Talk:Telephone (song)

Cover image

I believe the current image File:Telephone_Lady_Gaga.png to be incorrect. It comes from discogs(unreliable? - see release date) or the http://www.lady-gaga.de site. Is that the offical german site? I have doubts. SunCreator (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

lady-gaga.de is the official german site --♫Smanu! 09:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

lady-gaga.de IS Lady Gaga's official german site. Therefore, the image should be placed back into the article. --Sdoo493 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is shown at Discogs as being a Promotional cover. The Release cover may not have been decided or created yet. So, I'm thinking that they are most likely using the Promotional cover as a placeholder. It will be confirmed as the SINGLE cover when the date arrives if they haven't changed the image.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You're thinking that, but do you know that for sure? It appears to be the only official cover we have, and Lady Gaga's German site is using it. I see no reason to not have it on the article.  AcroX  17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely an 'official' PROMOTIONAL cover. As the single release is a future event, the cover art is subject to change. Do you know for sure that this will be the one used?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a promo cover for sure. At the moment its the closest we have to a proper cover. But the video's producer said on uStream that the single cover would be once of the still images from the video shoot. It is normal practise for songs to use a promo cover and then a proper single cover is released when the song is released for CD release. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just seen added to the article the Digital Release info for France in about a week and they are using the art. So this may be the Digital Release cover and the CD cover may still be different (as you say).—Iknow23 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what happened with songs like Battlefield and Love Sex Magic. I say we leave things for now and monitor the situation. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

AGREED.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree also. I think it's a promo cover, but okay because it's official promo coming from lady-gaga.de SunCreator (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Prmo covers are later replaced by something better (or worse), this was what happened in the article "[[LoveGame", "Paparazzi" etc. Let's wait for a few days untill an official cover is released. As per sources, the video release is on mid-Feb and the song is added, hence the cover should be coming any day. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that Gaga's German site doesn't say it is a promo cover, we have to use it. The cover has been revealed and whether they change it later or people think it is a promo cover is irrelevant. Right now that is the official cover. If they change it later, so be it, we can change ours too, but as of now that is the official cover. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

hmv.com has a new cover: http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;0;-1;-1;-1&sku=769292 --♫Smanu! 16:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The first cover will be the european cover, like Bad Romance that has two covers, one for the european cd single and one for USA "The Remixes" cd single. For example why in Poker Face article there is the promo cover? I think we should put the first cover, also iTunes and hmv.com uses that cover.--Aaa16 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

According to WP:Lead the introductory paragraphs of an article should summarize the content of the article. The lead section of the article actually contains length details which should be worked into other sections of the article like the background. Therefore the lead section needs to be reduced and rewritten to reflect wikipedia standards. see I Look to You, Fight for This Love, Angels Cry (Remix) for examples of acceptable lead sections. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the lead to be adequate. It summarizes the main points in the article without going into too much detail. Your third examples would imo (knowing the lead guidelines) be a far too short lead. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My third example has been edited since and hence it is no longer a good lead section. i disagree with your above comment. The lead goes into to much detail about the song's content. The opening sentence should outline the song and its album. The second sentance its release date and writers. Then third and fourth sentences should give other important information about its release. such lead sections as this have more info than some of the main sections. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Below is an example of what i think would be a better intro for the song

"Telephone" is a song performed by American pop artist Lady Gaga, taken from her second studio album The Fame Monster (2009). Written by Gaga, Rodney Jerkins, LaShawn Daniels, Lazonate Franklin, and Beyoncé Knowles who also has a feature vocal on the song. It officially impacted U.S. radio on January 26, 2010.

The lyrics portray the singer as preferring the dance floor rather than answer her lover's phone calls. The song charted early due to digital sales upon the album's relase. It was reached top 20 in the U.S., Canada, Ireland and New Zealand and is currently impacting on other charts worldwide.

