Talk:Born This Way (album)/Archive 2

Lady Gaga stole my idea

Hello

My Name is Narin, I am artist living in Toronto. I have created a painting called," A new Journey to Technology year 3000." which was created in the year 2002. I have also painted alot of artworks based on that idea. People might be wondering where did Lady Gaga got her album cover from??," Bone this way from." Please when you get a chance take a good look at her,"Born this way", and my painting, "A new Journey To Technology year 3000". I have posted my art work on REBBUBBLE.COM in the year 2008. Search for NarForver or art title. When my sister first showed me Lady gaga's Album cover few days ago, I was shocked because at that moment I saw my own creative art work. Seriously, who deserves the credit?!!

I was so shocked, I had to do something about it, I created a profile on facebook and youtube.You can go to youtube(nareen4peace) or facebook,and search for.." Lady Gaga stole my idea'

Thank you for your time

Narin I 99.228.114.117 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

New Single - release in May 11, ANIMAL

I found a german article about lady gaga's new Single - called "Animal" - which will be released in May 11. It'd be wonderful, if someone could take the Single "Animal" in this article.

I found it on: http://www.starflash.de/artikel/lady-gaga-animal-180970.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxsmartlxx (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, sorry, I don't find the website reliable, they don't even say from where they got the news. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even Gaga's -> Times of India. Novice7 | Talk 16:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The track, Animal, isn't even by lady gaga? Confirmed by her Label, here 88.104.168.157 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, not by Gaga. Novice7 | [[User

talk:Novice7|Talk]] 04:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The second single from the album has been comfirmed by Gaga herself that it will be "Judas". As Legolas already stated, "Animal" is not a Lady Gaga song. Squidoh (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the Italian Wikipedia!

Hello

I'm an italian boy and I would like to say to all those who make part of Wikipedia to stop those who control the Italian Wikipedia, especially in the music domain. Because we can't post informations of (for instance)an album of Lady Gaga (but also for all the rest of artist or actors) until the publication of this one arrives. So why all other wikipedia can post it? We can't stand it anymore, please do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.112.220 (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It has to do with spamming, for instance, only auto-confirmed users could edit Lady Gaga's wikipage in the Finnish version of Wikipedia. Squidoh (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

New songs confirmed in Vogue

http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/lady-gaga-our-lady-of-pop/

"Hair", "Bad Kids", "Government Hooker", "Judas", and "Americano". There will be a total of seventeen tracks. 99.100.211.13 (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.211.13 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are only 17 confirmed recorded songs for the Deluxe Album, not 20 like some people are saying. There will be a total of 22 songs on the Deluxe Album, including 3 bonus tracks, and 5 remixes. Only 14 songs are going to be released on the standard edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samlikeswiki (talk • contribs) 06:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Judas

i thought you guys died for reliable source. where the hell did gaga confirm the release date of Judas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.106.2 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the date is comfirmed, Gaga has just stated that it will be released a few weeks before the album comes out, which means late April/early May. Squidoh (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, but a week ago someone had written May 8th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.59 (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

First Single...

--91.154.103.148 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Why is it TBA for the first single, it has been confirmed already by Gaga herself on twitter that Born This Way is the first single and it will be released in february!!

Proof please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.theroundtableonline.com/2011/01/lady-gaga-announces-born-this-way-single-date-and-album-release/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.252.22 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it has been confirmed, the new single is Born This Way, the title track of the album. Keep up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.109.94.85 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, she just commented that the single will be released in February, she NEVER say "Born This Way" will be released on February, you are assuming that her upcoming single is called Born This Way, because she commented that the album (wrote as "the record") was in that tweet too. Tbhotch^™ and © 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, when she says "the single" and "the record" she means they are both called Born This Way. At the mtv awards she sung Born this way, the title track. Every form of media has reported it as the name of the first single aswell. The song she sang at the MTV awards will be the first single. What else could it possibly be called apart from Born This Way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.109.94.85 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"She says "the single" and "the record" she means they are both called Born This Way." -> Gaga commented that "the record" will be released on May, "the single" in February, therefore Born This Way is the title of her single Tbhotch^™ and © 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding on top of Tbhotch, IPs, please quite the ORing, and don't waste time. "Born This Way" won't be added as the first single untill and unless the horse confirms it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because the album is called Born This Way doesn't mean that its debut single will be called that. Yes, she sung a portion of what appeared to be titled "Born This Way" at the 2010 VMAs - but we can't just assume that the title is that. You're all far too eager to add information - yes, I'm hungry for her new album - but this is Wikipedia: info should be verified first. Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/lady-gaga/news/252246-lady-gaga-new-single-album-born-this-way-grammys MTV have now confirmed it as the new single. It is official, her statement on New years day clearly stated the same title for both. Please can we accept this now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.109.94.85 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I saw this and just had to comment. Obviously the song and record were both going to be called Born This Way. When I heard of this tweet I went and read it and it was very clear to me and everyone else with half a brain. If you understand the english language you should have been able to identify that.219.89.146.207 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems very strange to me that the editors of this article...

