Jump to content

Talk:Telephone (song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Orphaned references in Telephone (song)

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

Reference named "billboard.com":

  • From Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song): "Music News, Reviews, Articles, Information, News Online & Free Music". Billboard.com. Retrieved 2009-11-30.
  • From Until the End of Time (Justin Timberlake song): Justin Timberlake - Billboard Artist Chart History

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an unreleased song

Right, you guys expect me everytime to make the Alejandro page, yet you all turn it into a redirect, this hasn't been confirmed as a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.199.115 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Telephone has charted on several national music charts. See WP:NSONG about Notability of Albums, singles and songs. SunCreator (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Single

This song has been confirmed as a single (here [1]) and the page should be changed. 121.221.166.195 (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Single Cover

http://ariacharts.com.au/pages/images/telephone.jpg

They are not a good source for covers. They use often fan made covers from Coverlandia. http://coverlandia.blogspot.com/2009/11/lady-gaga-telephone-fanmade-single.html --It's Flo (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say the original guest vocalist was going to be Britney Spears? The cited source, Popjustice, only says that "The guest vocalist on this was going to be someone else, but then the guest vocalist wanted to put the song on her own greatest hits album, so Lady Gaga made alternative arrangements." Saying that it was Britney is a little WP:OR-ish. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce chronology

There is no guideline saying that whatever singer is included in a song gets their chronology in the infobox. Since this song is Lady Gaga featuring Beyonce and was released as a Lady Gaga single, not a Beyonce single, Beyonce should not have her chronology in the infobox. Doing so implies that the song was released as a single by Beyonce as well, hence "Beyonce singles chronology" which is incorrect. The same is true for Beyonce's song "Video Phone". It is Beyonce featuring Lady Gaga. Gaga did not release the song as her single so it cannot be listed as a single in the chronology section. Also consider that both artists have not included each other's songs on their own albums and this is because they are only featured. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh a little something to be considered here. "Video Phone" doesnot credit Gaga in any way, except for a remix. The original version is the one based on which the article is made. This is like saying "LoveGame" features Marilyn Manson. On the other hand "Telephone" is being billed as Lady Gaga & Beyonce, more than a featured artist. Hence I definitely think that Beyonce's chronology should be here in this article, but Gaga should be removed from "Video Phone" as she is not billed there. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The key is in "featured" which is widely reported by sources. It is not a duet where each artist contributes in the same manner. It is a song by Lady Gaga with some additional vocals by Beyonce. If Beyonce chooses to release the song as her own single then sure adding her chronology is fine, but as of now it is only Lady Gaga's single. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Beyonce will be equally credited for the song, if for eg this tops the Hot 100. Hence even f she is featured, commercially speaking she will get teh accolades for the song nonetheless. Its the same like "Live Your Life", 10000000 of Timbaland's songs, Jay-Z's 10000000 of featured appearances as well as 100000 of T-pain's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas2186 (talk • contribs) 23:07 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Getting credit here isn't the problem. It is labeling it as a single. It's a single, but not Beyonce's. We cannot have the infobox saying it is one of Beyonce's single because she did not release it as such. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The single was released as "Lady Gaga featuring Beyonce", so that's why Beyonce's chronology is included in the infobox. Including Beyonce's chronology isn't saying that it's actually her single... Featured artists' chronologies are always on infoboxes. Examples: 4 Minutes (Madonna song) Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song) Bartender (T-Pain song) Hard (song) Can't Believe It I'm on a Boat Give It to Me (Timbaland song) Jump (Flo Rida song) Me Against the Music and much more.  AcroX  01:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because there are other instances does not mean it is right. There is no guideline that says any singer in who appears in a song gets their chronology on the page. The title for the chronology clearly says "Beyonce singles chronology". We simply cannot have it because it does not make sense. Beyonce did not release the song as a single, Lady Gaga did, so how is it a "Beyonce single"?!?. If you add it to the infobox then you also must go to Beyonce's discography page and add it and its chart positions to her singles section because that is exactly what you are implying by having her chronology on the song's page. If Beyonce wants to have the song on her album and release it herself, then by all means add it, but that is not what is going on here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It already is on her discography, though.  AcroX  01:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not under singles, it's under as featured artist... If you make the chronology say "Beyonce featured songs chronology" then that is fine, but it is not a Beyonce single and cannot stay saying that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion will be a case of WP:WAX because changing the norm in this article should imply a change of 1000's of other articles. A better solution is to post this discussion at the wP:SONGS project talk and reach a consensus there. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Any further comments should be made here on the WikiProject Songs talk page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

promo

there was a promo of Telephone that i saw on the internet. we should list that--Morgan3136 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

yes we need a little bit more than that? like a tracklisting, or even a reference :)Im not suprised becuase it's on the radio and there has got to be a promo out by now. but we need a reference--Apeaboutsims (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No source!

