Talk:Born This Way (album)

Born This Way Cover Art

it's out: http://twitpic.com/4lelv6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.164.201 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Added. ℥^nding·start 05:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, there is debate as to whether this is the final cover art. Internet speculation about the Judas events (Judas betraying Jesus 4 days before Easter, and Judas being leaked 4 days before Easter) are leading people to think that this could be a performance art, and the real cover art will be released on Tuesday as a sort of "resurrection". There is a big debate over this but the cover does not actually say "Lady Gaga" on it which goes against her other album covers. Food for thought. - ηyχαμς 08:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that I have read that somebody (I think it was from the Haus of GaGa) said that this wasn't for the album and that it was for leaking Judas. I can't find anything above that, but keep your eyes peeled for anything. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that it is fake as the twitpic of the booklet (http://twitpic.com/4lpho5) looks like she wrapped the picture around another booklet. Does anyone see this as well?

I don't know/care, but that cover is horrible, honestly. Flop this way after all? I hope yuo're right about the Easter/3-day thing, though...

Per BOLD and USERG, I have removed the image. Since when do we allow Twitter / TwitPic to pass as reliable sources? It would seem prudent to wait for an official release to Amazon.com or other retail site before posting a cover image. We're here to be right, not to be "first". Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 04:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The cover is on the page now, but I just wanted to say to Strikerforce, Twitter and TwitPic are reliable sources if Gaga herself posted it. Squidoh (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way Special Edition Cover Art Released

http://twitpic.com/4lwzk9 Lady Gaga released the special edition cover art for Born This Way - anyone wanna add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidoh (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

1) It's way too low resolution to use at the moment. 2) It's not substantially different from the main cover (or another cover entirely, like TFM), and as such adding it would be redundant and irrelevant. Besides, it doesn't compare to the standard cover anyway, IMO (yes, I'm one of the few who loves the Gagacycle). The Mach Turtle (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We have it now in a good resolution, and the Special Edition tracklist has been released, we have to include it now. --StephenG (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The special edition cover art has now been taken off the page... why? There is a section in the "Artwork" section that describes the special edition cover. It make no sense not to include it in the article. I suggest that we add it back in.

Reece Leonard (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reece Leonard

The Special Edition cover has been confirmed and is available for pre-order on some websites like Amazon. Lady Gaga released the image on Twitter. I agree, it is in the article, it makes no sense to not show the cover. Mi.bryson (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)--Mi.bryson (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no drastic difference between the content of the standard cover and the special cover, because the special cover is just a zoom in on one aspect of the standard cover. Therefore, according to Wikipedia policy, we are not allowed to include the secondary version because it is too similar to the primary version.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New song confirmed in NME? "Bloody Mary"

http://ladygaganow.net/?p=4972 http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljwy745PlV1qaq0nso1_500.jpg http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljwo7zuXIN1qzhm51o1_500.jpg http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljx3gfsWYh1qzhm51o1_500.png

I know Tumblr images aren't very reliable, but you guys should look into this. Thanks! 99.100.211.13 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Perez Hilton, who is also not a very reliable source, has done a transcript of some part of the interview, which also mentions Bloody Mary. 1. 189.31.40.117 (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Article also mentions "Highway Unicorn (Road To Love)" as simply just "Road To Love", you might want to look into this too, personally i'd go with Road To Love, as it was in the interview, whereas the tweet with the lyrics in, makes no actual arrowhead as to what the title of the song is called? both are from the horses mouth, but only one makes a direct note as to the title. 88.104.166.100 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Confrimation here too: http://gagavision.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.147.135 (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bloody Mary is quite subtle actually, it's a song about Mary being divine and human at the same time, with a subtext (maybe it's not even a subtext) about the role of a woman who is supposed to be a superstar and a real woman at the same time. Not life alteringly deep perhaps but it works as a pop song." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.252.18 (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the magazine volume no. for the NME inetrview? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

http://gaga-monsters.com/photos/displayimage.php?pid=2641&fullsize=1 There you go, that's were I found it, Legolas. I couldn't find the next page though, but the name of the song is right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.252.18 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You and I

I think we should have an article on You and I. Since many legendary people (Brian May, Robert Lange) are contributing in it! And the fact that she has sung the song so many times live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.28.254 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You might wanna go through Wikipedia's policy on Notability of subject matter. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty notable. I think I'm gonna start a sandbox on it. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 08:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's better than creating a crap article and making a nuisance out of it. And its still not notable. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I help when i can, can you please atleast link the sandbox article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.34.111 (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC) She plays it on every Monster ball, she played it on the Today show, she played it on Oprah, Brain May is featured, Robert Lange is producing it, and millions of people can see her playing this song almost everyday, and you're saying that it's not notable enough? Come ON! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.50.30 (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:N before yapping. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should actually check out the first rule of this page. To be polite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.50.30 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Little Tidbit of information needs citation

"The album's third single will be released after the album's release and Gaga has stated she wants fans to choose the third single. However, Gaga herself would like to see the next single to be 'Marry the Night.'"

