Jump to content

Talk:Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP)/Archive 1

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

Corensearchbot

CorenSearchBot is in error. The text was taken from Born to Die: Paradise Edition. That website took info from Wikipedia.--MrIndustry (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

These sources confirm that the EP exists: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1694392/lana-del-rey-paradise-edition.jhtml and http://www.billboard.com/news/lana-del-rey-releases-ride-single-from-born-1007957392.story#/news/lana-del-rey-releases-ride-single-from-born-1007957392.story. There is absolutely no reason this article should be nominated for any kind of deletion. Please get your facts right before you nominate a page or remove content from an article. teammathi (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... it is clearly listed on iTunes as a standalone album. As seen here: [1]. It is also explicitly listed at Billboard and MTV that this will be a stand-alone release. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I nominated it because the iTunes source that confirms it is nowhere to be found in the article. This is used instead, which doesn't confirm anything. And googling 'Lana Del Rey Paradise EP iTunes' only led me to this link, which doesn't work. Sorry for any inconvenience. Pancake (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I think someone did a poor copy/paste job from Lana Del Rey (EP). I used that same Interscope source on that article to confirm it's release date. I think the iTunes link is broken. Not sure why. It doesn't work for me either, unless I go into it from Thailand or something. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Reorganization

This article is getting messy. The "singles and other songs" section (now, "Songs and promotion") is full of juicy, helpful information, but the section is laid out very unhelpfully. I'm not entirely sure how to separate or clean up this section, so as to make it more coherent and cohesive, but I'm open to suggestions. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we add sections. We could add a "Music and composition", "Promotion", and a "Singles" section (like in the article for Born to Die. teammathi (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I just cleaned the article up a little. I think it's better like this but I'd like to hear some opinions. I realized that "Music and composition" section is pointless at the moment since we don't have anything covering that topic in the article. teammathi (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks better. I had to move some things around for the sheer sake of it. The entries on "Body Electric", I moved down to "Other songs", since it's not exactly related to promotion. It was performed at promotional concerts, although, I believe. At any rate, when the article was first created, I added criticism about "Ride", but I now fear that information is too far off topic to warrant inclusion. It was a copy/paste job from the original article anyway. It's difficult to decide what goes where because singles are typically used to promote the album. She's used them differently than others, though, it seems, featuring them in commercials and ad campaigns and what not. For now, I think my revision has brought the article to the closest it can be until we start receiving more official reviews on the EP as a whole. By the way, it seems some one deleted (again!) the Paradise Edition cover from Born to Die. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Altered the layout again, Teammathi. Quite pleased with this revision, I must say. It's visually appealing and cohesive. Normally, "promotion" and "single" would seem as mixable as gasoline and matches, but this article is rather tricky, since there are various avenues of promotions that involve buzz singles. At any rate, let me know if you like it or if you have any other suggestions. (Or just change it yourself) ;) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I like it a lot better like this! teammathi (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Paradise in Germany

Paradise is NOT avaible as Cd in Germany. The Link is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.255.20 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The link isn't working but if you enter "lana del rey paradise" in the search bar, one can order it. teammathi (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
But only together with Born to Die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.255.20 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it's also available as an EP. teammathi (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
But only on this site? Amazon.de says "no"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.121.195 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Only because Amazon.de isn't selling it as an EP doesn't mean it isn't sold in Germany at all. teammathi (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
watch the link... You can see the Born to Die Tracklist^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.60.211 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's a mistake. They're selling Paradise though. teammathi (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Third EP

When I wrote the text of this article on Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) before it was transplanted over here, I initially believed that Paradise was her third EP, following Kill Kill and her self-titled Interscope debut. However, I recently uncovered (ANOTHER!) hidden release from Miss Lizzy. Apparently, it's called No Kung Fu. If we could procure more reliable sources, we could write an individual article on it, but I'm surprised it has not even been mentioned on the artist's article. I think I saw something about it on List of Lana Del Rey songs or was it List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs before it was deleted? Could the EP perhaps have been a fan creation, or was it an unreleased demo like Sirens? Here are some unreliable sources that I uncovered:

Looks like all the tracks were used on her debut, Lana Del Ray a.k.a. Lizzy Grant. Thoughts? --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No Kung Fu is just a fanmade EP with demos. Somebody said that it was a demo that was given do David Kahne in 2007, but it isn't, some fan just created it. And the list of unreleased songs is now here: User:TV/sandbox/List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs. teammathi (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy rely. And here I thought I uncovered a deep-dark skeleton from Lana closet. Ah well, cheers. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception?