Additionally, the guest vocalist was originally going to be Spears, but when Spears wanted to put the song on her own greatest hits album, Gaga made alternative arrangements and made Knowles the featured vocalist instead.

Please remove it!
moved an unsigned comment per "Put new text under old text." —Iknow23 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See topic below. SunCreator (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing said about Britney wanting this song for her Greatest Hits album! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.163.21 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This single has not been confirmed..

In the LEAD, it states that the song is the second single from the album. This has not been confirmed. There is no coverage to verify such. There was a 'chartifacts' published by ARIA on November 30 stating it was but I think a better source is required. Perhaps because it was receiving mass airplay on Australian radio stations, they said that. • вяαdcяochat 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A number of reviews, media sources reportedly said that this was decided as the second single long back. However, I admit the ARIA source needs to be updated as it is invalid now. According to sources, Gaga is creating a music video with Beyonce for the song, so I believe it is indeed releasing as a single. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It was confirmed as a single a long time back. Almost as the fame monster album was first released and before this article existed. What has never been made clear is whether it is the second, third, fourth or whatever release. The other confirmed release is Speakless. There will be another but seen no confirmation of what that will be. SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Music Video

Is there any proof that Lady GaGa is creating a video for the single?? There's only been confirmation for the video of Alejandro, the NEXT single in line... 86.3.254.48 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Laurie Ann Gibson, the person whochoreographed LoveGame & Paparazzi confirmed on her twitter that she would do a video with Gaga & Beyonce; http://twitter.com/BoomKack --TheRevolution7 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Twitter is an unreliable source hence that info cannot be added. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Where is policy saying Twitter is unreliable source? There are a number of significant articles on wikipedia using Twitter as a source. SunCreator (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with Twitter is that specific tweets can be removed at any time, in a similar way to what occurs with videos on YouTube. In order to maintain a quality article, stable sources must be used. • вяαdcяochat 02:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you archive the individual Twitter post at Webcite for example, it can still be shown even if removed at Twitter. Just make sure that the Twitter page is visited by clicking on a link at the artist's or record label's website so you know it is an 'official' Twitter account that you are accessing.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources, it states that tweets are largely not acceptable. However, it may be an exception if we follow the statement made by Iknow23. The problem is, Laurie Ann Gibson does not seem to have an official website, and her Twitter account is not verified, so although we know it is her, we can not verify it. • вяαdcяochat 04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I simply donot understand what the bomb-rush in adding such info to the article baked by such unreliable sources? Its the same thing happening in the past with the older Gaga articles. Too much of fancrufty additions go on making these bunch of articles the impossible bunch to look after. Why can't people just wait till the video is released? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


http://gagadaily.com/2010/01/telephone-music-video-filming-today/ It says that Lady Gaga filmed the video for Thelephone on January 28 2010. And the director is rumoured to be Jonas Åkerlund (Jassiq (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

Fan sites are not reliable sources and you say there is a 'rumor' regarding the director's name. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."—Iknow23 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Guest Vocalist

The two supposed sources supporting the rumor that Britney Spears was going to be the original guest vocalist are completely unreliable. The Pop Justice source doesn't say Spears' name once and it's a pretty informal review. The other source says absolutely nothing about there being a guest vocalist before Knowles in the first place. I'm taking this down unless it can actually be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burbscinates (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Here you go: http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4211&Itemid=243

"It's funny when you think about it, this song which was offered to Britney for her last album and would have been one of the best songs on it, but was knocked back, and then almost had Britney singing on it for this version but then it all went wrong...."