This lead is no way too long. Also, the articles named above shouldn't even be used as examples. Good examples are 4 Minutes (Madonna song) and Irreplaceable, FA's chosen as the high standard of Wikipedia. I don't understand why this is being brought up anyway, if the article is going by the standard of other Wikipedia:WikiProject Lady Gaga GA's like LoveGame, Just Dance, etc, etc. Telephone is a pretty detailed article, and the introduction needs to reflect that. The current does that, without going into extreme detail. Candyo32 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I will disagree once again "4 Minutes" has been out a very long time and so could warrant an intro of that size. I am going on the rules provided at WP:lead and i think articles like "Million Dollar Bill" and "I Look to You (song)" and "Fight For This Love" are good examples because they are relatively young articles and provide plenty of detail in their size. Articles with massive lead sections look messy. There is also significant enough scope to include a song structure/concept section as almost all of the second para' in the intro is all about the song's core structure. I don't edit other lady Gaga articles but im going by the standards that i've encountered and been taught whilst editing other songs. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm siding with Candyo32 here. Obviously the leads you have come across have not been up to par. The lead of this article was mostly written by the same person who wrote the leads for several GAs (props to Legolas). Referring to small articles which you wrote is not convincing. This article is large and has a lot to summarize. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead in the article seems better then the example above. I favour: Definition sentence, Background two sentences, Composition two sentences, Critical reception one sentence, Chart performance one sentence, Music video one sentence, Charts and certifications one sentence. There is some fluff in the current lead but there is also missing a sentence on the video. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at amending it. Please feel to revert me if you disagree. SunCreator (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems obvious when you write the lead that the music video section should be before the critical review. The artist is in charge of the personal selection, composition and video. The critical reception and charts are indirect things done by others. SunCreator (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead now is very good and the way it needs to be. I just fixed something minor in the Spears/Beyonce sentence, and edited the music video part just a little. Candyo32 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I started off trying to cut things down but now after various edits by us all it slightly larger then before. Well at least it says more. Hopefully Lil-unique1 will be understanding. SunCreator (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe whatever SunCreator did is fair enough. The lead was going to increase only, not decrease. More will be added regarding the commercial aspect, music video and live performance as time flies. Regarding Sun's quote that music video comes before reception, I disagree because, music video and live performances are tools of promoting the song or album, which I believe are secondary in contrast to how the song has been received by peers, scholars and critics. I believe that factor in the commercial prospect of the song a lot, hence they are kept before any promo tools. I believe that's how the GA articles shape themselves nowadays. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's good practice for the order of the lead to match the order or the sections in the body, but as it seems your saying that is not the case then I'm fine with the order of sections however you want. So then the issue becomes the order of the sentences in the lead itself, as it could be re-ordered to make it more readable without unnecessary switching between subject matter and thus have more new paragraphs. SunCreator (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Have re-ordered the lead to make it logiaclly ordered and meet WP:Paragraphs. SunCreator (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Release date (Revisited)

Due to edit warring on this issue here and at other articles, the matter has been taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Singles release date is when FIRST being SOLD as a Single, NOT Radio Airplay. Please feel free to join the discussion there. PLEASE in order to get as much input as possible, PLEASE make ALL your replies there. THANK YOU.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, could you post the release date information you have for this single. Like the US digital release date, US airplay date or whatever you have. With WP:RS please! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry,, I don't really have that. I've been like a fact-checker, rather than a fact-gatherer.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This one doesnot have a digital release date yet, its the album version which is flying on iTunes. We have the R&R add date but no physical release dates have been announced, except UK, and that too according to Digital Spy, which is considered unreliable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So what as you refer to above is the "edit warring on this issue here"? I was under the impression you created that discussion on WikiProject Songs as you wished to add an airplay date?SunCreator (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I wanted everyone that was putting January 26, 2010 (a Radio add date) in the infobox as Release date to STOP. The Radio add info can remain in the article lead. Here is one of the many edits others made to put Airplay as Release date—Iknow23 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In my imagination most people look at the infobox first. If you add it to the lead, some people reading the lead may think it conflicts with the infobox and thus change one or the other. SunCreator (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That is my point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Singles release date is when FIRST being SOLD as a Single, NOT Radio Airplay that the Radio add date is NOT the 'singles' release date. However Radio add dates may be mentioned in the article text.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are many things that are not the release date. SunCreator (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be when it's released for sale. Songs are issued to radio before being sold for promotional purposes. That's how the music industry works. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So ultimately we are going around in circles. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this going in circles? What's the complicating factor? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we can't add the airplay date in infobox as its not a physical release. Then again if we add airplay date in the release history table, that contradicts the infobox as the release date is the earliest one and generally airplay dates are earlier than physical release dates. Hence, the point is consistency. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a physical release, but it is available for sale, yes? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where anything says that the infobox release date needs to be an "able to buy date". The date that the song was "released" to radio stations makes complete sense. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if it's a radio-only track. Otherwise, you go by the sale date. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There are different camps of interpretation of the vague 'Release' date. It can be

1. Release to buy
2. Release to buy but only as a single (note that definition of a 'single' is also not agreed)
3. Release date it becomes chart eligible according to defintion of national chart compilers (Billboard, OCC, etc)
4. plus others

