Talk:Chromatica

Section about leaks

Shouldn't be there a section about leaks? Well, I know that from whole album only two songs leaked, however maybe it should be mentioned somewhere in article? infsai (dyskusja) 21:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, per WP:LEAK it should only be included if its relevant and received coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/9388303/lady-gaga-chromatica-ariana-grande-interview
• https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/pl.8a0d43ae41f14c1d88367fcc9b34b7ec?app=music&ls=1&at=1001ltS&ct=pla_gaga_chromaticaint_30less&itscg=80009&itsct=pla_gaga_chromaticaint_30less

--Sricsi (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Genres + general editing

This article is mess and in need of severe copyedit. There are very large quotes. Genres are quote for individual songs as being for the whole album and there is the repeated addition and removal of fan language.

Can we be mindful that a genre should be explicit stated not vague comments like "electropop heaven". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Target edition credits

So I know this doesn't count as an official source, but for those curious I did purchase the Target edition and while there are no credits in the album booklet, the metadata that is revealed when you rip the CD states that the writers of "Love Me Right" are Lady Gaga and BloodPop, with "1000 Doves (Piano Demo)" having the same writers as the main version.Gagaluv1 (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remove Unnecessary info

"Billboard's Keith Caulfield noted that 75% of the total units came from album sales, which were bolstered by "dozens of merchandise/album bundles sold via her official webstore, and a concert ticket/album sale offer with her three upcoming U.S. stadium shows scheduled for August"." This only adds unnecessary info to the page. Should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeaanthony (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, it adds context @Lukeaanthony:. Billboard is one of the industry's most notable publications. If the information is available it should be used. There is no shame in this. I don't know why fans get overzealous... no one is saying anything negative about the album. However, 75% of unites shifted being sales is significant as it is unusual in these the current day and age where most releases are powered by streaming. These comments are therefore very relevant. Please stop trying to be censor the facts. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree with Lil-unique for this instance, the article definitely needs to be cut and some information removed. It's getting hard to navigate. Especially, the 'Songs' section. Plus is filled with quotations that need to be reduced as well. — Tom^(T2ME) 22:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Tom. The music section is starting to get unwieldy with lots of small snippets cobbled together. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

https://ew.com/music/lady-gaga-chromatica-behind-the-scenes/ This source could majorly improve this article. 84.2.20.99 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Interludes

• https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/lady-gaga-morgan-kibby-m83-chromatica-1013139/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Spotify? / Music and lyrics

There is an "enhanced" version of the album available on Spotify which includes Gaga's explanation and notes on each song. I was wondering if we could use that as a source. I don't really see Spotify used as a source, but it includes additional information not available elsewhere that could improve the article. I don't think this version would disappear from Spotify later on, so if somebody has access to the service they can easily check it out. --Sricsi (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Music and lyrics section of the article is kind of messy right now and perhaps this could also help in rewriting it. --Sricsi (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

These are often Spotify exclusives but I don't see why they can't be used as sources. They should be available on the free version too, just worth trying to link to the individual track pages. Might be worth re-writing the whole Music and Lyrics section and focusing on the most significant things rather than every genre influence. Songs like "Alice" also charted independently and received a lot of coverage that may warrant a separate page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Lil-unique1, yes, it includes too many genre listings and makes it uneasy to read. I'm just not sure how to begin with removing stuff from there :). I also thought that "Alice" and "911" have enough information and chart appearances that could warrant their seperate articles, but since they are only covered by sources that are discussing the album as a whole, I'm not sure they would not get deleted. --Sricsi (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"911": single?

There is no confirmation by Gaga or her label that "911" is released as the next single. Currently we only know that she made a video for the song. That does not automatically mean that it's a single. Vulture, the only reliable source saying it is, does not back up their statement, it's the same kind of speculation that editors here keep doing. "John Wayne" is a good example from the past - the music video was released, and then editors here kept adding/reverting that it's a single. As it turned out, it isn't. "911" might end up being the new single, but I don't see this backed up by anything so far. Thoughts? --Sricsi (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Only??? The Official Charts Company names 911 a single. The link has been given below. BawinV (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because there isn't a confirmation from the label or the artist doesn't mean it's not a single. There are many sources calling it a single. The Official Charts Company called it a single, which is more than enough. (https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/lady-gaga-confirms-911-as-the-next-single-from-her-chromatica-album__31012/) BawinV (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Lady Gaga has confirmed the next single from her Chromatica album as 911, revealing she has filmed a music video for the track." - that's what they are writing there. They are basically misquoting her, as she never said it's the next single. They based their assumption on the fact that she is releasing a music video. --Sricsi (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. YOU are misinterpreting it. You cannot say a reliable source is "misquoting" someone. lol. it's literally the Official Charts of UK. it doesn't matter if Gaga acknowledges its status as single. if that was the case, half of Wikipedia's "single" articles wouldn't be singles... BawinV (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There are TWO STRONG sources from reliable publications to support 911's status as a single. There is literally no dispute here. Not listing it a single is a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines. BawinV (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason I don't agree with this, is because like I wrote, the exact same thing happened before with Gaga's track, "John Wayne". And it was indeed not a single, in the end. But radios in France are now started to play the song, so it should be enough confirmation. (http://www.chartsinfrance.net/Lady-GaGa/news-115138.html) --Sricsi (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, "played at radio" isn't the criteria for a single. That's outdated. We are in 2020. What's a single and what's not a single has no standard criteria. What matters is that we get confirmation from reliable publications. BawinV (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@BawinV: I would suggest adding those sources on the page for "911" itself, unless someone misses the discussion here and decides to remove it. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: Yes, I added the sources to the song's article. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Since when is radio release not a major criteria in determining what's a single and what's not? You should know better as "Betty" and "Exile" are only called singles because of their airplay releases. I think it's worth a discussion whether it's a single or not without an airplay release. For now there are multiple relevant sources calling it a single so I guess we can call it that, but a radio release would seal the deal. Kirtap92 (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A "radio release" and "radio airplay" is not the same thing. The other user tried to suggest that it is a single because radios in France started playing it, but this is different from an official radio release. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 11:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I was hopeful, but now I'm afraid that it really isn't a single. Gaga's team didn't say anything, it doesn’t have a cover, the song wasn't released on iTunes to buy separately and it wasn't added to any great playlist on Spotify. Let's wait, I hope I'm wrong about it. GagaNutella^talk 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