Is there any confirmation of this? 70.131.151.38 (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't do references because I suck, but I believe the information comes from this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQO3V99KydE. ɧαεςαתɖɾσϻᴇ 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haecandrome (talk • contribs)

New song titles

Apparently, Popjustice confirmed a new song title via Twitter: "Electric Chapel". And Gaga herself is said to have confirmed another one during an interview for French radio: "Heavy Metal Lovers".

http://www.ckoi.com/montreal/audioplayer-emission.php?mp3=99016 3:30 confirmed "Heavy Metal Lover." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.40.226 (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Track Listing

Here is the Born This Way track listing http://gagaglobal.org/2011/04/27/born-this-way-tracklist/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.41.13 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We need confirmation from a reliable source. Yves (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yves, don't add them yet, we need reliable sources. Now, in my personal opinion, this looks real. The album is supposed to have 14 tracks, and 12 titles have already been revealed (Born This Way, Americano, Edge of Glory, Judas, Scheisse, Bloody Mary, Road To Love, Marry The Night, You & I, Bad Kids, Hair and Government Hooker). We have 2 titles yet to be released. In Gagavision number 44, while an unknown track of the album was playing (it was mentioned in the video), she left a note that said "Electric Chapel"; I, along with a lot of fans as shown in the comments believe that's a new track (Electric Chapel even was a trending topic on Twitter). Then, she revealed to a French radio station a song called "Heavy Metal Lovers". Coincidence? Food for thought. That's all the help I can give right now. Cheers, --190.43.179.176 (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

According to her Twitter the track listing will be out "shortly". I say we just wait. I agree that it does seem to look like the real deal, but we need a reliable source, as Yves said. ℥^nding·start 10:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Marry The Night, Third Single

Lady Gaga confirmed via a radio interview with Virgin Radio that ‘Marry The Night’ would in fact be the third single from ‘Born This Way’. --190.43.179.176 (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a direct link from Virgin or something, because that ladygaganow.net link is copyvio. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Genre

"The album is a marriage of electronic music with major, epic, dare I even say, metal or rock 'n' roll, pop, anthemic style melodies with really sledge-hammering dance beats."

I think the genre should be Dance-pop, Metal, Electronic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.50.241 (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would argue to wait for what the critics say in terms of the musical analysis. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But she just said it herself! She made it, and she knows best about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.34.111 (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fair with the albums release and multiple critics views (many highlighting rock influence/elements) to expand the genre section slightly. The album is supporting Rock and Roll tunes (Yoú and I) as well as other songs holding the genres influence (Highway Unicorn (Road to Love), Electric Chapel). Shall 'Rock and Roll', 'Electro Rock' or even 'Metal' be added to the genre list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talenthiel (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Track listing

Born This Way track listing: 1. Marry The Night 2. Born This Way 3. Government Hooker 4. Judas 5. Scheiße 6. Hair 7. Heavy Metal Lovers 8. Americano 9. Highway Unicorn (Road To Love) 10. Bloody Mary 11. Electric Chapel 12. You and I 13. Bad Kids 14. Edge of Glory

- Scheiße (Remix) - Living on the Radio

http://popoverdose.com/showthread.php?t=3288&highlight=tracklist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.149.188 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have heard some titles such as "The Lie", "Leather", "Arco Iris de Amor" and "The Kingdom". She's releasing the tracklist tomorrow anyway, let's just wait. --201.230.124.54 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese Limited Edition has the same tracklist as normal edition + a remix: Born This Way (LLG Vs. GLG Radio Remix) and the Special Edition does have the same track on the bonus disc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.45.63.99 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Marry The Night

Why is there an article already? Please delete and wait until we got some reliable information. --201.230.124.54 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a redirect. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, now it is. Thanks for whoever changed it. --201.230.124.54 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 200.101.38.232, 2 May 2011

Could anyone add to the "Track listing" section that the special edition adds 3 tracks and 5 remixes to the normal edition? Just general info.

200.101.38.232 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's evident from the bonus track listing... where would a line like this go? — Bility (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

album cover

cant we show the sepcial edition cover?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.105.27 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it fails WP:NFCC#8. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it should, and it does meet it. Also, several prominent articles have deluxe edition covers, including The Fame Monster.PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's against our policies to include more than one non-free image when only one is needed. The Fame Monster is different because the two covers are different images entirely. Whereas the special edition cover of this album is the same as the standard, just with a closeup of Gaga's face. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the guideline. If an image isn't mentioned in an article or what the image depicts isn't mention in the article, it can't be included. The original cover can be concluded because there is a section devoted to it and it is the product this article mentions. Until we add information about the special edition cover, the special edition image cannot be included in the article. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 21:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a section under artwork that discuses the special edition cover. I think that it can be enough for now. I agree with Legolas about WP:NFCC#8, however I'm not saying that it shouldn't be put up to discussion. The Fame Monster album covers are different because the top one was used for the repackage of The Fame and the bottom one was used for just the eight additional songs on the EP. The Born This Way album covers, as Chase said are one in the same. It is not a pressing matter to have a special edition cover put up right now though. I've put it up twice in the past but have read through the WP:NFCC#8. I don't believe that it should be overlooked though. Samlikeswiki (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Both IHelpWhenICan and Samlikeswiki have failed to understand the meaning of WP:NFCC#8. Now how is the cover important in increasing the reader's understanding of Born This Way? Any reason? No, because its just simply a closeup of the original artwork, hence it fails to increase reader's understanding, thereby failing WP:NFCC, since simple words would suffice its description. Thats the reason why it cannot be included, not because it hasnot been discussed. The Fame Monster had two completely different images, both being discussed plus both not being explanable by words. Hence they are included. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Legolas said. In short, the special cover is simply a close-up of the standard cover and Wikipedia's copyright policies can't allow that we have both. Yves (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in disagree with this, if the different editions are being released under different covers then this should be reflected in the article even if the special edition cover is just a closeup of the original. Noting both covers acknowledges the existence of this two different editions of the album. And they are clearly not the same artwork. Looking at them on a record store it could be interpreted based on the rationale above that they are the same product, while they are not. It doesn't matter how much the cover differs as long as it does differ from the original. I'm pushing into adding the second cover, as it is not based on what we can rationalize from an editors point of view, but on the general public view and to most this is a different cover. afr.mx (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we really don't care whether people are able to recognize the album in stores or not, we are here talking about Wikipedia's non free content policy, which is extremely strict in regards to this. The deluxe artwork doesnt pass any of the 10 points mentioned in it, thereby its removal doesnot hinder the reader in any way, nor does its inclusion add anything concrete to the article, except decoration. And Afrmx, your theory of "it is not based on what we can rationalize from an editors point of view" is basically a moot, since you are stressing on breaking a policy without concrete back-up of what this cover art adds to the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I can argue that the deluxe cover passes all 10 points of the non free content policy which deal with the content origin and rationale for existence within Wikipedia. I think the real debate is only towards points 3b and 8, which deals with minimal usage and contextual significance. I argue that this is a different artwork even if it uses the same photo, it raises the understanding of the album editions. However I could also realize that this would apply at the present, in the future deluxe editions are not always re-pressed and only the standard edition is kept as part of the active catalog of the record labels. This would mean that in terms of encyclopedic content, only the main cover will be relevant now and 20 years in the future. However almost all CD articles on which a deluxe edition is issued include both covers, so where is the line drawn that this article cannot include the deluxe edition cover? Why is this a different case? afr.mx (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You seriously have no idea of NFCC. Again, you are not explaining how it raise sreader's understanding, when basically words can describe the deluxe cover. Saying that "I argue that this is a different artwork even if it uses the same photo" is an exact example of people not having any clue of NFCC and pray tell me which articles use the almost same images as the infobox cover art. If you find them, I request you to remove them. And don't point me to The Fame Monster. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you stop the aggression and stick to the discussion of facts. Just relax you are just beginning to get on the no because I say so arguments. Up until now you are just replaying with no it's not possible. Why? Please explain and educate me and several other users why this is not valid. Facts please, no confrontation. afr.mx (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yoü and I