Why does all the reviews only refer to ride? There is like a whole paragraph dedicated to Ride, and nothing else.--Morgan3136 (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ride" is the only single that has been released from Paradise. Other songs have been released as promotional singles only. teammathi (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Eventually, the "Ride" reviews will probably be replaced by reviews that focus on the album as a whole. But, as Teammathi said, "Ride" is the only official single released, so that's the only commentary we have at present. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dumping these here until I (or someone else) wants to add them to the Reception section:

--Thevampireashlee (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Tour dates

There isn't enough information to create an independent article, but I think the tour dates for the Paradise Tour should be added on here. Squidoh (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not called the Paradise tour put I have added some information about the dates to the article.

Recent changes

I disagree to the recent changes made by User:Dark Beauty Paradise. Namely, it is not necessary to add Amazon links and specific dates next to the release of each single. The current text is sufficient. Additionally, the links to Amazon, actually lead to a disambig when they should link to Amazon.com. Links to digital download are sufficient, especially since the singles can be downloaded from iTunes and various other venues -- not just Amazon. A similar issue regarding this editor and similar types of edits has risen on Talk:Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Blue Velvet as First Single

Why is this not considered the first single from the EP? It has a single, remixes, and a music video? I don't see any references indicating that it was "promotional only". --Cyrip (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was meaning to make this change for a while as well.--2620:AE:0:3531:2D8F:102F:A01C:40E8 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on Promotional Singles