These interpretation are different in the detail and there are exceptions. Personally I feel that leaving it out of the infobox entirely reduces edit warring and is the way forward. SunCreator (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Number 1 is ok for an Album track and would be the same date as the Album release. For these we would use Template:Infobox song. But this article page is Template:Infobox single so number 1 would NOT be appropriate here.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Number 3 is really invalid, since different compilers have different release dates for their chart. We should ponder on how we can tweak the definition of Number 2 and get a consensus. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The French digital release date February 15, 2010 should be used in the infobox. That is the date when the song was first individually available for sale. • вяαdcяochat 06:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Number 3 is really invalid, since different compilers have different release dates for their chart". No, actually. The charts are regionally based; regardless of region, first is first. Simply go with the earliest release date used by any national chart. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually no. Suppose a song is released to the compiler on January 25, the current chart being February 1. However, the song fared badly commercially and didnot chart untill the February 15 issue. Hence in that case, compiler gives the release as February 15, XXXX, which is incorrect. Hence I said that the #3 option is invalid actually. I have seen OCC and RPM denoting the release as the chartng issue date. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm don't believe the OCC have any sort of published release/chartng issue date. Can you provide any instant of the OCC doing that with a source please. SunCreator (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And why couldn't the charting issue date be used? If that's how the publications determine releases for songs, then it's a valid method to consider. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wesley, Charting issue date is #3 and above you said it's invalid - so somewhat confused by what you are saying.(woops Legolas said it) I guess from your original comment "It should be when it's released for sale." you favour option 1 - but do you realise that these days that is effectively when the album is released as that is when songs mostly go for sale. SunCreator (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you use the charting issue date, two situations arise. Firstly, release dates will invaribly be the album release date as this is what the OCC in the UK allow. Secondly, in the US, a song could get airplay (and this counts to the charting issue) but never be available to buy in any form. I think the latter situation may have occured with this song but not exactly sure. SunCreator (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's counted as a release in the UK but not in the US, it's still a release. Remember, we're taking a broad worldview. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Just because a song isn't released (or isn't considered) as a single in one country doesn't make it not a single at all. A good pre-digital example is "Champagne Supernova". And as I've said elsewhere, airplay doesn't make a song a single. "Stairway to Heaven" is routinely cited as the most-played song of all time on radio, but it was never a single. I really want to refrain from getting into a detailed history of how radio actually works, but trust me, airplay =/= single. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Disagree. There have been lots of instances of airplay only singles. Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn" comes to mind. It was a massive airplay hit, but wasnot allowed to chart on the Hot 100, untill the physical single was released. Same with the Goo Goo Dolls song "Iris". It depends on what methodology the compiler of thechart uses. BB now uses all three factors to measure in a song's position, while OCC only factor digital+physical. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict what I said. I said "airplay =/= single". This is true. Receiving radio airplay does not automatically make a song a single. As someone who's worked in college radio, I can emphatically substantiate this. Yes, there are "airplay singles" (usually facilitated by giving radio stations promo copies). But simply being added to radio rotation does not make a song a single. This is why Billboard has airplay and sales charts in the first place, because of formats like AOR (album-oriented rock) that emerged in the 1970s, which would favor album cuts instead of singles. Being played by lots of radio stations has never been a criteria which defines a single (other factors do), and that's why this song's airplay debut needs to be taken out of the equation. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Airplay does not make a song a single. The above discussion was about the validity or not of using a charting issue date. If(!) you use a charting issue date then because airplay can make it chart then airplay can become the release date. SunCreator (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Flaw with airplay citation

There's a big problem with the source used for the song's airplay debut in Release history table. "Going for adds" is a music industry term that labels use to inform radio stations of when they want radio stations to music to their playlists. It is not an indicator of when a song actually debuts on radio, because radio stations can add a track before or after the "going for adds" date, or not even add it at all. "Going for adds" is nothing more than the record industry equivalent of a suggested playlist-add date, intended so that a track or album can make a big debut on that week's tally for most added records. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad you cleared that up. I added the reference but not after hunting to find another. I used that as it's used on some other articles. Rihanna's Rude Boy being one. It seems likely then that we don't have a Wp:RS for airplay then. SunCreator (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have to question listing release dates in the table for formats that haven't been issued yet. These releases haven't happened yet, and we can't predict the future (you never know if a release will be cancelled, and we're not a news site). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. It's WP:Crystalball. Another source of edit-warring unfortunately. SunCreator (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that GFA is the only thing we have as an airplay date or something. I agree with both of you regarding the unreleased, upcoming remixes etc being listed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As I explained, the link to cite the airplay debut doesn't actually verify when it debuted on radio (only when the record company asked people to start playing it), hence why I removed it. A "going for adds" date is not an actual airplay debut date. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a site that reports the Radio adds AFTER they have occurred? That would be best of course as the past cannot be changed.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a wiki article titled Going for adds with Radio adds and Radio add dates redirecting to it, should be created explaining this music industry term? When these things are then discussed in articles, they can be wikilinked to it.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A more reliable source for radio add dates is FMQB.com Candyo32 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Single

