Talk:Bad Romance: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:01, 11 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bad Romance article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 40 days

Bad Romance is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Bad Romance is part of the The Fame Monster series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 19, 2024.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 28, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
July 28, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
December 5, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
July 12, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
June 9, 2018	Good topic candidate	Promoted
July 30, 2022	Peer review	Reviewed
August 25, 2022	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lady Gaga High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Armadillo shoe was copied or moved into Bad Romance with this edit on August 2, 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Composition

—Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

FrB.TG Hey! I see that you're working on this article, which is very cool - good work! But I see also that you removed various things from "Release history" section. And when I'd agree of removal of eBay, then I don't get why you removed French and Italian radio impact dates - they were sourced by sites agreed to be reliable (Pure Charts, EarOne). From what I see, Fnac is not user-generated, but I might be wrong about it. infsai (talkie? UwU) 01:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Infsai. I rechecked Fnac; it seems you are right. The CD purchase was posted officially by Interscope so this should be restored. As for Pure Charts and EarOne, I didn't find any indication that the sources are high-quality reliable (which goes against the 1c FAC criterion). FrB.TG (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source I removed. Checking it again, it seems the CD is sold by a user called momox, making it a user-generated content. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Okay, so I'll start with something that I'm 100% sure that's true - EarOne is considered as a reliable source according to WP:SINGLE?. For Pure Charts, all I can say is the fact that many articles use it as a source for not only radio impact date (e.g. "Love Again (Dua Lipa song)") but sometimes as a primary single release source (e.g. "Free Woman" or "I'll Never Love Again"), so or all of those articles are wrong or I don't know. Thanks for replying and clearing info about that Fnac source! (And sorry if my grammar is bad right now, but I'm tired...) infsai (talkie? UwU) 23:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am convinced of EarOne's reliability. It's been mentioned in RTL 102.5, ReveNews and Radio Italia. As for Pure Charts, it being used in other articles doesn't justify its presence here. For starters, their website is not even secure and nothing I read about it truly convinces me of its reliability. FrB.TG (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay then. I guess it'll be a good time to bring Pure Charts for a discussion. But hence you removed it from the article, please change the release date back to October 23, since October 19 was a date that was "indicated" by Pure Charts. Thanks! infsai (talkie? UwU) 05:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We still have a source for the October 19 (#7) release. :) FrB.TG (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, interesting. infsai (talkie? UwU) 14:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image usage

I have removed File:Lady Gaga BR GMA.jpg from the "Critical reception" section. I had discussed this in the article's FAC and my rationale is an image of a live performance is not relevant to a section about reviews. An image used in this section should be related to the actual prose, and I do not see the connection. The image seems more decorative than informative in my opinion. I am pinging the editor who removed the image (@Sricsi: with this edit) as well as the FAC nominator (@FrB.TG:).

I do not see a clear rationale for Sricsi's edit, but I want to hear from them and give them the space to discuss this further. To answer their edit summary, there are plenty of song FAs from the past two or three decades that only use a single performance image. See articles like "Blank Space", "Shake It Off", "Dance in the Dark", etc. I am posting this on the talk page as I want to open a dialogue about this point rather than just remove and potentially cause further issues. Open communication and discussion is vital for Wikipedia and I want to make sure I do my part in keeping that up. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I agree with your rationale and am okay with the image removal from the section. FrB.TG (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I hope that I am not being too much of a pain by circling back to this point again. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: You cannot compare this article to "Dance in the Dark", which could not present more performance images even if we wanted to. It's a rather short article, and we don't even have any other good quality photos of Gaga singing that song. Of course there is one picture in use in an article, when there is no more than that available. "Bad Romance" is the singer's signature song, and therefore we have an abundance of images where the song is being performed. Obviously, I'm not suggesting to put all of them in the article, I was not even against to the reasoning to remove the other photo from the Live performances section, because one photo can be enough for that section. But we cannot put aside the aesthetics of the article. It's simply better to look at and easiser to read if we are not scrolling through long blocks of text without any visual supplements.

You mentioned some featured articles that only include one performance images, but what does that prove? I can mention featured articles that have more than one: Halo (Beyoncé song) has one in the Critical reception section, as well. Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) has three performance images in various sections.

And by this logic, should we start removing pictures of performances from other articles, and leaving only one? Do you find it equally preposterous that there is an image in the critical reception section of ArtRave: The Artpop Ball; that there is one in the Commercial performance section of Ray of Light; that someone put images in the critical and commercial responce sections of Like a Prayer (song)?