86.96.227.90 (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And here SunCreator (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This one is a bad source. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Music Video Plot

On GagaDaily, it says that the plot of Telephone will be a continuation from Paparazzi and that they were searching for lots of prison inmates and Gaga & Beyonce body doubles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.36.138 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Release Date

This song has been released on the radios =S I heard it on CHUM FM [Toronto, Canada] this morning, it was one of their 'new songs of the week' o_o Bad Romance just came out a month and a half ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.3.85 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea seriously, I have it on my iPhone.. why does it say Jan 2010? A8UDI 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
its also being played here in aus : http://www.fox.com.au/shows/hot30/vote--61.68.173.132 (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As of http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Telephone_(song)&oldid=331446043 the date is correctly listed as December 2, 2009.  AcroX  00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Correct in what way? It's unreferenced in the article. In remains unreleased to my knowledge, current downloads are from the album. SunCreator (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

UK Release

The source provided is radio1.gr (considered unreliable) NOT BBC Radio 1. Therefore it has been removed. Dt128 let's talk 17:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's UK site have confirmed the release for March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Source please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas2186 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 January 2010
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/ SunCreator (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Offered to Spears

Could this be explained: "Initially offered to singer Britney Spears, the song was inspired by Gaga's fear of suffocation" The song was offered to Spears, but was inspired by Gaga?? Reference supporting and/or explaining this, please? Piano non troppo (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

References are in the article(currently 4,5,6 and 7). Don't just read the lead! It was written by Gaga for Spears. Gaga was inspired by to write it by her fear of suffocation. The lead sentence requires a tidy up to make this clear. SunCreator (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Piano should be redirected to WP:LEAD instead of making such remarks. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:34, 5 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Impacts radio should also redirect to Add date (Radio). Anyone is welcome to create the article.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 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)

Monday, 8 march! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trivia harrypotter (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No confirmation of either. SunCreator (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Gagadaily said that its coming on March 8, 2010, but thats hardly a reliable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

oldest

If it was written while "Circus" was being written, then that makes telephone the oldest song In The Fame and The Fame Monster right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.79.158.77 (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Most likely not. Circus_(Britney_Spears_album) was released after The Fame with parts of Circus recorded before the Fame was done. Without knowing the dates of all The Fame songs then you can't say. And even if you knew all the dates it would be engaging in original research. SunCreator (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that Beautiful, Dirty, Rich is older, it was written when The Fame was just a dream, and Circus was just a fiction of imagination. YZJay 12:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YZJay (talk • contribs)

Billboard pop song chart ....

Guys ..you have forgotten to add the pop song chart ... go to the billboard official website and you wil discover it's at position number three AriandaGAGA (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Its a component chart which is not included if the song has alrady charted on the Hot 100. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Next week it will be N1 ... could you add pop 100 number one single on the table with dance club play? AriandaGAGA (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA
Did you even read my comment above? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No .. I mean .. will you do a table with the word "incumbent" "preceded by" AriandaGAGA (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA
That's only if the song reaches number-one, else not. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Now it's number one .. you MUST add this table ! Go to the wiky tik tok page ... you will see billboard pop song chart number one succeded by Telephone AriandaGAGA (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Clean up Music Video synopsis

The synopsis for the music video is not good at all. It needs to be cleaned up by someone. --Sdoo493 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Its all unsourced and has been reverted. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it ok to write that paper gangsta was also played in the video? 117.24.194.186 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

THe video, in fact, has more references to Pulp Fiction than Kill Bill. Rolling Stone. --190.29.145.39 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

References in the Video

I really think someone should add a list of references in the video. Aside from the obvious, like the Pussy Wagon, the more notable one is the list of poisons used: There's one from Dune (Meta-Cyanide), one from Star Wars (Fex-M3) and one from Commander & Conquer (Tiberium). They're pretty notable trivia and are clear-cut intentional.