It's "Yoü and I" the song.--NicolásTM (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I've fixed it.VoluntarySlave (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ending-start points out that the song's listing with BMI doesn't include the umlaut, which is a good point. However, the track listing on Gaga's official site does include the accent, as do The Independent and MTV, so I'm inclined to think we should include the accent.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this now. I wasn't aware of Metal umlaut before, and she seems to be using it in the song title. ℥^nding·start 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Length of songs.

Just curious, is there a reliable source? 99.18.146.47 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Right above the track list. Ref 36. ℥^nding·start 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Universal music is pretty reliable. http://www.universal-music.de/musik/lady-gaga/detail/product/175384/born-this-way-lady-gaga/ Samlikeswiki (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Americano

GaGa sang Americano at the mexican show - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzCnQykSEic —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnoopRoyale98 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yoü and I

User:Ending-start is removing the umlaut from "Yoü and I" to simply You, citing MOS:TM and stylization as his reason. Well, first of all an umlaut is never a stylization, nor a trfademark symbol, its a German diacritic used for phonetic effect, a sound shift. This has even been confirmed by Universal Music intheir tracklist for BTW. Anybody has any other points? I have reverted his edit and asked him to stop the edit-warring, because its simply disruptive when he's not able to grasp the difference between the TM and stylization. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody actually really corrected me, and just reverted it, so I was unaware. ℥^nding·start 23:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS-TM does not apply to song titles as they are not trademarks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this re-directed article can be moved to "Yoü and I" if necessary. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to bring back the "You and I" article (see latest version before redirect). A simple Google search justifies the need for the article as it has received plenty of coverage in reliable, third-party sources. She performed the song on Oprah, the Monster Ball HBO special, and an American Idol contestant will be covering the song. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked User:Ericorbit, the admin who originally protected the page to end the protection, but he has not responded yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection has ended. Shall I revert the re-direct? Redirect reverted. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

+ or †

It seems that there is some sort of confusion over the title of one of the tracks on the special edition. As far as I am aware, songs are not subject to MOS:TM because they are not trademarks (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 119#Hyphens in article titles), and it is disengenuous to state that the † symbol is a stand in for the +. Wikipedia should be accurate to reliable sources rather than giving inaccurate information because someone believes that an internal rule says this item should not be used in some circumstances.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be making guesses as to whether certain symbols are stylizations of other symbols. In this case, Gaga's website uses a "+", so I think we can conclude that the cross is indeed a stylization here.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is fairly clear. Although I am only apprehensive because I believe it is more than likely a replacement for the solidus, dividing the song's title into two, and it does not hurt to break the rules over a single symbol.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as User:Ending-start will not participate in the discussion, I am officially suggesting that we use the dagger symbol † instead of the plus sign + in the song that the use of these two symbols is ambiguous. Just because the UK site uses the plus sign does not mean that it reflects what the song is actually titled as featured in the liner notes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a single problem with it, as it is also listed as a dagger on Allmusic, but since her UK official website does list it as a plus sign, I think that it should be listed as such. I think maybe we should compromise for right now, and have the dagger until we have more sources saying so. ℥^nding·start 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The .co.uk website, as far as it appears, is under control of her UK imprint rather than whatever is controlling the .com domain. As songs are not subject to MOS:TM, we should utilize the dagger/cross/whatever we want to call it as featured in Allmusic and the liner notes unless more sources related to the subject use one of the symbols more to refer to the song.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Edge of Glory

Should we add "The Edge of Glory" to the singles section? Make a new article for it? Samlikeswiki (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in the promotional singles section, and generally these songs don't get articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dance in the Dark got one, and so did Monster and it isn't a promo. Why should Edge of Glory not get one? Mi.bryson (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)--Mi.bryson (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There's already an article. --190.232.80.52 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't when the person asked, don't be ignorant. ℥^nding·start 23:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Edge Of Glory

