This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Have put this back as it is a common feature on ‘singles’ pages, and can see no reason why it was removed. If anyone disagrees, we should discuss reasons here.
BenBowser (
talk)
13:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Clearly you have no idea how articles and lists work in Wikipedia. The whole information is already present in the article and in the actual section and this is not a
WP:LIST. And you were reverted
multipletimes previously, so it is your
onus to first discuss here. —
IB[
Poke ]14:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Woah, ok calm down. Whoever that IP is, it isn’t me, so you don’t need to be so abrupt. :) I came to the talk section to ask why it had been reverted, since it is a useful table to have, especially for a song such as this which is performing unusually well with accolades. It is helpful for giving information quickly, without having to read the paragraphs. Quick information after all is what most people use Wikipedia for.
BenBowser (
talk)
14:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Really? That IP isn't you? Oh well, you were still removed in the next edit so yeah you are correct in discussing.
MOS:LIST only allows usage of Embedded lists for See also and References section. This is Wikipedia rule-governed, not my personal preference. All details of the songs' awards are present in the
Lady Gaga awards list, which is linked in the {{See also}} tab at the top of the section. —
IB[
Poke ]14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Whoops, forgot my ‘:’s! Don’t worry, I’m not bothered enough by this to start an edit war, I see you’ve had enough of those on here already, haha. Wiki rules on this are just weird I guess. As you seem to run these pages, maybe you should be a little more fourthcoming, understanding and open with IP Wikipuppies over these issues? Explaining reasons properly etc. would’ve saved me (and I’m sure others) from making the same mistakes, as we’d understand more where you’re coming from. At first glance it seems like you’re just being pedantic. (I understand now of course! I don’t mean this in a bad way. Just suggesting what I think might save you from all those pesky rollbacks!)
BenBowser (
talk)
14:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
No problem at all, glad you understood. Sometimes I feel like my hands are tied because of so many rules and etc. —
IB[
Poke ]14:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Adding a line about the techniques used by her fans to generate streams?
In the past week there has been a lot of coverage of different strategies utilized by Lady Gaga's fans to generate more streams for the song.
Or rename the Critical section to Critical response and impact? But it would be great to include some of the infos from this source. --
Sricsi (
talk)
22:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Why is there an infobox for one of the covers? There are at least 10 other covers mentioned in that section. Putting an infobox for just one of them seems
WP:UNDUE weight to the
Keiino cover.
Schazjmd(Talk)21:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Schazjmd, I understand those tracks are available for digital download, but not necessarily released as a single. I don't feel strongly about keeping the inbox, but I'm trying to decide if single release is enough to justify inclusion. I'm also wondering if cover art should be added. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)01:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Another Believer I'm not seeing an album release by Keiino, only singles, same as the other two covers. When you look at this page on mobile and go to the covers, first thing you see is the large infobox for Keiino. It seems like promotion.
Schazjmd(Talk)01:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Was the alleged cover ever posted by a primary source? The chart website linked in the upload is not a reliable source for artworks. A
reverse image search only reveals usage on fan pages and unreliable secondary sources. We need to remove it unless proof of it being official is provided.--NØ12:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The Recording Asociation of America (RIAA) lists the image as an official cover in their database. The official website of the German Charts also lists the image as the official cover
Chart and certification websites are not reliable sources for artwork though. A simple reverse image search reveals that this cover is of fanmade origin and has never been shared by Gaga, Cooper, or the record label. Those chart websites probably saw it as the cover on Wikipedia and just went with it.—NØ16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
What exactly that I said was arrogant? Use any reverse image search engine, fan sites and fan twitter accounts were posting the "artwork" months before it was used on RIAA. It was never posted by any primary source (Cooper, Gaga, on a CD single, or by the label), so where exactly do you suppose it originated?—NØ12:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The RIAA is about as close to an official source as you can get as they are the official certifier for US singles and albums. Adding the cover back and updating the file info to use that site as a source. Chase (
talk |
contributions)
23:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
No. And the RIAA has used a fanmade cover for their plaque for Taylor Swift's "Style" before. You need to produce a link to a primary source (which doesn’t exist because primary sources wouldn’t share a fake cover they know they didn’t create)—NØ01:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I have done more research on this topic, and found
this GagaDaily thread, which attributes it to the Twitter account
artfloozyyedits. This checks out with their watermark, which is clearly visible on
the piano on the artwork. The twitter account itself has claimed to create the artwork:
[1],
[2]. With that in mind, I am formally disputing the copyright status of this image and nominating it for deletion.--NØ07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Is it really necessary to include so many obscure covers in the Cover versions section? It seems unreasonably overlong for me... I think it needs major cleanup.
Sricsi (
talk)
18:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Hey, it might need but for me it is fine, I mean, the song is huge everywhere, there really are many covers. By the way, I have removed the link from Instagram, unnecessary.
GagaNutellatalk22:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Key
There was a description of the song as being written in G major. This is at best debatable or just wrong. If the published music has one sharp in the 'key signature' it could indicate G major as the key but it could equally indicate e minor as the key. Equally a one sharp 'key signature' could refer to various other modal scales. The 'key signature' of the published piece does not define what the key is. Rather it defines a group of keys/modes. Only analysis of the piece will tell you what the key actually is, and this is slightly subjective. Sometimes it will seem clear whether a piece is in a particular key, but sometimes there may be room for debate, especially since a piece is not compelled to stay in the key of the 'key signature'. Since this piece starts and ends on an e minor chord, there is a strong case for suggesting e minor (natural) as the main key. You would have to do some serious analysis to be certain, which is probably beyond the scope of this article. I believe there is a problem because many of the online sheet music sources are not bothered about accuracy and if a piece has one sharp they just describe it as being in G major. The academic debate as to whether it is in G major or e minor or a mode is of no interest to them. It is simpler for them to ignore the issue. I think contributors are copying this erroneous source rather than analysing the piece to check the key.
Alansrobinson (
talk)
14:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply