Talk:Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)

New Certification

Paparazzi was certified Gold in Germany. Source: http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/ Type "Lady GaGa Paparazzi" in to the box, and it shows up. --It's Flo (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Chord progression is incorrect

EDIT: The chord progression is now totally bizarre. Fix please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.132.156 (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The chord progression currently in the article (Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Db) is both incomplete (it doesn't include the verse), and incorrect. As written, it most resembles the chord progression of the chorus, which is actually a progression of 4 chords that repeats 4x. The actual 4 chords in the chorus are:

Ab-Eb-Fm-Db

This relative progression qualifies as the "Sensitive Female Chord Progression", following vi-IV-I-V, but offset by two chords: I-V-vi-IV. See http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/12/31/striking_a_chord/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Female_Chord_Progression.

Chorus lyrics with the chord changes at their proper positions:

Ab                        Eb                   Fm            Db
I'm your biggest fan I'll follow you until you love me, Papa-paparazzi

Ab                    Eb                      Fm                Db
Baby there's no other superstar you know that i'll be your Papa-paparazzi.

Ab              Eb                       Fm              Db
Promise i'll be kind, but i won't stop until that boy is mine.

Ab                    Eb                       Fm            Db
Baby you'll be famous chase you down until you love me, Papa-paparazzi

The verse chord progression is as follows:

Verse1: Cm - Ab - Cm

Cm
We are the crowd, we're c-coming out. Got my flash on it's true, need that picture of you

        Ab                     Cm
It's so magical, We'd be so fantastical

Verse2: Cm - Ab - Fm

Cm
Leather and jeans, garage glamorous, Not sure what it means, but this photo of us

         Ab                            Fm
It don't have a price, ready for those flashing lights, 'Cause you know that baby I...

The entire bridge is in the song key of Cm, so there is technically no progression, just that one chord. --Novox77 (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but source used states otherwise. Wikipedia goes for verifiabililty, rather than the truth. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have hoped that a nudge to the truth would have triggered some more research on the veracity of the original source, which is clearly incorrect. Here I present three independent sources which corroborate the truth. I'm not sure what kind of source qualifies as a verifiable source, but here they are nevertheless.

http://garyewer.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/song-analysis-lady-gagas-paparazzi/

http://songwriters123.com/blog/2009/11/popular-chord-progression-examples/

http://www.megachords.com/piano/music/133826/paparazzi.htm

I would also hope that wikipedia ultimately wants to present truth, and that the condition of that truth is that it can be verified. As you described it, it sounded like wiki's position was to accept any verifiable source, regardless of its correctness. Novox77 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed you are right my friend. As long as an extremely reliable source reports it, WP will add it even if it says that Jesus was born in Phillipines. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Semi-Protected

{{editsemiprotected}} In the release history section:

Add that it was released in Germany on September 11, 2009 Source 1 Source 2

Add that it was released in France on Decmeber 7, 2009 Source 1 Source 2

TSWABH (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It was already  Done. --Mikemoral♪♫ 01:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

In the Music Video section, both the last and second to last paragraphs mention that "Telephone" picks up where "Paparazzi" left off. Different wording, but both making the exact same point. I'd suggest removing the first instance (and would have done myself, if there weren't references attached to both instances). JaffaCakeLover (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz dress?

She performed this song in a The Wizard of Oz dress? Where is the reference for this? I thought it was more a Thierry Mugler-esque origami dress. :S Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Chord Progression... Again

What the... Hell is this:

"Cm–A♭–C–N–C"

Since when do we have an "N-chord", or even a note? Please, someone fix this, this is absolutely ridiculous and incorrect, shouldn't take place at Wikipedia, let alone in the case of such a major song/artist/article. Thanks. My.life.is.muzik... (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Paparazzi+The+Remixes+Part+Deux+-+Lady+GaGa.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Paparazzi+The+Remixes+Part+Deux+-+Lady+GaGa.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PaparazziRemixes1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PaparazziRemixes1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Paparazzi No.1 on Billboard Radio Songs

Paparazzi was lady GaGa first song on the top of Billboard Radio Songs i think it was in late 2009,but if you don't believe me,go look at official billboard radio songs chart in 2009 and see,Please change that on charts section,Thank's :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.214.82 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:USCHARTS. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This is the second time I'm doing a Good Article Reassessment (GAR). I was linked from WP:GA to the articles "LoveGame" and "Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)" today and checked out their talk pages to see when they were promoted (Paparazzi was in March 2010). It wasn't the first time something that wasn't promoted to GA recently had its name featured on WP:GA; I also saw Brazil listed as a good article on WP:GA in April/May 2014, but it has not been a good article yet. This (Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)) is not a professionally written recent good article (GA), it's an 4.25-year old GA with poor quality English and questionable sourcing, which is why I created this GAR. Please note that I hate pop music, which is not why I'm doing this GAR.

Beside from that motive, here's other reasons for GAR:

1. Tone-wise, the article feels like an advertisement.
2. It's not in a neutral point of view and was possibly written by a fan.
3. Some of the references are dead links. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 08:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for starting the review prematurely, but I will pick out random issues from this article over time.

• "The song received acclaim from critics." How much acclaimed was this song?

• reworded Snuggums (talk • contributions) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• The whole "Background and composition" section is lacking in detail.
• "Rolling Stone called it the second greatest Gaga song ever." Replace "ever" with "of all time".

•  Done Snuggums (talk • contributions) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Copyedit this: "Further explanations said that the song was about trying to win the paparazzi and the media in one's favor."It's a love song for the cameras, but it's also a love song about fame or love – can you have both, or can you only have one", she concluded."
• There's too many uses of the words "said", "say", and "saying".
• "mini-movie" → "short film".
• Reword this: "With the song, Gaga joined Christina Aguilera, Beyoncé, and Fergie as the only women this decade to collect four Hot 100 top-tens from a debut album."
• See this page for links to be fixed.
  • All references need Wayback Machine.
• Rewrite the lead so it doesn't feel confusing.
• Merge single sentences into larger ones, especially if they consist of broken prose.

@Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever:, first me and XXSNUGGUMSXX will take a look at "LoveGame" then we will come back to this article. Is that ok? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 06:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you. It's okay to do that. :) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 09:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Don't forget to copyedit the article for faulty prose. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever:, is the Checklinks tool working for you? I spent the last two hours refreshing, but its not showing the links and neither can I change the dead ones. :( —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't working for me or anyone else either :(, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Toolserver shut down for more. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That discussion really made my head spin, I mean WTF!! And there's no alternative also. At the end of the discussion some of them said that Reflinks was working, but i don't think so? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Toolserver looks like it's stuck on "Loading..." to me, which means you must manually check all the references one-by-one to see if they're still working. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I lied. I confused Reflinks with Toolserver and the loading time is not indefinite. Reflinks still works for me, but you have to wait several minutes to see a Reflinks page. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah even I noticed that Reflinks is working, however, Checklinks is nada. If only you had initiated the review a few more days back...lol. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Like Reflinks, Checklinks still works, but wait several minutes to see a Checklinks page. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref 67 is dead, while refs 5, 50, 53 and 111 have connection issues. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected the references, those few remaining will be gone when the chart templates {{singlechart}} used. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been over a week and a half since the previous comment here was made. Had you copyedited this article yet? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It is going on but at a slow pace. You have to wait. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. I'm happy! =D }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 16:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that I will finish the GAR tonight. Sorry for delaying it for so long. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! =D }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 03:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever: do you feel anymore change is needed? I don't think so. Do you think the critical reception section could be filled up? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is in good shape now. =) Thank you for notifying me! =D }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 13:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Article kept. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have updated the article history. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)