Why is the article deleted? All previous Promo singles have their respective articles (Beautiful Dirty Rich, Dance in the dark, Christmas Tree). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.24.45 (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ON Lady's Twitter page she just confirmed this will be released tomorrow I think on iTunes so my guess is this will the be third single!Jdcrackers (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Official cover: http://twitpic.com/4v2we4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.151.242 (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Japan Bonus Track

Born This Way (LLG vs. GLG Radio Mix) - Source: http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=UICS-9125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.151.242 (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair

It has been confirmed by Interscope that the next promotional single will be Hair. It should be mentioned in the article, and as The Edge of Glory, I believe, an article should be written next week. Source. --200.106.15.3 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends if the song receives any press.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Billboard has released that it will be the last single before Born This Way. Lady Gaga hasn't said anything about it being the final promo, though. Mi.bryson (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)--Mi.bryson (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not relevant to the discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

IP, I suggest you read WP:GNG. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry. I'm kind of new at this, been a member for 2 days.Mi.bryson (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)--Mi.bryson (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tag on "Yoü and I" article

A deletion tag has been added to the article "Yoü and I". Feel free to comment or expand the article using the sources provided (or see talk page). --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Government Hooker

What about an article for this track? Before you start to criticize, let's take a look at the information available. The producers are DJ White Shadow and Gaga herself. The title of the song was revealed through Vogue magazine, and during an OTP interview with Ryan Seacrest, Gaga spoke about the song; "It was originally a hip-hop beat, but as we progressed we doubled the speed so it's now a very hard hitting club track. Some of the lyrics are dirty but it is one of my favorite songs off the record".

Later on, on March 2nd, a remix of the song was previewed at the Mugler Paris Fashion Show. In the beginning of the song, you can hear "lo ritorne", which means "I will come back". I found that to be interesting.

DJ White Shadow, the producer, spoke to MTV the later day, and stated "To me, that song is my favorite song, and it’s just a beast. I don’t even know how to explain it." NME described the song as “Gregorian pop chants, pervy robot voices (courtesy of Gaga’s bodyguard, Pete), window-rattling beats, and the extraordinary line 'Put your hands on me, JF Kennedy'.” Furthermore, Gaga revealed that "“The humour is that a machine in tells me what to do and I happily do it as long as I get fucked. It a relates to how our government fuck us over, but it makes fun of the plastic popstar – I’ll do anything as long as you fuck me and pay me.”

Who knows, maybe this information (that is what I could find), isn't enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria, but it's interesting to keep in mind that an article could be created in the future, in case editors are against its creation. For example, Gaga's song Monster isn't a single, nor has a cover, but it helps to improve the universe in which her albums performs. Of course, I wouldn't create an article without asking advanced editors first, so here I am. --190.232.80.52 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We should not create articles about every single track on this album that gets mentioned in the presses.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that. --190.232.80.52 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But that is how it is going lately. You and I and The Edge of Glory are both on the chopping block because of recentism and thiskind of stuff.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But not here... I was just giving some information. And about You and I and TEOG, is that against Wikipedia's policies? They are well sourced, both have relevant information and gives a better understanding of the album. But that's not the point here. --201.230.113.144 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. But here at wikipedia, we have to draw the line somewhere. We can't cover everything. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 03:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a side here, either it is created or not is beyond what I care. I'm just giving information in case the song gets notability and is in need of an article. I'm not trying to cover "everything" here... --201.230.113.144 (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Singles

All of the singles in the singles section are organized in paragraphs. So please do the same for Edge of Glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.105.84 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Annabel's performance

Should it be included in promotion? YZJay talktome 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is that and notability? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

it was a private performance. [1] YZJay talktome 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh so Annabel is a night club. Ya it can be added if a better source than Gigwise can be found. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Metro

[2] is this real? YZJay talktome 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If they say so. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Zynga promotion

This could be included in the promotion section. http://www.zynga.com/about/article.php?a=20110510 She will basically stream some unreleased tracks directly within Farmville, as far as I can find this is a first for artist promotion on non music-specific games. Just a simple note regarding the reach of the promotion efforts, no need to go as deep as describing the full promotion. afr.mx (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair Promo Single

Can we incubate an article for Hair? I don't know how incubation works, honestly, so I can't do it myself. There's a fair amount of information available, including the cover, a statement by Gaga, a review by Rolling Stone, some lyrics, etc. It is far from becoming an article, but we should start by making an incubator (or whatever its name is), and it could gain notability after the album's release. --Evengan (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Article incubator. Here you go. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I create one, then? --Evengan (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Post the sources that you got here first. Let me see if they are reliable sources, if so then you can incubate it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

1

One of my favorite songs on the album is called "Hair". It’s a really uptempo club record with a Bruce Springsteen vibe to it. I had Clarence Clemons come in from the E Street Band and play saxophone on the record. It has this KISS / Iron Maiden to the melody. - Lady Gaga during an interview with Ryan Seacrest. I can't find a reliable source for the interview, but there's audio.

2

The name of the song is revealed.

3

Cover revealed.

4

Review by Rolling Stone.

--Evengan (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The article incubator is for articles that have previously been deleted. Instead, create a userspace draft such as User:Evengan/Hair, which can then be moved into mainspace when the time comes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, should have thought of that. Whenever I have a little time I'll work on it. Thanks. --Evengan (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I created a tentative article for Hair, with the information I could find. Please feel free to edit it, fix some sources, or add more information. Also, please tell me what else is needed to make it a real article (besides the song charting) without going through a deletion process.

