Jump to content

Talk:Bad Romance: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 107: Line 107:
::The reference is valid if you cite the physical magazine properly. [[Special:Contributions/190.234.156.54|190.234.156.54]] ([[User talk:190.234.156.54|talk]]) 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
::The reference is valid if you cite the physical magazine properly. [[Special:Contributions/190.234.156.54|190.234.156.54]] ([[User talk:190.234.156.54|talk]]) 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
:::And that's a problem because google still hasn't archived the magazines from 2009 yet. <font color="blue">[[User:Legolas2186|--''Legolas'']]</font> [[User talk:Legolas2186|<sup>(<font color="red">talk</font><font color="green">2</font><font color="orange">me</font>)</sup>]] 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
:::And that's a problem because google still hasn't archived the magazines from 2009 yet. <font color="blue">[[User:Legolas2186|--''Legolas'']]</font> [[User talk:Legolas2186|<sup>(<font color="red">talk</font><font color="green">2</font><font color="orange">me</font>)</sup>]] 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
::::It dosen't need to be online to be reliable, if someone have the physical copy of the magazine is like having a copy of a newspaper, not every company publish every single issue, that dosen't make them less valid. [[Special:Contributions/190.233.223.94|190.233.223.94]] ([[User talk:190.233.223.94|talk]]) 15:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:10, 19 November 2009

WikiProject iconSongs Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

New York not a single

Just want to let you know that I think she actually does have a single called New York, as on Saturday Night Live, you hear her say brief things about New York not in Bad Romance? Just sayin Slrkn54 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is from New York, she's just talking about growing up there. ---Shadow (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Fans Opinions

i was wondering, i have read on alot of fans blogs that fans think that the demo was better than the final version. should we include this as a fact about the song. http://www.jonnyalisblog.com/2009/10/lady-gaga-bad-romance-official-download.html --Apeaboutsims (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but fansites are not allowed in Wikipedia because they are not reliable and not professional to opine about the music. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

I know its in the actually charts section but there should e something about the Irish singles chart in chart performance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.21.123 (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently #20. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 12:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Shouldn't it be noted that some of the reviews were based on the demo version and not the final one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.30.39 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Bad Romance

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bad Romance's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dutch":

  • From Just Dance: "Dutch Top 40". MegaCharts. acharts.us. Retrieved 2009-04-28.
  • From LoveGame: "Dutch Top 40". MegaCharts. acharts.us. June 20, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-20.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This time its FAIL anomiebot! :) --Legolas (talk2me) 06:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indroduction to the article.

Currently, the intro is

""Bad Romance" is a song by American pop singer, Lady Gaga. It is the first single of The Fame Monster, which is the re-released deluxe edition of her debut album The Fame. The track was produced by RedOne."

I personally think that it is necessary to separate The Fame from The Fame Monster, as The Fame Monster has 8 extra tracks, therefore it is a deluxe re-released edition. If you look at The Fame, you will see that in the Singles released section that it has "Bad Romance" under the heading "The Fame Monster singles" (or similar). So they are different albums. I don't want someone to go out and buy The Fame and expect "Bad Romance" to be on it. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Snippet and new single covers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fe6uHHhLok

Alejandro and Dance In The Dark single covers: http://ego.globo.com/Gente/foto/0,,32879573-EXH,00.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.96.81.144 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the section about the music video says it takes place in "what looks like a psychiatric hospital." That is incorrect. In numerous interviews Lady Gaga has stated that it takes place in a Russian bathhouse. She has also stated that the plot of the video is she is getting sold into sex slavery. DisposableMonster (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the interview please? --Legolas (talk2me) 05:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the music video for Bad Romance was set to be debuted on the Lady Gaga website on Monday 9th November, after many posts on the discussion board from fans - the pop-up window advertising the videos release date was changed to say Tuesday. does anyone know why this was pushed back? static_silence —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

http://gagadaily.com/2009/10/new-lady-gaga-radio-interviews/ she explained it in a radio interview with the Morning Zoo show on 97.1 ZHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpocket69 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid we don't accept fansites as source. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Music video is out and there's still no information on it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.182.156 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sha also said in an interview to MTV (http://www.lady-gaga.net/2009/11/09/lady-gaga-says-bad-romance-video-is-about-tough-female-spirit/#more-4397) that the models were forcing her to drink vodka before being sold to the russian mafia.Arthurvv19 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Edit in the Music Video part

Only Lady GaGa's white egg pod has the word monster in it Linmonsteelix (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Reviews?

Folks, mixed reviews means some critics didn't like the song, and some did. The only evidence of a negative critical opinion here is that one critic said it was similar to Poker Face. The rest is all positive. This article shouldn't say the song received mixed reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.242.82 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bear is fake

She is not wearing a hide, it is fake and was part of designer Benjamin Cho's Spring 2004 runway show designed in collaboration with the Humane Society. Link to a reference, if needed http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2009/11/11/star-style-get-the-look-from-lady-gagas-bad-romance-video/ ElenaMB (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Semi Protected

{{Editsemiprotected}}

TWO THINGS NEED TO BE CORRECTED/ADDED IN THE RELEASE HISTORY SECTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE:

A. Change the Digital Download release date of the United Kingdom from October 26 to October 25 - SOURCE

B.Add that it premiered on October 19, 2009 to U.S. radio - SOURCE


86.96.229.88 (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the fact that the above link to amazon says 27 Oct 2009!. It was 26 on iTunes, iTunes says so here :http://itunes.apple.com/uk/album/bad-romance/id336388428 and yes that is a UK link even when it says in $. The other link http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=336771537&s=143444 verifies that but you would require itunes installed to check it. SunCreator (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to an official press release by gaga's label Ocotber 25 is the official release date for the UK digital download........i cant find a link for the press release, will show it as soon as i find it....anyway, here is proof that October 25 is the correct date for the UK : Proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.86 (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your correct about that, it was expected on Ocotber 25, and if you have a source and want to say that, fine, but it was not available to buy on iTunes until 26. That's why it says 26 on iTunes in the release date column. SunCreator (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, its known that in recent months that the release dates that iTunes put are not correct.....everyone knows that......and by the way.....no, you cant review anything on iTunes before its released........yes, you can review it even if u dont purchase it, but there is no way you can review something on iTunes before its made avialabe for purchase........so, one of the reviews on iTunes is dated October 24, meaning it was avialbe for purchase starting from Oct 24......anyway...thats another story...

Yeah, sometimes they appear incorrect because for example the album release is prior to the single release date. SunCreator (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil Hot 100

Brazil has official charts complied by Billboard [1]. I just guess Bad Romance didn't charted yet on the official one. --PlatinumFire 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, no stable archiving for these charts exist, and their frequency is not clear. These will undoubtedly become valid, but it is best to wait before adding links to these charts. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is valid if you cite the physical magazine properly. 190.234.156.54 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's a problem because google still hasn't archived the magazines from 2009 yet. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It dosen't need to be online to be reliable, if someone have the physical copy of the magazine is like having a copy of a newspaper, not every company publish every single issue, that dosen't make them less valid. 190.233.223.94 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]