Gaga/GaGa

There is an inconsistency in the way "Gaga" is stylized, in the "Synopsis" section under "Music Video" subtitle. Personally, I think it should be stylized as "Gaga", as opposed to "GaGa" as this is what is used in the main Lady Gaga article [1] and the "Telephone" video [2] itself. I am unable to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.87.232 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I changed this after lots of edit conflicts. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Too many quotes

Right now the whole "Release and reception" section (and a lot of other parts, too) is a mess due to the amount of quotes. Some of those quotes are up to 800 characters long. You can barely make out where the quoting starts and ends. They need to be reduced severly. Nymf hideliho! 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And I reduced it drastically. Each and everyone of them were completely copying the reviews, hence plagiarising. Wikipedia is strict against such plagiarising users. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's harp, not harpsichord

When I edited the following sentence under "Composition":

The song starts off unassumingly, with Gaga singing in a solemn voice over a harpsichord melody, which changes immediately to a pounding beat.

in which I changed the 'harpsichord' to 'harp', some user revert my edit quoting a source that says harpsichord. Clearly, the cited source is wrong. Anyone who are familiar with harp and harpsichord can tell the difference! The problem is how do I make the edit without being caught in a revert game? JY (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The source cited is Billboard, an extreme reliable source. If you want to change, you need to add a reliable source as strong as BB. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness I found a MORE RELIABLE source than that extreme reliable Billboard. Here you go, it's from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_8540000/newsid_8547700/8547789.stm which states The song starts slowly with some tuneful harp playing, but don't be fooled because a chunky dance beat soon kicks in to get you moving. JY (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I live in Britain and you've got to admit they are not the most reliable source... for example they never ever seem to get the weather right! Billboard are very reliable; I have changed it back to harpsichord from harp. Ggoere (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thelma and Louise

The scene in the desert, at the end of the clip, may be a reference to the movie Thelma and Louise. The plan where they hold their hands is almost exactly the same. (Watch any "ending scene" from Thelma and Louise on Youtube or watch the movie.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.12.117 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

Telephone has been accredited Platinum on the Australian Singles Chart. Can someone update this?

Source: http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1U50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms melb (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't do it yet, the archived source hasn't listed it yet so I can't use the source you gave because after time the song gets pushed down and off. I will put it there when the archive updates. Jayy008 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms melb (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the strong Product Placement theme?

Throughout the clip I was very surprised by the amount of product placement that appears in a very clear and forward manner. It's not only in the number of products (we counted 11 references: Christian Louboutin, virgin mobile, LG, Kraft, Channel, Tom Ford, Coke, Polaroid, Miracle whip, Wonder Bread, Chevy) but also in the fact that the brands are very exposed, and that the action suddenly center around the product (for example, the sandwich scene in the car). I work in Marketing, I'm surprised nobody else has noticed this. What do you guys want to make of this? Popersman (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Its undue weightage given. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weightage? This and the brand appearing clearly on the screen are what you would usually define as Product Placement. In this clip, I noticed the following: 1.34: Lady Gaga Bose earphones (Minor one) 2.08: Virgin Mobile 2:17, the cans of diet coke in her hair. 2.17: The Chanel Glasses (Minor one) 4.17: LG Phone 4.24: HP computer and red logo 4.27: Plenty of fish dating website 4.56: Sandwich. 5.14: Soft Drink. 5.45: Polaroid 6.20: Wonder Bread 6.39: Miracle Whip 7.50: Coor Light 8.32: Polaroid 8.38: Chevy SS Popersman (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The product placement has actually attracted a lot of coverage in reliable sources, and it might be worth adding to the article.
I'm sure there's more in addition to these. –Chase (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It might be worth placng a line in the text, but listing all the products is defintely wP:UNDUE. Wikipedia doesnot endorse such selling of products. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Queerty, Fox News and negative comments

I added a reference to a Queerty story that links to a Fox News interview between Megyn Kelly and the president of the Culture Centre, who calls the video "disgusting" and "poison for our kids" (or something along those lines). It was removed by Legolas, with the reasoning that it was a bad reference, but I have re-added it, as I feel that while the publisher isn't great, the main content is a video straight from Fox News. I don't really know how to go about finding the original video, so I've just added {{refimprove}} for now. Generally I feel we should note that while the song has received critical acclaim, there is a significant number of people who find the video to be tasteless. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people like that but its not Wikipedia's job to cater to their needs. A proper source would be someone with capability for artistic judgment who also might have an actual job by some institution to be an "art critic", not some republican wacko Fox News reject who obviously worries far too much about what is completely irrelevant towards her life. In other words Sandy Rios isn't any sort of critic, in which case if she was her acceptance in the "critical reception" area would not be debated. Her opinions of the video are equal to that of everyone else's in value the only exception was that she got to broadcast hers on Nat'l television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.144.123 (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

painted on clothes?