None of these mean that a song is a single. Once again, let’s point to Taylor Swift. Look at Exile (Taylor Swift song). Taylor's team didn’t say anything about it being a single, the song doesn’t have a cover, nor was it released separately on streaming services, and Spotify playlists don’t matter. What needs to happen is we need confirmation from more WP:RELIABLE, whether that means primary sources (confirmed by Gaga or her team) or secondary sources (confirmed by AllAccess or Billboard or another reliable source). Doggy54321 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Diana Ross sample in "Replay"

Chromatica's 12th song, "Replay", may feature a sample from Diana Ross' song "It's My House", taken from her 1979 album, The Boss. This is shown in this Twitter video. Another piece of evidence to confirm this is the fact that "It's My House"'s 2 writers, Nickolas Ashford and Valerie Simpson, are also credited as writers on "Replay" on Spotify. However, I'm still not sure if this can be fully confirmed and added to this article, as I haven't seen any reliable sources that have reviewed Chromatica point this out, while the deluxe Chromatica CD booklet doesn't credit Ashford and Simpson.

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chromatica. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: User:VersaceSpace talk · 16:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Criteria:

1. Well written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
   3. it contains no original research; and
   4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review:

Infobox and lead

• should mention Ariana Grande's involvement in "Rain On Me" (second paragraph)

Background

• "lukewarm" should be changed to "mixed" (first paragraph)
• "celebrity" should be changed to "fame" (third paragraph)

Recording

• "Blamed" is a loaded word, use a different word which means the same without having the same weight such as "said" (first paragraph)
• Did Sophie's early demos not make the cut or did none of them make the cut at all? (second paragraph)

Title and artwork

Good

Music and lyrics

Good

Release

Good

Promotion

• "The singer's manager" should be "Gaga's manager" (first paragraph)
• "Lindsay Zoladz from The New York Times" should be "Lindsay Zoladz of The New York Times" (live performances and tour)
• "Commercially it had a number five peak position both in the US and the UK." should be "Commercially, it peaked at number five in both the US and the UK. (singles)
• "It debuted at number one both in the US and the UK." should be "It debuted at number one in both the US and the UK." (singles)

Critical reception

• "harshest" should be "critical" or any synonym of critical to avoid repetitiveness (third paragraph)
• Glamour is a non notable publication so it should not be listed in the year end list.
• "Chromatica was well received by music critics." should be "Chromatica received generally positive reviews from critics".

Commercial performance

Appears to be good

Track listing

Good

Personnel

Good

Charts

Good

Certs and sales

Good

Release and history

Good

Refs

These appear to be good but there are a lot of references so there is a chance I missed something. versacespace (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Verdict

I'm putting this article On hold until you fix the one item I listed on the reception section. Thank you for your patience. versacespace (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace:, thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 20:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

DAP389, if you've addressed all concerns then I do believe you've passed! Is there anything else I need to do? This is my first review. versacespacetalk to me 07:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

VersaceSpace, in the talk page, the {{GA nominee}} must be replaced with another template. There are more instructions here for those not fully acclimated to the process. If you need more help, please feel free to let me know and I can ping a more experienced reviewer to complete the passing. Again, thank you for taking the time to review the article! DAP 💅 15:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

VersaceSpace and DAP389, I am commenting due to being an experienced reviewer and currently in the midst of reviewing Hot Pink (album) for the former of you two. You can see talk pages of recently passed GAs by me such as this one to view the article history template that can be added to pass a GA, or ones like this to see how to pass one without adding article history. Best of wishes; I just thought it would be good to show both sides for how to pass! --K. Peake 08:51, 21 February 2021 (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.

911

This article contradicts what's written in the 911 (Lady Gaga song) article. Here it is stated that "it was released as the third official single in Italy on September 25, 2020", while the article of the song does not say that it was an Italy-only single. --5.38.178.93 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2021

There is no information about the music videos, besides the release dates and the names of the directors. All three music videos should have at least one sentence describing them. --5.38.178.93 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC) 5.38.178.93 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please write the exact text you would like added/changed, along with reliable sources, then re-enable the edit request. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Collapse year-end lists?

Should we collapse the year-end lists? We collapse the tour dates and that's much shorter... In my opinion, the year-end lists are worth mentioning but also not super important to readers even though the table has a lot of real estate. I suggest collapsing but want to ask if other editors agree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing should ever be default by collapsed per MOS:COLLAPSE. It is not web accessible. Saving "space" doesn't apply in the digital era. Where I see your dates collapsed I uncollapse them or argue they should be moved to their own article about the tour. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)