A promotional single is a single that is released to radio but is never released in a "single" format to consumers. Both Blue Velvet and Burning Desire BOTH have digital singles that were released in a number of countries.--Cyrip (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Paradise (Lana Del Rey album) → Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP) – The album is an EP, and regardless Status comment An "EP" is a type of album. We do not say "[Lana Del Rey] studio album" for studio albums), Wikipedia has followed this style for years: ? (EP), The Time of Our Lives (EP), EP (The 77s EP), Glider (EP), MTV Unplugged (Mariah Carey EP), EP 1 (Crosses EP), Cannibal (EP), So Far Gone (EP), VIS Idoli (EP), Moon (EP), The Blue Room (EP), and I can continue. As long as there is no community consensus at WP:ALBUM that "(EP)" disambiguated articles should be at "(album)", this EP is not the exception regardless Status' "correct name per naming guidelines, in which he never cited which "naming guidelines" refers to, as WP:NCM says nothing about this. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NCM makes no mention of using "EP" for disambiguation at all. It states: "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)"." The naming convention only states "band", "album" or "song" should be used. Not "EP", "video" or "single". — Status (talk · contribs) 22:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
So according to you just because "EP" was excluded from the page, "(EP)" dabs should disappear? Under this view (group) should be in band or (video), (soundtrack) or (film score) should be in album. Why instead of adding the term(s) to that page (in which everything is added without consensus), which I think were used only as an example of the disambiguation form and not as "you should only use these three terms", why you decided to move some pages out of hundreds, or search for a global consensus to move them freely? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going by what WP:NCM states. Just because it's used, doesn't mean that it should be used. If you think those should be added, feel free to to bring up a discussion there to include it. A soundtrack album is an album, just a type of album. As I said before, we don't say Born to Die (Lana Del Rey studio album) or Celebration (Madonna greatest hits album), so why do we say Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP)? — Status (talk · contribs) 22:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And as I told you before "Born to Die (Lana Del Rey studio album)" or "Celebration (Madonna greatest hits album)" doesn't exist, there is just one album released by those artists and it is unneeded to dab further, use a better argument than this one. You are enforcing a guideline as if it were a policy, and you never explain why with hundreds of articles disambiguated "(EP)" this is an exception. Your arguments belong to the WikiProject Albums, not this page. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Lana doesn't have a studio album called Paradise, so why does it needed to be dabbed further by using "EP"? Studio album, greatest hits, EP, etc... are all types of albums. — Status (talk · contribs) 05:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my points. You a) are using your POVs to move articles you have a conflict of interests out of hundreds of pages titled in the same way, b) Del Rey's should be an exception out of hundreds pages, c) you don't have a real interest to get consensus to change hundreds of (EP) articles to (album), just those you have an interest, d) you don't explain why (soundtrack), (film score), (group) or (video) are not within your interests to move, when they are also other valid exaples. Really get a better reason other than your personal opinions on disambiguation terms that have existed for many years. Unless you can say why the EP by Del Rey is an exception to the common term for serch, that is "EP", you won't avoid the page to be moved to "EP", or if you want I can add a list of all the (EP)-dabbed articles. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCM, which does not state "EP" can be used for disambiguation. Just because it is used by however many articles, doesn't mean that it should. If consensus can happen at WP:NCM to include "EP" (in which we will also have to include "greatest hits album", "studio album" and "remix album", etc.), then I will obviously agree to the move. — Status (talk · contribs) 05:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Good for you, but you don't make the MoS, long-term conventions and community does and it is written in MOSALBUM: "the term (EP) should be used for EPs, (video) for video albums and (album) for other albums, e.g. Insomniac (album) and Gas Food Lodging (EP).". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Interesting to see a WikiProject style guide going against naming conventions. — Status (talk · contribs) 06:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not going "against", MOSALBUM is an extension of ALBUM. The thing is that you are interpreting a guideline as a policy and therefore should be applied (exclusively to the artists you have interest, not the whole project). The day WP:NCM says ""When necessary, disambiguation should be done using only the terms "(band)", "(album)", and "(song)"" you will have a point, but no, you are denoting more your lack of interest in the ambiguity eritten at NCM, and interpreting it as you want. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
When did I say that I have no interest in other articles? I moved certain articles, yes, but I recall seeming open to discussing it somewhere in lengths, but for some reason, you continue here. — Status (talk · contribs) 06:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
"I moved certain articles", you found a loophole in WP:NCM to prove a point. You are doing it great champion. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't find a "loophole", I just read exactly what it said and how exactly it said it. Please review WP:AGF, as well as WP:NOTPOINTy (or is that just another one of my "loopholes"?). — Status (talk · contribs) 06:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If you "read exactly what it said and how exactly it said it" why if there are many pages using EP, you just moved like 12 pages from EP to album, including a move-war at The Wanted (EP), when there are many pages with this "problem"? Or is this correct, isn't Live Session an album? I assume you didn't know that NCM existed by then (why you moved it in the first place?), but at the moment you realized NCM existed you decided to move the pages of your favorite artists from "EP" to "album" only, rather than begin to move all EPs to albums, or double-check at ALBUM if the ambiguity really allows you to do it, didn't you ask me to search for consensus over something you are doing? It is not our problem if a policy or guide is badly written, but it is up to us to decide if we want it to left it badly written, or request it to be changed, you decided to left it ambiguous with your comments "If you think those should be added, feel free to to bring up a discussion there to include it" and "If consensus can happen at WP:NCM to include "EP" ... then I will obviously agree to the move" and rather to do it, you decided the project to "contradict" itself ("Interesting to see a WikiProject style guide going against naming conventionsq), because at the end of the day, you are not interested in the project itself, but you reserve the right to allow these "contradictions" to favor your moves and comment "I followed what is written as it is written, regardless the ambiguity. I didn't write the guide, I just followed it". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: An EP is an album. Titling the article Paradise (Lana Del Rey album) is not the same as titling it Paradise (Lana Del Rey LP). Here, you are confusing the word "album" with "LP". They are not the same thing; rather, LP or long play is a type of album. Granted, many people consider LPs to be the ubiquitous standard for the formatting of albums of audio recordings. Because of this, the term "album" is pervasively considered synonymous with LP. This is not the case, however. By titling the article Paradise (Lana Del Rey album), we are still recognizing the album's sub-categorization an EP. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while Paradise (EP) or Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP) are accurate, more precise titles for the article. An extended play, shortened to EP, is a type of studio album or album of audio recordings. A long play, shortend to LP, is also a type of studio album or album or audio recordings; colloquially, we call this an "album", as it is universally and unspokenly considered standard format for collections of audio recordings. The difference between EP and LP is length, and in this case, it is an unnecessary distinction relevant only to the obsessive compulsive, music industry enthusiasts, and fans of Lana Del Rey. For all intensive purposes, Paradise IS an album by Lana Del Rey. Yes, it is an EP, but EPs are albums, and the disambiguation is not relevant. Even if there were two works by Lana Del Rey titled Paradise, one being an LP and one being an EP, I still think the distinction would be irrelevant. I would much rather title these hypothetical articles, "Paradise" (2013 Lana Del Rey album) and "Paradise" (2014 Lana Del Rey album) or some such thing. Additionally, almost every source in the article uses the words "EP" and "album" interchangeably", or uses the word "album" exclusively. "EP" is jargony and an abbreviation, thus making it seem less professional. It would be like titling an article about a character from the video game Call of Duty, "Joe (COD character)" versus "Joe (Call of Duty character)". Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Last point, I wrote 99% of the article. All of the text was originally written by me alone. Not saying I own the article, but I have been deeply invested in it. tl;dr version: the distinction is unnecessary. EPs are albums. Only music enthusiasts are bothered enough to make the disambiguation. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you read the whole discussion? You didn't give a new idea about this, just reworded what Status said. There is an open discussion at ALBUM about this, and I will cite other users' comments: "Is it an LP or an EP? Irrespective of what any guideline says, WP:COMMONSENSE tells us not to disambiguate by something it is NOT" and "WP:MOSALBUM is correct, if the release is an EP, the disambiguation of (EP) should be used". Also in the discussion, multiple editors question why this album is catalogued as an EP. Del Rey saying it is an EP, which is unsourced and therefore a BLP violation, apparently is not enough. If you don't like that Wikipedia disambiguates by "(EP)", as Status, go and change the MOS, because you have never cited why this is an exception from all articles, as "WP:OTHERSTUFF" is an essay about deletion of articles, not a policy about RMs. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite and swift response. Frankly, whether the discussion is listed elsewhere is irrelevant and does not make my opinion or vote any less valid. No, I did not read Status' comment. I wanted to give my own comment before reading what anyone else wrote, so that it was not influenced by what anyone else had to say. As far as WP:OTHERSTUFF being an essay, I fail to see how that's relevant. Policy or some nutter's opinion is not important; simply, I think those words and that idea applies to this particular case, so I mentioned it. How is that harmful? Additionally, I do not care about the disambiguation policy for titles ending in (EP), as the discussion is about whether this article should include it, and I do not think it should; furthermore, I have no desire to debate whether it is wrong to use it on all articles. I only think it's unnecessary to label it for this article. I am fully aware of how you feel about that, and I disagree with your position. Good day. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Further, there are multiple sources that claim the album as an EP. Billboard being one (1) and the official PR by Interscope also does (2). I'm sure there are many more in the article, but those were the first two I noticed right off the bat. And I will reiterate my point: an EP is an album. Simple. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Good night, in fact. First of all, I would recommend you to read what Status said and find the similarities in your views. Secondly, "WP:OTHERSTUFF being an essay, I fail to see how that's relevant", it is supposed to be known by editors that essays are extension of opinions of ideas, they are just vox populi not rules. In some circumstances, they are used as if they were policies and guidelines, which is wrong--'ve found established users that don't like to be warned citing WP:Don't template the regulars, but being established is not a justification to edit-war or what the warn is about.
Any essay begins with the note: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." In this case you cited a subsection of the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, first of all irrelevant to the discussion, as this is not up to deletion, but assuming I am a deletionist in this case, I would be the "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. – EmpressOtherstuff". The section begins with "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist", my main/best argument is not "If EP x is in x, why this EP is in y?". My nomination doesn't apply to the essay because I am citing a) the incredibly large quantity of articles that have this disambiguation style, b) the WP:NCM page, which unlike Status tried to argue, is not a rule to disambiguate articles as "album" exclusively but just a guide to example the way they are disambiguated--if not TLC (group) should be in TLC (band) and they are not a band--c) WP:MOSALBUM, which explains better what NCM says, d) the reversal of an undiscussed move performed by Status in the first place, e) the fact that I am searching for consensus at ALBUM to clarify what the guide currently says, just because of this specific album, f) the fact that articles should be consistent in the way they are titled (in this case disambiguated), just like the way they have to have consistency in their content, g) the fact that I am still waiting why Del Rey album is an "occasional exception" as required by any guideline. Those are some arguments I could remember while I was writing this.
Third, at the moment you say "does not make my opinion or vote any less valid" you can't say "Policy or some nutter's opinion is not important", first because this is not a poll, and second because you can't make others' opinions less valid than yours, ironically. If you "do not care about the disambiguation policy for titles ending in (EP)", you shouldn't care about the dab style for this page, regardless how much time you've invested in the page, it is just a label, just a form of disambiguation, if the RM were about to move the page to Born to Die (Paradise edition) you would have a point about being concerned with the dab style, but it is not the case. Titling "EP" is "jargony and an abbreviation", but "US, UK, R&B" and many others abbreviations are used throughout and there is no problem at all--even this article uses "EP" elsewhere and not "extended play".
As I asked to Status, I'll ask you the same, you have to find a better rationale to oppose rather than personal views on the topic, as Wikipedia is constructed with consensus, and personal views are not helpful in most circumstances. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to reiterate your point, but I am still of the same opinion I was originally. True, this is not a "poll", but we are looking for consensus about whether this should be moved. I see that you are adamant about lawyering the proposed move, and I understand that this would be ideal to establish congruency among articles of this type wiki-wide. However, I do not believe, as I have stated above that this article in particular needs to "abide by the rules", which can be overridden at any point if consensus permits -- which it seems to be doing in this situation. EDIT: Additionally, while I am fully aware that the WP:OTHERSTUFF essay is written about deletion candidates, I believe the overarching spirit of the essay rings true for the situation of this article's titling, that being: just because other articles have the word (EP) as a disambiguator, doesn't mean its right or desirable for this article. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to change your point of view, as you may have thought about this ("And I will reiterate my point: an EP is an album. Simple."). What I've learn in RMs is that in some occasions, it doesn't matter how many users oppose a RM, a page can still be moved despite the majority decision, again this is not a poll. In the first place, and I thought I explained this well, my argument is not that "EPs are not albums, EPs are not singles, EPs are EPs, and as we have over 1,000 pages with this kind of disambiguation, therefore it should be dabbed with EP", no, it is not, but you should perfectly know there is a MoS, and if the MoS states that the MoS "should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance", you can't simple "oppose" what the manual says, what the community decided, and what in some occasions the ArbCom decided, without citing "occasional exceptions" this guide refers, AKA WP:IAR. Neither you or Status have said why Del Rey EP is an exception of the MoS, and you have never denied you have an issue with the page being labeled as "EP" for personal reasons. Yes, an EP is an album, but The Fame Monster is also an EP, and multiple anons decided it to change it to studio album, which is the reason why it was indef protected. If the EP qualifies as a studio album by its own, but it is too short to be clasified as a studio album, it is not up to us, that's not our problem. If you can't cite why this is an exception of what the MoS says, and why this undiscussed move is correct and should not be reversed, this discussion has no sense to continue as it is going in circles. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:23, 12 August 2013 (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.