I would get your point if I had an agenda of overfoowing the article with an abundance of pictures where Gaga is performing "Bad Romance" (we have a crazy amount of images available from Wikimedia), but that's not my goal at all. Also: the article looked a certain way for over 10 years, went through so many edits, and everybody was okay with it. Then it was abruptly changed during the Featured article nomination process due to your suggestion, without bringing it to the Talk page then, and now it concerns you that we should have an open discussion? I am open for replacing the image to any other one that you think better fits the article, or rephrasing the caption that it better fits the section/article. But I can't accept that an article's featured status means that it has to be plain blocks of text. --Sricsi (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sricsi: I did have an open discussion about this image on the FAC page, and I am having an open discussion about it on this talk page. You went ahead and reverted my edit twice without waiting to have a discussion about it. I never suggested that there should only be one performance image in an article. I said that the image should coordinate with the section and again, a live performance image does not make sense in a section about reviews of the song. An image should not just be included in an article to be decorative as it should also be informative. The image in its current place is purely decorative (and that is something you even admit to you in your own argument). I would not be opposed to the "Live performances" section having a second image, but if there is going to be an image in the "Critical reception" section, it should relate to the information present in that section (which does not discuss her live performances at all). Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Having a discussion during an FA-nomination is not the same as bringing something to the Talk page. Why would me or any other editors keep checking discussions in a FAC page, other than the person who issued the nomination?

You mentioned articles that use one image only, but haven't answered if you have a problem with all the other articles I've just mentioned, which also present performance pictures in sections other than Live performances, or if this is the only article you are focused on?

Also, I rephrased the caption in the meantime. --Sricsi (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sricsi: I brought up the FAC because I had this discussion in a public space. FACs are open for all editors and not just the nominator as the whole point of the process is to have multiple editors provide feedback. I addressed this because it seemed like my intent was questioned and it was made to sound like I had just removed the image "abruptly" without any discussion or agreement with the other editors and that is not correct. I brought up articles with only one performance image as a response to your edit summary, which I have already linked and discussed above. I will leave the new caption up to @FrB.TG:. I still do not think the rationale is strong enough to include that image there, and I would have similar issues with other articles doing the same thing. I have even brought this up in a separate peer review for "La Isla Bonita". I will let other editors and consensus decide this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion or lack of such images in critical reception section of other articles is frankly irrelevant. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states that "[i]mages must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". And an image of Gaga simply performing is not particularly relevant anywhere other than live performances unless it had something to do with it. Instances I can think of where such images would fit in other sections would be a live performance impacting the song's sales. How about an image from her Super Bowl performance in "Chart performance" which helped the song reenter the Hot 100?

PS nobody said that the image should be removed because of the article's featured status; that bears no relevance in this discussion. FrB.TG (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I agree with the rationale for including a Super Bowl performance image in the "Chart performance" section. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, when I started out editing Wikipedia, I used to add so much images to articles. Now I completely agree with Aoba and FrB that fluffing up sections of articles with random images has absolutely no context and reasoning whatsoever. I would even advise Sricsi to do the same in all the other Gaga articles. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly what does this edit really add to the article in that section? Just because its been there for 10+ years doesn't mean its relevant. I am agreeing to the consensus of removing this, and maybe if we have an image of "Bad Romance" from the Super Bowl, we can add to the Chart performance section. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a good quality image of Gaga singing BR at the Super Bowl I would agree with that, but you do know all we have is one subpar image: [1]

Frankly, an article with featured status should not include a photo with such poor quality. I would then suggest we add a second image to the Live performances section. The previous photo was removed due to WP:SANDWICH, but we have a wide array of photos to choose from that would better fit the outlook of the text. --Sricsi (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Wikimedia: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 --Sricsi (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Live performances' section is big and wide enough to accommodate two different images. Why not add the second image there? :) I also think we have more recent images of Gaga performing this song (Joanne and Chromatica tours) that could be more appropriate, instead of images from 10+ years ago --Christian (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is doable, what do you guys think @Aoba47 and @FrB.TG? Maybe add the BR performance from Chromatica Ball and note that how she used the track as an opening performance rather than a closer, which was noted in sources as Gaga having so many hits that she can perform her top-three songs at the start itself. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the Chromatica image. FrB.TG (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the ping. I will respect the consensus from this discussion. I am not entirely convinced by this argument if I am being completely honest, but I will again respect the choices decided upon through consensus. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the image for BR from Chromatica Ball was added without any commentary, that is not what our consensus was! Sigh —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems amazing, I agree with IB. By the way, the image from the Chromatica Ball is beautiful and has good quality. GagaNutella^talk 11:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]