nor did you. I just expressed my opinion about it. Kirtap92 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Q: "Can you write a source for it?" A: "I don't think so." Dan56 (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No, as I said: Q: "Can you write a source for it?" Opinion: "I don't think so." Kirtap92 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Homeostasis07, no it wasn't bad that way. But I still don't think it became so much worse because of one additional picture that we should have started an argument in the first place. --Sricsi (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
See image in #Live performances field. There's no point in having two images of her performing the exact same song in two different areas of the article. If you want to update that image (from Monster Ball tour) to your more current one, then go ahead. Also, if your intention when including an image of Gaga performing Born This Way is to demonstrate that her tour is "[MAKING] SALES", then I think that would actually require a source of its own. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That was my original revision (no picture in that section), before this discussion led to a replacement. Kirtap92, there is no mention of Gaga or the single in that section; almost half of it deals with chart performance in the US. It's original research to advance the position that her performing the lead single made sales, and it's not even stated in the section. The image should correspond to the text, but an image isnt necessary. Dan56 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I may not be aware of all the Wikipedia guidelines, so I must ask. Does every picture present in an article has to be strictly connected to the section it is placed in? For example, the article of the tour of this album has the same issues, for example a photo in the Ticket sales section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_This_Way_Ball) --Sricsi (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
We went through this before. Stop comparing articles (WP:Other stuff exists) Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a bit of leverage when it comes to an article like the one you listed, because it's an article about the tour so people would maybe expect to see several free images of the tour that the article relates to. Images (especially large images) are supposed to always be used only when relevant, though. Wiki's image policy is a bit of a mess, quite frankly. There have been far too many disputes about one thing or another regarding image policy over the years. The general rule nowadays is: relevance to the article the image is illustrating, as long as it's a free image. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyone using/citing that rule is free to propose a similar change there as here. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I was not comparing this time, I was asking a question as I might not be aware of the standards as much as I should. I know it is not a good argument point, but people actually do want to see pictures. It's not merely about illustrating what a paragraph is about, it's also about reading a huge text without any visual 'inteeruption' is not that pleasing to the eye. And a performance of a song from the album is most relevant a picture can be, no matter what paragraph it is placed at, because it is an illustraion of the article as a whole. This Abbey Road one is okay, but there are a lot of albums that were completely recorded in that studio, still not presenting this picture, while the production of BTW songs was not the most prevalent as it was mostly recorded on a tour bus, and in some other studios as well. --Sricsi (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think what's pleasing to the eye is a subjective argument, and I dont see how a performance of a song from the album is an illustration of the article as a whole; aint that the album cover? The images and media samples and other files have to have encyclopedic value to where they are placed; I'm currently dealing with a featured article nomination for Rhythm Killers, where a lengthy discussion developed as to the rationale for images and samples used, having to specify them directly to the section(s). But I do agree that the section is huge. It pretty much gives undue weight to chart performance (Wikipedia:Record_charts#Chart_trajectories) (the picture would be a better substitute than the repetitive prose of it charted here this week and there the next. The studio picture has as much relevance to the section's text as those stacked images of the influences do in their section: Springsteen, Houston... Dan56 (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Born This Way Ball

There is scarcely any mentioning about the tour supporting the album, not even in the Live performances section. Someone knowledgable in this field should add some information about it and a direct link to the article of the Born this way ball tour. --Sricsi (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 November 2012

i want to add the DELUXE / SPECIAL EDITION COVER Roie3600 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done. See WP:Requested pictures. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Certification: United Kingdom

Looking at Born This Way's page, I noticed it was listed as being certified as platinum. However, looking at the exact sales figures (as listed in Lady Gaga's discography as 853,633) of Born This Way in the UK, it should be listed as 2x Platinum, not just Platinum.

A link to the discography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_discography

A link to BPI Platinum certifications: http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

And a link to Born This Way's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_This_Way

Shall it be changed to 2X Platinum, then? --Talenthiel (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The BPI database has not been updated to reflect any additional certifications. You can't presume certifications based on sales figures alone. A large portion of those sales are ineligible for certification because of the Amazon 99p offer. The album was officially certified platinum on August 19, 2011, and it will remain that way on Wikipedia until the BPI officially updates the certification. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

HML

Gaga confirmed Heavy Metal Lover as a single many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisWiltroutWritter (talkcontribs) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But it hasn't been released as an official single anywhere in the world. And with her new album due anytime in the next few months, it's unlikely anything after Marry The Night will be given "official" status anytime soon. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be on ARTPOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisWiltroutWritter (talkcontribs) 22:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

4X Platinum in Canada

Born this Way's hit 4x Platinum within Canada as of 13th Febuary 2013.