Given the suggestion that "A single is a single if it is described as such by reliable secondary sources". Can we source this article with a reliable source to say it's a single. The only current sources I can see(hmv/digitalspy) are WP:CRYSTAL. iTunes doesn't say(edit:noticed that it does). What WP:RS do we have to say this is a single. SunCreator (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, noticed that iTunes France says it's a single. SunCreator (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ARIA confirmed it as single a long time ago. Its present in the article LEAD. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just wanted to say I'm glad the issue was resolved. Much respect to the both of you. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wesley. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Remix EP cover

Why is the remix ep cover posted on the article? None of the other remix ep covers for her other singles are posted. It's not necessary to have it present on the article. So it should be removed or her other singles that have a different cover for their remix ep should be posted onto their articles. --Sdoo493 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The main single cover has been confirmed by MTV as the remix EP cover without the Telephone Remixes name. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

yes but, it is still the "remix EP" and the single is already been released in some countries (like france) with the other artwork. MTV are only interested in that cover art, becuase the artwork on american iTunes is almost always different to the rest of thw world, becuase they usually only release the remix EP in US (and some other contries). change all the lady gaga covers to the remix ep's if you like, but the orginal one is the one that should be there. (apeaboutsims) (cant login) Source: http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B0037E9UWU/ref=sr_1_album_49_rd?ie=UTF8&child=B0037EBYVK&qid=1266915444&sr=1-49 --61.68.138.189 (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesnot change the fact that a much more reliable source like MTV reported it, precides over Amazon. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i was actually talking about the remix cover being placed insted of the single cover. but someone has noticed its a fake now so alls well. (apebaoutsims) --61.68.151.253 (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New cover?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Telephone_(Official).jpg

I'm sure this one is fake. It's easy to make it using the remixes EP cover since the font is available everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirillgdaily (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank-You, i thought the same thing. the source was not correct, and the grey cover is the single cover whether people like it or not. Just becuase the Remix EP is going to be released in more area's, doesnt mean that has to be the cover. The single cover is the single cover. thats that. (apaboutsims) (cant login)--61.68.151.253 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

MTV has already reported that the colored one is the official cover, not the grey one. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Legolas, could you please post the link to the MTV article?

So? Just becuase MTV reported that as the single artwork, maybe they got it wrong. becuase on Itunes, Amazon and more, the grey cover is used as the single cover. so no matter what MTV say, the grey one was still used as the single cover! its like saying that "The Fame Monster" was going to have a red cover, even though "The Fame Monster" is a;ready being sold in a black cover.--61.68.151.253 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the article. And it doesnot matter what iTunes or Amazon say the coverart is, they pale in comarison of reliability with MTV. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Wrong. MTV report the remix cover. click the link that says "Web site". Any Amazon and Itunes are reliable as the record label are the people eho put the music up there in the first place:!--61.68.151.253 (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please change it back!!!!--61.68.151.253 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

MTV doesn't have that artwork on their site. They link to the remixes EP cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirillgdaily (talk • contribs) 10:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

MTV links to the Remix EP cover. The original cover that IS posted on Amazon and iTunes should be put back! --Sdoo493 (talk) 20:34, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Legolas - MTV LINKS TO THE REMIX EP! THE COVER IS FAKE!!!!!! STOP CHANGING IT! ITUNES AND AMAZON HOST THIS AS THE SINGLE COVER!!!! PLEASE STOP CHANGING IT!!!! :)(apeaboutsims) (cant login)--Apeaboutsims (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesnot matter what they posted. Wikipedia goes for verifiability by reliable sources rather than truth. If they say it is the cover, then it is. And see WP:NPA, if such attacks donot stop, administrative actions will be taken. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BUT ITS NOT THE COVER!!!!!!!! The talk about the remix cover, as linked on thier site. Im going to simplify this down for you.