I believe that the information displayed is interesting and new, it should give a new perspective to the song. Please let me know what you think. Also, Lady Gaga released the cover artowork for the album, but on a very low resolution (given that she revealed it through a video), so as soon as I get an HQ cover, I'll add it. Thanks for the help given so far, as well. --Evengan (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are doing a good job, just keep it in your userspace till the song charts (which it will of course do). So that you don't have to go through the hassle of deletion process. Patience is virtue my lad. :P — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm patient, don't worry, and after The Edge of Glory's discussion, believe me, I'll wait until it charts =P Besides the charts, is there anything else I should change? I consider my sources reliable (there are no fan sites), but Wikipedia's policies are incredibly strict, so I want to have everything ready before creating the real article. That, some extra information and the charts, and we're ready to go I suppose. Thanks for the help. --Evengan (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Try to format the references using the {{cite web}} template. Reaad it, you will understand how it works. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. Now we wait? --Evengan (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

She just posted a HQ picture of the cover art . Here: http://twitpic.com/4y8apx Mi.bryson (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great, but I can't upload files to Wikipedia. Maybe you can help, Legolas? --Evengan (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Any registered user can upload pics, but the cover art will have to wait until the article goes into the mainspace because it's not a free image, it's a "fair use" image, and they're not allowed on user pages. Plus they must be used on a page in order to be allowed to remain at Wiki. Robman94 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's IMPORTANT to note this...

"The Edge of Glory" was initially released as a promotional single, but was then chosen as the third official single. "Hair" is also a promotional but the section at the beginning of the article as well as the side bar implies that both are singles released to radio. "Hair" is NOT the fourth single. It's the second iTunes promotional single for the album. Please change that section. Griggj12 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair and Singles Listing

Hair is only a promotional single of now, therefore it should not be listed in the singles section under the main article sidebar. Promotional singles are usually not listed under this section. An example can be Beautiful Dirty Rich for the Fame and Dance in the Dark for the Fame Monster. I'm going to remove it. Jpagan09 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Thanks for doing it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair

Article please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.26.158 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See above (and please use ~~~~ to sign your posts). Robman94 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Credits

BMI lists all writers and producers: http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?fromrow=1&torow=100&keyname=GERMANOTTA%20STEFANI%20J&querytype=WriterID&keyid=1069550&page=4&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&affiliation=BMI&cae=519338344 84.113.151.242 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Adding the songwriting credits now. As for the producers, that doesn't confirm anything. ℥^nding·start 23:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Composers of Government Hooker. --200.121.230.56 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please correct the writer/producer credits on Americano and Road to Love (highway unicorn) Highway Unicorn: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12871272&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Americano: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12871271&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID

Redone is not registered to Highway Unicorn , and the songs were registered already CheChe Alara is also not registered to Americano.

(YET103 (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

If you see the credits for Government Hooker as well , the album artwork credits is not accurate..... this is correct: http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?p=5908898#5908898 since everyone is registered that is mentioned the correct credits are registered to BMI and ASCAP (YET103 (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

Consensus is for album tracklisiting to follow album booklet, singles follow BMI registered credits. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

They are doing a 2nd run of the album booklet, however, can you please add the missing writers and producers to the credits, since it is confirmed by BMI (YET103 (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

It is confusing if Redone is listed as a producer writer but he is not registered to the song when it was already registered.(YET103 (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

Leaked

The album has leaked. Twitter and Tumblr are going insane. Thought you'd like to know. 92.235.224.50 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No it hasn't, it's people recording the Metro preview. Chill. (I'm new to this) 2.121.156.206 (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it did actually leak last night. Buxton87 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It didn't leak, it is being streamed on metro.co.uk 84.113.151.242 (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add my say. I was up last night,and the standard album did leak before it was up on Metro. None of the tracks from the deluxe edition have leaked yet, as far as I know--Nyswimmer (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate to break up the party but how is this discussion helping in the article's development? Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss anything unrelated to the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum guys. ℥^nding·start 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The album DID leak before the stream! You can not know more than everybody else if you didn't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.249.68 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GAGA herself leaked Born This Way on iTunes and Spotify; http://twitter.com/#!/ladygaga/status/70571278981013505 Squidoh (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Again a last remember, WP:NOTFORUM. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The album did leak beforehand: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/lady-gagas-born-this-way-leaked-hours-before-uk-streaming_1220207 Griggj12 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we please add this to the article, the bonus tracks leaked too, and that isn't on the stream. This is something which relates to the album and has impact, even if it was the evening before the standard version was streamed. 92.235.224.50 (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New Guardian Review

Please add the new Guardian review to the Critical Reception section

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/may/18/lady-gaga-born-this-way-review Buxton87 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Popjustice post Metro.UK Stream

Since this article is Elite-only-edit oriented, here's the Popjustice album review they did after allegedly listening to it on the Metro website.

http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5446&Itemid=206

"What an extraordinary album." Was the consensus. 9/10 was their rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.249.68 (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotion/Singles

There should be a separate Promotion section just like in the articles for her previous albums. And "Hair" and "The Edge Of Glory" should be mentioned under that tab. However, The Edge Of Glory should be mentioned under both the Singles tab and the Promotion tab. 119.153.29.136 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I very much agree and I also believe that "Hair" should really recieve its own article instead of a sentence which is what it currently has detailing only its release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki1517 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, "Hair" fails notability now. And Wiki1517, don't even think of creating it again. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But what do you think about organising a separate Promtion/Singles section, Legolas? 119.153.29.136 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