Here is a link: http://inagist.com/all/302175264220270592/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talenthiel (talkcontribs) 23:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

8 million copies

Born This Way has sold over 8 million copies worldwide as of October 2011. And Billboard confirmed it and other magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterboi96 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"You and I" samples the Queen song "We Will Rock You." Brian May should be included as a songwriter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.193.35 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Singles

Can we add a table with the singles and selected chart positions like other wikipedia album pages have? Taylor Swift's "Red" album has one. Can someone make one for Born This Way's singles, please? Arturo52311 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an album article (MOS:ALBUM#Charts). Readers should be encouraged to go to Lady Gaga discography and the respective singles articles for their chart positions, instead of jamming and forking tables from other articles. Dan56 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why are there dozens of album pages that I've seen with the singles table? Is there a reason why this album is any different? Why not just delete all the tables and send readers to the artists' discographies? Arturo52311 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some editors are tactless. Dan56 (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

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: No move. There's no agreement that this isn't the primary topic among the existing articles of the name. Other uses that don't currently have Wikipedia articles are not relevant to a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion. Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


– First, the title is not unambiguous enough to associate with one topic or another, not even Lady Gaga... in the next ten years. Second, "born this way" is already heard in the 20-year-old movie The Joy Luck Club. Third, numbers of the album (this month) and the song (this month) went down from last May (album, song). I even wish that the Glee episode should challenge Lady Gaga articles. Even when people mentioned "Born This Way" as part of Lady Gaga, they also associated it with homosexuality. George Ho (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. No coherent reason given for a move. You haven't presented any evidence that the title is "not unambiguous enough". Do you have evidence that people are ending up here by mistake? Powers T 01:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There is Born This Way (song), even when helped by a hatnote. How many people do they have to read about the whole album? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The album or the single is the primary topic here. The Glee episode itself is named after the song/album.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Status re "Oppose. The album or the single is the primary topic here" - which? you make it sound as if there "must" always be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that isn't what primary topic guideline says, often as in this case, there isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
When did I say that? I said it's between those two which are the primary topic; I never even stated which, I just opposed the proposed. There clearly is one, and it's something Gaga. It's between which one.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Names of Britney Spears songs are unambiguous enough... for now... due to phenomenal titling since 1998. However, "born this way"... isn't to me... It's already heard before Lady Gaga. Mainly, readers are searching for either the album or the song, but others are curiously able to learn about other topics of the same name, especially in dab page. Even there are two songs named "I Was Born This Way". --George Ho (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support neither song nor album is the primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the album is not the primary topic. Either the song is, or nothing is. The song is used as an anthem, while the album is just an album. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd argue that the song is the primary topic. Like with "...Baby One More Time and "Oops!... I Did It Again". Unreal7 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above reasons. 69.117.171.103 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Gaga is definitely the primary topic of the term, it's just a matter if it's the song or the album. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Saying "or" would make you torn between the song and the album. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
      • True, but let's establish the primary topic before we start moving stuff around. Besides, there are surely many pages that link to these pages that would be affected by title swapping. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's demonstrative that until Gaga did her work, there was no Born This Way page on Wikipedia. Clearly it is the primary topic. --B2C 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    • You mean the album or the song? --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. She hardly coined the term, did she? It's been in existence long before she was even born [this way. lol]. As time goes on, surely more substance regarding the term would grow on Wiki, linking the term to its general usage during the 80's, 90's and even 00's. Do we really want all those Wikilinks pointing back to an album released in 2011? Because pretty soon, the actual Born This Way page should be a descriptive page for the actual term that's been in popular use since at least the early 80's. Renaming the album article to Born This Way (album) and linking the phrase itself to a disambiguation page seems like a worthy compromise, for now. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:39, 5 June 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.

. And Billboard have more than demonstrated their bias towards Lady Gaga over recent years. They even tried to claim that the cancelled US tour dates were "nearly sold out", despite them inadvertently stating that she sold an average of just 9,000 tickets per gig in venues that supported capacity in excess of 20,000. Billboard obviously get their info from PR companies. They're no longer a reliable source in my eyes. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like Gaga or Billboard, doesn't mean Billboard isn't reliable. If anything, they are literally one of the most reliable companies when it comes to sales and music-related information. In fact, they are one of the only sources we have.
Also, just because you don't like that they praise Gaga, doesn't mean they're "bias". Ever thought maybe they're just stating facts? It's not their fault you don't like Gaga and therefore cannot accept anyone praising her. The fact that you're on here fervently refuting any sort of positive recognition shows that you're the bias one here. Anthagio (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.199.78 (talk)
It's more or less impossible to have a logical debate on this talk page. You counter with logical and informed statistics on why something is the way it is, and you end up having to deal with a bunch of fanatical nonsense about how you're a hater. Here is proof that Billboard is biased. "22 shows were cancelled, forcing the refund of roughly 200,000 tickets." 200,000 tickets divided by 22 shows = 9,090 tickets sold per show. Go through the list of cancelled shows here, click on all the venues and you'll see that those venues had an average capacity of over 20,000. So you still believe Billboard when they claim the cancelled dates were "nearly sold out"? It's one example in a long line. In any case, the parent company of her record label stated to shareholders in their annual report here (on page 188) that the album sold 5.9 million copies up until January 2012. With the absence of any notable chart resurgence, and her promoters press release in April 2012 stating that the album sold "nearly 6 million copies" (post-dating any of Billboard's claims of 8 million sold) - that's more than irrefutable proof - even when completely disregarding Billboard. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)