In the music video, she is seen dancing in what appears to be an american themed bra and panty set. I say appears, because at some times it seems that she's actually wearing paint. I can only view very low quality versions of the video here at work, and have a 1080p version waiting for me to get home, so i'l confirm it then. If it's true that she's not wearing anything, i think we should note it, because it would certainly change the tone of the paragraph mentioning the "intersex rumors" SeanBrockest (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the 1080 version, and it's still not clear, but my personal guess is that there is material there, but that there's paint as well. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
yeah i'm at a loss SeanBrockest (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Semi-protected

{{editsemiprotected}} In the release history section, add that it will be released as a CD Single in France on April 6, 2010. SOURCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottleofjag (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 March 2010

When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.

 Done  Chzz  ►  04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have undone the above edit, as Bottleofjag is almost certainly Brexx: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx. People should be aware that he is trying to influence the article and having difficulty because of semiprotection. He has made the same request anonymously from a UAE IP address, which I have also reverted.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Relationship now confirmed via Checkuser.—Kww(talk) 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Although i certainly don't agree with his apparent motives, what was wrong with the request? If the information is still valid and appropriate, why was it removed?SeanBrockest (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
He isn't allowed to edit Wikipedia, and the editor that made the change was unaware that he was being solicited by a banned user. If you believe the change to be good, will take responsibility for its accuracy, and meet the criteria laid out at WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users, it's perfectly OK for you to insert the material.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"iTunes"

Since when did "CD" and "iTunes" become the only purchase options? Why should Apple get special mention when downloadable music is available from many different sources. I cannot see how this is justified. Unless perhaps someone from Apple has a special friend at Wikipedia... IainUK (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the iTunes Store is the main share holder in the legal digital music distribution field? Not every Amazon store has an Amazon MP3 store and the HMV digital store has not been used. Why do you automatically assume that something is not what it seems? The iTunes Store is merely the best source for information on digital downloads.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster. Why are we labelling 'UK iTunes Single', when it's not retailer specific single. Tesco, Amazon and TuneTribe amoung the alternatives. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Because the iTunes version is the only one with the music video added onto it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The video: loved or hated?

First we have:

"The music video ... received general negative reviews and it is currently #1 on Billboard's '2010 Current Most Horrible Music Videos'[1]."

and then:

"the video was positively received by critics."

Apparently there's no consensus on the consensus? :)

--Plumpy (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the Music Video should be kept on the Telehone page, not separated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Gussing this is because, like me, I hated the video at first, but then everyone started loving it, which changed the direction the reviews were going. Either that or someone who hates Lady GaGa edited it in falsely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.115.114 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the only negative review in the reception part of the video section some nut on FNC saying it's poisoning kids and not all the people saying it just plain sucks? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Alphabeat cover of song

Alphabeat released a cover (song, not album art) mixing (or mashup?) "Telephone" and "Bad Romance." You can listen to it on YouTube. I think this should be included in the Track Listing/Format section or somewhere else in the article. Alphabeat provided two remixes of Lady Gaga's song, but I think it's important that people know they also covered the song (as well as mixing it in with another of Lady Gaga's songs, "Bad Romance"),--Stevevance (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Video article?

The video section is getting rather large with more and more sources arriving by the minute. How about it having a seperate article? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. -The section in this article is too long and complicated. -It's a continuation of Paparazzi and a possible 3rd video. User: Dennnni1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC).

Disagree. Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.92.137 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