EOG is released as a single not promotional. There's no point in having a separate promotional tab as info about Hair will go under the main promotional content, ala DITD for TFM or BDR for TF. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

I found a review here, a Rolling Stone one here, and one from Vulture (Anyway, wow, they state). All positive. --190.43.83.208 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wednesday 18th UK Leak of Album

The entire album was leaked to the Internet after Gaga created a micro-site for her UK fans, stated by the Toronto Sun ... and the Inthenew.uk.com --(http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/18/gagas-born-this-way-leaked) (http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/entertainment/music/lady-gaga-s-album-leaked-early-$21386491.htm) Sadly this might be the most devastating for any future profits off the album. --+Zack 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)AddZack

Hair Charts

Does anyone know if "Hair" has charted yet... somewhere? I really want to transfer the tentative article as soon as possible, without having people proposing deletion. --Evengan (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No Hair Hasn't charted yet, Edge of Glory charted #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 however it is because it was changed form promotional single to an actual single. Hair will only appear at the end of This Week (May 30th I believe) ... so you might have to wait however, keep the article as it is a promotional single --+Zack 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)AddZack

I actually meant overseas, because I know we have to wait one more week for Billboard. I won't delete the article, and as soon as it charts (and it will), I'll transfer it to the mainspace. We'll have to wait, I guess, but international charts' release may vary, so if we're lucky enough, we can create the article before the next Billboard's Hot 100 release. --Evengan (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe just a heads up for the following week. The little blurb at the top of the UK's website (http://www.theofficialcharts.com/) says that "Hair" will enter at number 9. Probably wait until the official chart is released, but at least you know. Whimsicality, 05:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :) --Evengan (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 187.7.194.49, 19 May 2011

Please, add the songwriting credits for Government Hooker 1

187.7.194.49 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Looks like it has been done. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New BBC Review

Very favorable review from BBC. Please add it to the Critical Reception section. Chicolover (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/5pzb

Hair

Hair has made it to the Finnish Charts so it should have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.189.78 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Source please. The present charts shows no charting for "Hair". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Professional Review

I don't know why this review hasn't been included. UNLIKE others reviews that were included before, this one is from a qualified journalist, Bill Lamb has been in the industry of music for years, I think this review is very reliable, and should be included. http://top40.about.com/od/ladygaga/fr/Lady-Gaga-Born-This-Way.htm He is a very well known critic. I don't know why it was removed. Include, please. This one is professional. --West231 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, include only PROFESSIONAL reviews.

Can anyone please add this: http://www.misformusic.com/index.php/2011/05/lady-gaga-born-this-way-review/ M For Music gave the album 5 stars/5 Wikiwikiman2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

The review made on Sputnikmusic.com was NOT made by a professional critic. He isn't a qualified journalist for the matter. You can see this by clicking in the name of the reviewer.You should know this things. In fact, you can look to his user profile (like it was a forum!) http://www.sputnikmusic.com/profile.php?name=mynameischan his musical tastes are all "indie, metal, hard metal..." Where's pop? It's clear that his music tastes are pretty biased. Sputnikmusic is not even a reliable or famous source! There's a huge difference between someone like this "reviewer" and Bill Lamb (from About.com), who is an expert in the matter. This section, must ONLY include PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS from reliable and qualified journalist...not from everyone. What's next "Teen magazine", "OK magazine", etc? I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. Please, fix it. AGAIN, Let's be serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by West231 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm only a casual observer of this page as a fan of Lady Gaga, but I'm baffled as to why the Sputnikmusic review has been included. Sputnikmusic reviews weren't included for her previous albums, nor are they generally included on other Wikipedia album articles. It's been done by some forum user on a website dedicated to non mainstream music, not a professional critic. Who thought this was noteworthy? One would almost think somebody just wanted there to be a negative review on the page... RM-47 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To that end, I just added the review by The Independent. It's not the most positive of reviews, but at least it's professional. RM-47 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about removing the review, as it isn't professional, and as you said, it does look like its from a forum website. As for the comment above me, I hope you're not implying that only positive reviews should be placed here, because that's simply not the case. The reviews should show both the positive and negative, failing to do so would be in fact, biased. ℥^nding·start 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Channing Freeman is a former staffer who still reviews occasionally. He has an "Emeritus" tag, which means that his reviews are given the same treatment as staffers on wikipedia. Also Sputnik is included on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites and the review is therefore notable and worth including. Whether you disagree with the rating or find it biased is completely irrelevant. TrafficHaze (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I agree that this section should include all kind of reviews (the good and the bad ones), but my problem here (and the problem that many others readers have) is that the Sputnikmusic review is not from a reliable/professional or known source. This section should ONLY include sources that are recognized. How about posting a review from kerrang.com or exclaim.com? NO. If you see any other album review on Wikipedia, you'll see that the majority of them have well known sources specialized in the matter, with journalist that are active in the music industry (like Rolling Stone magazine for example). The fact that he has "Emeritus" tag is irrelevant. Don't forget that this person started as a regular user of this site, and earned this label(tag)thanks to his collaborations with the site. Everyone of us could do it too. This DOESN'T mean that he is a professional critic or qualified in the subject. In the same way that none of the staff of Wikipedia is qualified to reviewing an album (referring to your analogy). The fact that you can actually see his profile and see his musical tastes and the date he join the website indicate the character of the review. Do we even know if he is a journalist...a professional musical journalist? The only thing we know is that he has "Emeritus" tag, but, that this mean he is a professional critic? The source is not even known or reliable! I'll accept The Independent, since it's known, but this one is just ridiculous, and other readers seem to agree (according to the coments that were made above). Dear Wikipedia staff, this is the 3rd time you delete the review and then include it again...why do you include it again? Let's be serious, the objective should be the edification of a good article with RELIABLE (known) sources. Please, consider the opinion of many readers and remove that review. Only professional (and known) JOURNALIST should be included (staff members of random websites (forums) shouldn't!).--West231 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