Requested move 2

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: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Paradise (Lana Del Rey album) → Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP) – It is classed as an EP, not an album. It even says so on the article Hadji87 (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)<

  • In the United Kingdom, the Official Chart Company defines a boundary between EP and album classification at 25 minutes of length or four tracks (not counting alternative versions of featured songs, if present) [1]. A 12-inch 45 has 10-12 min of playing time per side, and a 7-inch 4-5 min. walk victor falk talk 15:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Then support per user:victor falk reply above/below: In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (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.

Proposed merge with Born to Die: The Paradise Edition

Stale. SSTflyer 09:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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

The EP of new songs is one part of the re-release offering. Both topics can easily, and should, be covered in one article, as is currently done with the articles for similar albums The Fame Monster and Animal + Cannibal. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose Merge The Paradise Edition into Paradise EP The EP contains original tracks and appeared on several charts. Besides, the two releases charted separately on a few charts (according to Australian Hung Medien, Paradise peaked at number 19, while the reissue charted at number 17). Therefore, Paradise should be a stand-alone article. The Paradise Edition of Born to Die is just a compilation of the two releases. Simon (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The EP's new tracks are a part of the expanded album and we can include more than one chart table. I agree that the Paradise Edition is just a compilation. With little to no indication of its own individual importance, it is best merged with a discussion of its new material. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
If so, I think the better opinion is to merge the Paradise Edition into Paradise EP. Simon (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a particular preference as to which article gets merged into which, hence why I used the {{merge}} tag on both articles (as opposed to {{merge to}} and {{merge from}}). However, it might be most helpful to have the main article be the Paradise Edition article, since the Paradise EP is included in that and a major part of it, whereas the EP was released individually from the expanded set. Interested to see what others might think. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, your explanation seems legitimate, but I stand my ground that the Paradise Edition should be merged into Paradise EP (just like Versus EP and Cannibal EP). Simon (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This album was released independently and garnered a Grammy nomination. It was released with The Paradise Edition, but the EP was a standalone affair with a different tracklist. The merge would not be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.19.220 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But put it with Born To Die because it is Born To Die: The Paradise Edition. | Graffiti Heart 11:05, 09 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. 70.215.71.77 (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge basically duplicate content. Needs to be merged. Karst (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paradise_(Lana_Del_Rey_EP)/Archive_1&oldid=1090398087"