In a piece written by the Guardian (front page of the paper today) it was compared to Jackson's Thriller, I think the video deserves a wiki page of it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.130.50 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Guardian link. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree--SveroH (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a votation. These people is not giving reasons against or favor the article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I definitely don't think the video is in any way able to compare to "Thriller". However I do believe the video should get it's own page coming in second to "Thriller". It also has a lot of information, all of which is useful and needed. 68.161.161.145 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It has a lot of trivia or unnecessary information. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, by the success of 'Thriller', nothing tells us that this go to have the same impact. Furthermore, it should be treated like all other items. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I don't understand why all the comments are coming off comparing it to Thriller. I think that it should be an article in it's own right because of all the lengthy information and media coverage and reaction is enough to warrant its own article. Candyo32 (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Those lengthy discussions are nothing but undue additions. In light of the video being released they can be easily removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: The video is, for all intents and purposes, a standalone short film, and as it is it's taking up way too much space on this article. The Mach Turtle (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Even Paparazzi was a stand-alone short film. Doesnot mean it shold have its own article. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It is not notable enough to have its own article. Besides, most of the information shown on the article is pure trivia, it can be remove to make a little bit short that section. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: If it is though, I think it should be combined with the "Paparazzi" video since "Telephone" is a continuation of it, and it's obvious that the story will continue in a later video. Sdoo493 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Not every music video or gaga song needs to have its own article. This is a encyclopedia for relevant information... relevant for a lot of people, not just for gaga's fans. The music video is irrelevant for a lot of people, it is not notable, it doesn't deserves its own article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: It is quite obvious that this video will create a wave in popular culture that deserves its own page. ] 09:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.210.2 (talk)

Will create? --Legolas (talk2me) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You are assumming, guessing or watching the future??? Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: per Candyo32. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a votation. These people is not giving reasons against or favor the article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: Strongly agree with Sdoo493. "Paparazzi", "Telephone" & "Alejandro" are all gonna be connected so a page based on all those as one film would be extremely useful and needed. Theuhohreo (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: see no reason why this shouldn't have it's own page. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

See no reason why this should have it's own page... Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Erm excuse me but everyone who's disagreed has been deleted, this has become a vandalised discussion to make it go in favour of the "agree" side. Jayy008 (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Your quite right, an IP removed some. Can you restore them. As someone who added the split tag I feel a bit of a WP:COI if I was to restore them myself. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't find the person who did it :/. Otherwise I would have and if I restored them, I would have to remove all recent posts otherwise it would say "edit cannot be undone". I've informated "Legolas" of the problem so he should sort it out. Jayy008 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this will matter, but at the time I posted my vote, the count was five in favor, four against. Does that help in trying to sort this out? The Mach Turtle (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I've re-add (see below) the disagree comments that were removed by an IP user. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree As expansive as the information on this video is, it's still relevant to "Telephone" as a single. I think it works just as well as part of the "Telephone" page, if not better, since the information is in one place as opposed to two. 130.76.32.144 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree i think even though the discussion of the proccess and then release of the video it is still extremely relevant to this article and should be included Nbeau1989 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: The video is considered a short film and so is the Paparazzi video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarsonTaylor (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And??? What is the point of that information? We all know that, but that is not enough to create a separated article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong disagree, Thriller is an iconic video that has been around for over 30 years and is still famous. This video came out yesterday, there's enough info there now, if people stop adding misc info then there won't be a problem. Jayy008 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree This music video has acquired loads of media attention and public discussion. It's also very controversial, and with all the influences and ads in it, there's not way it can be organized in a nice, fashionable, appealing way on the "Telephone" single page. And enough with Thriller, you don't know how this music video could impact music in the future. No one does. The purpose of Wikipedia is to show how it has/is currently impacting the world, and let me tell you, it has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.68.20 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"it has/is currently impacting the world, and let me tell you, it has." by what means? Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The world is not just the US! It is not impacting the world, just part of it. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong disagree. I do agree with what Candyo32 said, but, popular Lady Gaga articles such as "Paparazzi" and "Bad Romance" have done the exact same thing as this video and have been merged into the song article. Yes, the music video has been compared to Thriller (which has it's own page), but, just because they are compared, it does not by any means mean that this video would reach the success of Thriller or have a "legacy" (although Telephones music video is definitely popular!). I think that the Telephone article is completely fine with the music video section, because while the video section does take up some space, the article is not anywhere near the point where it needs to be split due to length. This is all just my view of the topic. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree There has been much anticipation and celebration over its release. The production and promotion and the detailed meaning that Gaga is trying to convey will very well take many words to describe. Also, as this has already started the massive amount of text is unsightly and I suggest that a summary be but on the page about the single and a linked provided for the more detailed explanation as has been done before. Regards,Shelisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelisa (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? A music video usually takes this much of time only. Fan's anticipation has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Celebartion!?!?!?! I am not seeing a national or global "telephone video release day" anywhere near! Not every person in this world is a gaga fan, if those are celebrating and were waiting for it to came out, ok, but have its own article just because gagas fans want it, it silly. I'm sure there must be some kind of "gaga wikia" where gaga's fans can create immensity of unnecessary articles for Wikipedia. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree I'm sure that not every person in this world is a gaga fan, but if the "Thriller" music video have it's own article, why shouldn't "Telephone" have it?..Also, in the Michae; Jackson articles there are a lot of unimportant informations, but if someone wants to add something more in a GaGa article (E.g.: Telephone) someone must tell you that "there is to many further information"...so?? Isn't this what's Wikipedia about, to be an online encyclopedia..in encyclopedias nobody cuts out some pieces, just because the article was too long..that's other ideea..but, as long as the "Telephone", "Paparazzi" and "Alejandro" m. videos are coming together, as a short (at least 22 minutes long), why couldn't be there a "Telephone" or other else name page about this short...with it's synopsis, the releasing, the development and the credits, as in the articles about other films..??? Please, notice my opinion..and do something!! :) STEF1995S (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.82.124 (talk)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF before do that comparation about MJ's articles. If you want to do something to solve it, go and fight over a cleaning on the MJ's articles, but don't use that in favor of something that you do like. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree Has enough solo merit and attention for a separate article.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