again, please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites.TrafficHaze (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic is a good review site, not Channing Freeman. He hardly has a reputation, which equals probably the crappy reviews at Examiner. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

whether or not he has a "reputation" is 100% beside the point. TrafficHaze (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is a point. Its the combination of a reputed source + reputed reviewer which makes a review reliable. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia's policies supersede your personal opinions. TrafficHaze (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No it doesnt. Ask anyone, even the album project. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As a member and editor of album articles, I can say I have never seen the use of this "Sputnik" website on an album page. For album especially, we try and use the most revered magazines and websites (NY Times, Rolling Stones, Allmusic, Billboard, Entertainment Weekly) as they become available (you can be sure this one will have tons after its official release)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the readers have spoken. The Sputnik review must be removed. As "Legolas" said, it's the combination of a reputed source and reputed reviewer which makes a review reliable. Wikipedia should take take this in consideration. We need only representative reviews from professional music critics.--West231 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's already commonly known that some Sputnikmusic reviewers are professionals, while most have registered and write their own little reviews of whatever. Now the professional journalist reviews are even included in Metacritic, but besides those by the staff, Sputnik reviews should NEVER be used. Ones by registered nobodies are as bad as something from a blog. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's on the iTunes charts. 69.113.235.6 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This particular critic only specializes in indie and rock. So the review is bound to be biased, plus he isn't professional and the things discussed above should be enough to remove the review. As well as Metacritic, as it still hasn't collected that much reviews. If you disagree with me, then we should include Sputnik in ALL album reviews of all artists. And we should wait before adding the Metacritic one.--HusseinIED (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I feel I should clarify that I wasn't at any point suggesting that only positive reviews should be included. Naturally, you should include the same professional review sources as for all album articles on Wikipedia. I was simply lending my voice to the argument that I'd never seen "Sputnik" reviews around Wikipedia and doubted its professionalism. Also, due to the site's apparent focus on indie and alternative music, it's neutrality. RM-47 (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I just took the Sputnik review out. StephenG (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Who keeps reverting it? Clearly this review is not reliable, if we are to include it, then it should be included in all albums of all other artists, I thought Wikipedia wasn't biased? And to the user above saying that "it's neutrality", if the site focuses on those genres ONLY, then it is sure to be biased against pop music, not to mention that the critic isn't even professional, there are plenty of reasons to NOT include the review, but apparently, someone is reflecting his/her personal opinion of Gaga, which is against Wikipedia's policy.--HusseinIED (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just taken it out again, as the general consensus is to remove it but someone seems determined to place it on the page repeatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.79.22 (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone review

Rolling Stone magazine has just published their review for Born This Way. They said "What makes Born This Way so disarmingly great is how warm and humane Gaga sounds. There isn't a subtle moment on the album, but even at its nuttiest, the music is full of wide-awake emotional details." Link: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/born-this-way-20110520 --West231 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Song Writing/Production

Recently, Born This Way's booklet scans were released and each song has her listed within the production. Perhaps we should also do this on the wiki page? You can see the images here: http://www.propagaga.com/news/2011/05/20/born-this-way-album-booklet-scans/

It's a GaGa fansite so I refrain from putting up immediately, but they seem genuine to me. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talenthiel (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Refrain from adding them before the official release, for fear of Copyright violation. Those maybe leaked copies. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone review

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/born-this-way-20110520 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.216.225 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New Reviews

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/8523548/Lady-Gagas-Born-This-Way-track-by-track-review.html

http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/reviews/lady-gaga-born-this-way-abebe-review-2011-5/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.218.126.73 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic score

Can anyone add this?? http://www.misformusic.com/index.php/2011/05/lady-gaga-born-this-way-review/ 5 stars to the professional ratings for Born This Way. Wikiwikiman2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

Should it be noted that the 72 score on Metacritic is only by 5 ratings? There are many more ratings for this album by critics, but Metacritic has thus far only gathered 5 of those, so it doesn't really represent the actual average score, depending on the way you look at it. Cross Pollination (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should wait some more for it to collect more reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.218.126.73 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the users above.72 is not an accurate score and does not reflect all of the critics that have submitted reviews. Also, the score has gone up to 76. http://www.metacritic.com/music/born-this-way

Reece Leonard (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reece Leonard

Edit request from Manny12001, 21 May 2011

hair is a single by gaga. it is a succesful promo song. it has good reviews..why doesnt it have that there?

Manny12001 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't it have what there? An article? We're working on one now (check it out here), but it isn't notable yet. Also, Hair is not a single, it's a promotional single, and not successful yet (we have to analyze charts). Please be more accurate with your question. --Evengan (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Not a request. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair has entered Irish charts

I think the article for "Hair" should be published now. It has charted at #14 on the Irish charts. http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.38.35 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Hair" article is now created here. Thanks. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And from New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/reviews/lady-gaga-born-this-way-abebe-review-2011-5/ --67.173.100.245 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not SPUTNIKMUSIC Review?