The MTV link = IS NOT LINKING THAT COVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol (and btw, i am not making a personal attack, you just keep putting false information up that everybody is against, its not your wikipedia, it the worlds. if majority rules, majority rules. You just wont listen)--Apeaboutsims (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Again, please stop shouting. That won't make your point come across me any further. If majority is against WP policies, then that's not my problem. As I explained before, WP goes for verifiability by reliable sources, in this case MTV is a million times more reliable source than iTunes, Amazon or any retail chain. There is no point in shouting in caps about it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, sorry about the caps. But how is MTV more reliable. If you dont know, The record company put the music on Itunes. So if thats the artwork the comapany use, its what the record comapny chose the single cover to be. ok. lets make an example. if MTV said "Britey Spears made a performance at the Grammy's, but didnt, are you going to source what over MTV said, or what actually happened (The Truth). But MTV is much more reilable than whats really happened? thats what is coming accross here. And also, MTV didnt refer to the cover thats on there now. It would be more accurate to put the remix cover on there than a fan-made one (which the picture doesnt have an accurate source).--Apeaboutsims (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

MTV IS reliable (though I completely disagree with it, they take info from random blogs -- but if it's in Wiki rules -- okay then), but they never said it's the cover. Why do you keep citing at as the source of the single cover if it's not even there? Kirillgdaily (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To Kirill, this link states the Beyonce/Gaga one as the cover. To Apsims, the basis of verification lies on the order of reliability of the sources. If MTV reports something which contradicts the one reported by Billboard, we go for the Billboard one as it is more reliable than MTV again. Hence, its basically a hierarchy of reliable sources. If MTV were to report something like they made a mistake, that it is not the single cover, I be happy to change it back. I can see a solution of it. If you really think that the grey one is the cover, post a message to MTV and see if they respond or rectify. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The cover is not there! They link to the REMIXES cover. Kirillgdaily (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

THank -You Kirillgdaily, your seeing it too! lol :)--Apeaboutsims (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am too :) this nonsense that iTunes is not a true source. what are you on?. put the grey one back up! :)--Jackex56 (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

its funny how you are fighting over so petty, Legoals, please get it out of your head about the telephone cover. your wrong, apeaboutsims, Kirlldaily, Jackex56 is right. move on. change it back--Morgan3136 (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no fighting, however a discussion is going on, so I request you to please add your reasons or cite a reliable source else take your forum like comments somewhere else, not accepted in WP. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Legolas, MTV links to the Remix cover. And even on the page it links to it SAYS that it's the remix EP cover. Are you blind? The cover posted on here, is obviously fan made anyway! Stop adding that cover! MTV isn't a reliable source, because in that article they took things from other sources and posted them into their article. The Tyra Banks Show and LadyGaga.com are their sources. Nothing was told directly to them. --Sdoo493 (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from the MTV article: "Gaga recently revealed the cover art for the "Telephone" single, which is due out on March 2, on her Web site. It features a photo of Gaga wearing a hat made from a telephone and a picture of a Sasha Fierce-mode Beyoncé." However, I can't find the cover without the remix stuff on it on either MTV nor Lady Gaga's site. If someone can link to a reliable source utilizing the File:Telephone (Official).jpg cover, then that's the end of it. Otherwise, we stick with the gray cover. Why is this so difficult.  AcroX  22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They are already using the Grey cover as the uk CD single. So yeah, there is no debate about it. but whats really bothering me, is that someone has completely moved the Grey cover and replaced it with the other cover. someone please change it back. oh and here is the source for the CD Single [1] (apaboutsims) (cant login)--61.68.180.221 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Release date of the CD Single of Telephone - The Remixes pushed back to March 30

{{editsemiprotected}}

Release date of the CD Single of Telephone - The Remixes pushed back to March 30

in the release history section , in the United States, change the release date of the CD Single of Telephone -The remixes from February 26, 2010 to March 30, 2010.

SOURCE

Leonaistheoneforever (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed the CD single entirely for now. I'm not so sure it was pushed back as the only original reference for the date was facebook. Do you want to add the new date in light of WP:CRYSTAL? SunCreator (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But Facebook is not a reliable source, Amazon.com is a very reliable source, so you should go according with the reliable source, which is Amazon, which says March 30.

Leonaistheoneforever (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is no longer protected, but you should ty to reach consensus on the change before you implement it. Celestra (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, hence my above not being sure about the assertion which was based on facebook. SunCreator (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

CD Single

The CD Single for the UK release is avalible for pre-order. It has been for a while, but now it has a tracklisting. should this be placed in the article? SOURCE:[2] (apaboutsims) (cant login)--61.68.180.221 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Video Release Date

Is February 28th the accurate release date? Where have you heard this date confirmed? 64.188.237.142 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)