See the edited version now. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong disagree Legacy? Laughable. The video is not even out for a week. Why are we even having a discussion when most of the user's posting tend to add up fancruft in the article? Of course most here would want a separate article on precious Gaga. That doesnot mean that Wikipedia will have to be a paper encyclopedia like they want. This is getting the same with every Gaga video, the same hype and everything. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, as it is simply not worthwhile creating a whole article just for a single music video.. You could however create an article that includes the outlining of the concepts, inspiration, filming and reception of every single one of her music videos together, since they are considered to be so "epic." An article on just one or two of the videos is not necessary. That is just my thought. • вяαdcяochat 05:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I kind of like this idea of yours Brad. :) *buzzing light* --Legolas (talk2me) 05:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree It is one of the most anticipated videos of the decade and it's 10 minutes long.

An article can not have it's own article just because "it's 10 minutes long" and how is this video "one of the most anticipated videos of the decade"?!? The decade only began two months ago! Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that it is long, doesn't mean that it deserves its own articles. Dah! Anticipated??? By whom? Just Gaga's fans thought of it as a higly anticipated music video, no one else. It was not even mentioned on the news like an important thing or something like that, by anyone. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose as per Legolas' rationale. I see someone went ahead and made the split without a consensus. No doubt one of the many sock farms trolling all the Lady Gaga related articles. Nymf hideliho! 14:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Brad, on this. But I think the article should immediately be deleted, someone has created it before a consensus, somebody tried to fix the vote, this discussion has no more credibility. Jayy008 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