as you all know Sputnikmusic is a very famous website and it gives out a lot of Professional reviews... but as it gave a bad review to the album people call it unprofessional, FYI that review was made by the staff of that website... seriously, if it was not professional metacritic wouldn't submit it as one of the reviews to its website, and actually the unprofessional one is About.com. that website never had a chance to submit its name in metacritic but as it gave a 5 star review to the album they call it PROFESSIONAL. plz submit Sputnikmusic review and remove that About.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.229.98 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. --Evengan (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again! As it has been discuted endlessly, the review from Sputnikmusic is NOT reliable. With all respect, did you took the time to actually view that review? I mean, you can see his profile!! as he is just an user that has gained the "emeritus" status (wich every person can gain, if collaborate constantly) This has nothing to do with the review being good or bad. If you take the time to read above, you'll see that this site is not even a reliable source /known source and has not enough experience in the music industry to give a valid critic, remember that it's the combination of a reputed source and reputed reviewer which makes a review reliable!, but, this is not the worst...the worst is that this reviewer isn't even a professional music journalist. Yes, he's part of the staff of the site, but that doesn't mean that he is qualified to submit a critic (If I was a member of the staff of Wikipedia should I be able to submit a critic?). Several readers agreed in the section "Professional reviews" (see above)...this person only specializes in indie and rock (as you can see in his profile). So the review is bound to be biased, plus he isn't professional and the things discussed above should be enough to remove the review. Again, this has nothing to do with the review being bad, in fact the review from The Independent is still there (and I wouldn't call that review a good one). On the other hand, about.com IS a reliable source as Bill Lamb is a recognized professional critic with more than 10 years working for the music industry. You can read more about him here http://top40.about.com/bio/Bill-Lamb-15651.htm. Dear Wikipedia staff, why is that despite all the previous discussions and final agreement that was made to remove the sputnik review you decide to include it again, for the 4th time!? There are plenty of valid arguments to remove that review (made by me and others readers). Don't forget this is a page for the public, therefore, the reviews included here must be reliable and well known. Please, remove that review. We are applealing to common sense here! ONLY PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST (quialified jurnalist!) must be included (not nobodies from a site that resembles a forum....OK Magazine has plenty of years too...does that make it reliable?) Think on that!--West231 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should just add loads of reviews from random forum members and argue that they're as notable and professional as 'Sputnikmusic' because the forum member in question has made a lot of posts. Better still if it's not even a forum about pop music. Obviously I jest and I'm not trying to kick off any arguments, but it's not a totally inaccurate analogy. I think there was a consensus about removing the 'Sputnik' review, but either way, as a casual visitor to this page it's a bit of an eye roller to see it there, then gone, there, then gone. RM-47 (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you West231. Sputnikmusic's review is based on a review by a long time editor, that's it. Not realiable at all. Maybe if I make many reviews there, I could be featured in Wikipedia... yay. We should reach a con census here. Also, I haven't seen Sputnikmusic's reviews in other albums. A little bit biased? --Evengan (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this guy has a determined taste of music, as displayed on his user page (yeah, he's part of the forum and has a user page as everyone else). He likes Alternative/Indie, Metal, Post Hardcore, Rock, Folk and Alternative Rock. How can we consider this reliable is he isn't open to other genres, in this case Pop? Now I think this is completely biased. If he's a "critic" (which he's not), he wouldn't have specific music taste. Unless I get a good reply, I'm removing this so-called review tomorrow. --Evengan (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sputnik Music clearly edits some level of editorial control, by singling out some reviewers as "Staff reviewers." So I think it meets minimal criteria to be a reliable source; I don't think it would be out of line to include it. However, Born this Way is a huge release, and will doubtless be reviewed everywhere, and we don't have to include all these reviews. As we can include reviews from the most prominent sources of music criticism like Rolling Stone and the NME, I don't think there is any particular reason to include the Sputnik Music review, is there?VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What Makes you to call Sputnikmusic Review Unprofessional? cause it gave a bad review? I said that before... Sputnikmusic is a place to give opportunity to the young critics to show the world that they can review albums... as you all see that review made by a staff of that website and also Metacritic that is the most important website in submiting review, submited that one, so why you can't get over it? why don't you call About.com unprofessional? cause it gave a 5star? About.com is the most unreliable website in reviews... i bet if Spotnikmusic gave a 5star to that album you were begging them to submit it, as you all did for some unreliable sources such as M for Music, About.com and these kinda websites. Wikipedia did the best thing to submit that review cause it should shows the people that this album has negative reviews too. and there are many many negative reviews on the way... you can't change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.230.7 (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Lamb has been reviewing music for about 10 years now, he IS professional. If you don't like her, then this is not the place to show it, Sputnik's critic is not a professional one, and the website focuses on indie and rock music, which makes it biased against pop music in general, so the review is not reliable to give a professional opinion on the album, so If I write a blog saying the album's good, then should we include it in Wikipedia? We should also include fans' reviews, see what I mean? And while we're at it, why don't we add a Sputnik review to ALL albums if it's "reliable", everything seems to be unfair now, the review doesn't reflected critics' opinion of the album.--HusseinIED (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

whatever... so happy that metacritic cares about PROFESSIONAL reviews and submited them and you can't do anythig about that. calling Sputnikmusic unprofessional is like calling Allmusic or Rolling Stone unprofessional. have fun with BILL LAMB and his 5star review. as About.com review is up there so let's submit a review that i made by myself. i'm writing reviews for about 10 years. oh too bad cause i gave a 3star to the album it can't make it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.228.103 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sputnik

I think we should reach a consensus here, from the posts I've read about 80% agree on removing the Sputnik review, obviously, the readers agree to it's removal, so why not?--HusseinIED (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. It's unprofessional, it's musically biased. I'm all for it being removed. If somebody really wants a poor review up, that's fine, get one from a professional critic. I'm sure there's a couple out there. RM-47 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Singles

Please organize the singles in Paragraphs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.103.130 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)