Comment The page was created, so the video section on this article must be resumed in a paragraph. TbhotchTalk C. 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No. It should not. I have redirected the article to the music video of this one. Cannot believe within one night the amount of fancruft that was added. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Regardless of length, a music video is created from the song. And in its current format, the music video section fits very well into the body of the song article. I see no reason as to why the music video is so important to the world that it warrants its own page. Using the same logic, any music video which is mentioned on the news should qualify to receive its own independent Wikipedia article Spyco (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree definately, it is a famous video and will be remembered, and I say make the Thriller video seperate too! Ggoere (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not fact. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As of right now the music video does not need it's own article because it's not notable enough. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Will be remembered??? By whom??? How do you know that??? Neither we nor Wikipedia cannot predict the future. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree. A lot of the information is simply quote or copied and duplicated. It could be easily cut down. But either way there is little justification for splitting the article into a music video page and a song page. it really isn't necessary. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Recent attention is no indication of long term notability. As far as I know, the only music video to have its own article on Wikipedia is Thriller, which was released in 1983 and continues to be popular today. If this music video is popular in ten years, let alone 27, the discussion should be revisited. Length wise, the readable prose size of the article is only 16 kb; 30 kb is recommended before a split. liquidluck✽talk 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. The only reason the length is so small is because people have been stopped from adding to the article. The video itself is chock-full of duly mentionable details: to name a few, her outfits (which are famous for making Lady GaGa who she is) and how they reflect other celebrities or echo the video "Paparazzi;" the cast members who are worthy of mention; the countless movie references; AND for all the attention the video has received. Regardless of your personal views on Lady GaGa, there is no logical reason to not create a separate article. The comparison to Thriller, while flawed in the sense of "legacy material," does draw good parallels; however, there is no possible way to discern whether it will be popular in years to come. At that time, if the article receives no further mention, why not just merge it back? It is obvious there is a lot more to the video than what is in the lackluster synopsis. PatrickFury
All the things that you think should be mentioned are pure trivia: costumes and its reflection to celebrities (I don't understand what that means) and the references to movies. Those things are pure trivia, Wikipedia ir not a place for trivia, is a place for real information. On the other hand, it is just a video, and is not THAT big for the world as "Thriller" is/was, so stop trying to use that one. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. First of all, the video is an entire short film that the song is only a component of. The script, sets, costumes, dialogue, etc. are entirely not the song and inappropriate for such detail in the song article Already inherently these are separate topics. Secondly, in relation to the first point, there is fare too much video topic-specific content by reliable sources to be appropriate in the song article. Arguably, the video article can be much longer than the song one with the amount of coverage it has received from reliable sources. Like Michael Jackson's Thriller video, the video has a life unto itself separate from the original song. --Oakshade (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, as a matter of fact I don't think anyone near heard something like "The new Gaga's short film with the song "Telephone" at the background". IT IS a music video, very long and very pretentious, but is a music video. And we must remember that most of that information is repetitive and clearly unnecessary. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I wouldn't have even known about this song if it wasn't for the video. By far the vast majority of coverage on the current google news search on "telephone"+"Lady gaga" is about the video, not the song. The facts back up the video being more notable than the song. --Oakshade (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM my dear. The video was just released a week ago. Every news article would point to it. That doesnot mean its having an OMGZZZZZ impact. Let's not put our emphasis on google news. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything about the song is WP:RECENTISM, my dear. Coverage of the song and the video are equally recentism, my dear. But, my dear, coverage of the video is in fact much more in-depth and plentiful than the song, my dear. Completely blind WP:CRYSTAL speculation on the future lower notability of either the song or the video is not a basis for deciding Wikipedia content, my dear.--Oakshade (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is a guideline that states one should not write articles about future events because they may happen. There is nothing in that guideline that states an article should be written because one should not believe that its notability may diminish.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ryulong that WP:CRYSTAL is indeed being used far more strongly here. Oakshade you are just making wrong points about the policies. Nothing about the song is recentism, as facts prsent have already happened. However, things like legacy and *insert fan's blah blah* doesnot come in a week and is the case with this one. I hope you can see clearly what reasons many of those who agreed on the split. its either "it's very iconic" and "it's over 10 mins long". I beleive I don't need to comment any further. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no bloody reason to have a separate article just on this music video. The fact that there is so much on the video at this time is exactly what Legolas2186 says. WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because the music industry is writing as much as they can about this singular video right now does not make it notable for its own article on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some are saying that the video section is very important for the article, and it's obvious. But it's also obvious that there is still going to be the Video section, it's just going to be smaller, a summary of the new article. --200.121.150.55 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue is that there should not be a new article and all of the information on the video should remain here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
just to pick up on the point made immediately above... the only video to have its own article is "Thriller" which as been around for over 10 years and influenced many other artists and has had tributes etc. i dont think anyone is going to tribute this video. if this video is still being talked about a couple of years down the line they yes maybe. but currently the video section needs to be reduced because it is excessive. it is fully of different media outlet quotes each stating roughly the same thing. Rather than writing out paragraph for each quote maybe just paraphrasing the relevant points is more appropriate.? Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I could not agree more... Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I shortened quite a bit of the MV section. I believe it looks appropriate now. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I actually do think it is going to be tributed.

200.121.135.217 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good for you! But just because an unregistered user "thinks" that, means that we have to split the article... Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone (music video) fully protected

I've fully protected Telephone (music video) due the persistent edit war between having the article and making it a redirect. There is absolutely no consensus to split the music video information into its own article at this time. This is probably going to be a long phase, but please keep discussion going to form a proper consensus as to split or keep the information together. Should one form to split, feel free to contact me directly on my talk page. Thank you. — ξxplicit 03:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the split tag, as consensus suggests that the split should not take place. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lady_Gaga
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ95z6ywcBY
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Telephone_(song)/Archive_1&oldid=1136229694"