Keep ignoring the request to change Born This Was as a LG's third studio album even though there are plenty of sources. Doesn't make sense at all. --Akerk (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, for some reason some of them just don't want to call it her third album, mostly because they don't want to acknowledge The Fame Monster as her second. The most amazing thing of all is that one of them has resorted to saying Gaga herself is not a reliable source to help their little argument. 189.153.48.142 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm, what? If you want to ask a question, ask one. If you want to start another discussion, go for it. I gather than The Fame Monster is officially an EP due to its length. (Personally, I don't care either way.) But don't act like snide schoolgirls, bitching about the editors as if they're doing it out of personal malice against you or Lady Gaga herself. It's false and it doesn't endear you to third parties. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, you can't even be serious, all these editors think they're mighty gods 'cause they edit wikipedia, I mean I thank the ones who created it but I've seen this attitude before many times in my life, all these people (I've came across I hope not everyone is like this in other fields) before being so involved with the project probably didn't have anything worthy to do with their lives, now that they believe they do, they hold so strongly to it that they have to treat rudely, ignore, use dismissive tactics and boss around anyone who disagrees on something they can't think for themselves thoroughly. I use some of my time to read about the mainstream music field everywhere including here and know a little about it enough to know something is not right and what changes have been around the music industry, also, I'm a musician myself.

"I gather than The Fame Monster is officially an EP due to its length. (Personally, I don't care either way.)"

What the... is that? Are you editing an ENCYCLOPEDIA and you don't give a damn if a fact is true or wrong? That's why the critics don't trust this encyclopedia enough, but why do I even mention it, YOU DON'T CARE. Yeah, this encyclopedia is written by people who don't give a damn if a fact is true or it is false.

Let me enlighten you with cheap true knowledge an EP is a dying term from the vinyl era, studio album is a little more modern, before, LP automatically meant studio album, but now a studio album, and I'm telling you this as a musician, is a group of tracks that involve a concept, (not to be confused with concept album), all of them recorded in a studio. Studio album is not about the length anymore and probably you will bother me around with sources, and yeah I will give you one that will do just fine, Radiohead is doing me the favor to provide it, their recent album, 'The King Of Limbs' is a legitimate studio album and has 8 tracks, just like The Fame Monster, for both STUDIO ALBUMS, all of the tracks are new, all involve a concept, both are a full effort to ocupy the artist lifetime for a period for promotion, touring, videomaking, single releasing and both last less than 40 minutes, The Fame Monster 34' and The King Of Limbs 37'.

You can call The Fame Monster EP, wich sounds kinda funny because is not per se an extended play since it was all recorded digitally, not released in vinyl, is more than a couple of new songs just to put something out, a practice punk bands used EPs for, is not a compilation, a studio album extract, contain remixes, live recordings, you know like, legitimate extended plays, you can call this personal research all you want but the facts are all over the net and I WON'T EVEN try to modify the album, studio album, extended play articles, here on wikipedia, is not my job for me to do. And I don't mind or reject the EP concept since "reliable sources" cited it as it, but now, and stressing the NOW 'cause the music industry is suffering a big change since the digital era, (less people buy CDs anymore, the disc concept is dying, sales are low, genres are changing):

An EP can be a studio album.

Try to change The King Of Limbs to EP, you could try, in format, is virtually the same to The Fame Monster, you won't be able. Probably because, NOW, and EP CAN be a studio album totally ignoring the length issue. I won't try to convince you about this, I've tried in The Fame Monster, with sources, the article as it is, is:

"The Fame Monster is the third extended play (EP)[1][2][3][4][5] and second major release by American recording artist Lady Gaga."

I wanted to change it to:

"The Fame Monster is the second studio album and third extended play (EP)[1][2][3][4][5] by American recording artist Lady Gaga."

I've tried in many ways to make the people understand it with a couple of wikipedia sources and I've tried in many ways because I respect Lady Gaga because if I EVER had a situation like this being Lady Gaga I would totally be offended that the most popular encyclopedia in the world is not calling my second studio album, my second studio album, just a "second major release" wich actually doesn't mean anything and would demand to change it, I would even get lawyers if you get ballsy, like you totally did with me. That my second album is being publicized just as a release is offensive, is ignoring my work, and probably you don't understand this because you're not a musician.

And with Born This Way, I took the work of gathering sources that call it indeed, her third studio album, you people just ignore it. Probably because in your beautiful brains you can't understand the concept that an EP can be studio album now. The people editing these articles, some are great like a couple of people who helped (and got ignored, too), but some, like most of the people I've come across, including you, are just incompetent, and I'm sorry if this offends you but it's the truth, the people here wasn't even attempting to help and collaborate with the proposition, helping me with the sources, innovating and working together for better knowledge, I've just found closed-minded arrogant people who think know it all.

I just don't have the time and probably the people who listened in the first place just to shut me up would be comfortable that I don't, I don't have so much time to look for sources for every word I say, even if it's true and I actually did look for sources for what I needed to be changed but I got ignored, look up, buddy, I have my sources, but you just don't get it. I'm going less to wikipedia for this reason, knowing there are ignorant indifferent people in charge and it's sad because probably the person who created this had the intention for all the people to trust what's written here. And I do respect the people who did this, however I do have contempt for the people who is comfortable with having lousy information posted. There was and I thank that person, who did change the locked article of Born This Way and listed it as her third studio album (It got changed back however), giving me hope that not all the people here are ignorant and indifferent like you are, I do have a little of understanding that you probably live your life like that damaging others and yourself with the low values of being ignorant and indifferent. And I guess you take the comfort that I don't have the time to make the big effort and put out all the facts with sources by myself even if you will ignore them by nature anyway however I do take the comfort that you guys dedicate so much time and effort in doing a lousy job. Akerk (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To reply to some of this: an EP is in fact, not the same thing as a full-length studio album. Just because we are no longer in the vinyl age doesn't mean that the definition of it has changed. It all has to do with the way the record label chooses to market the release. The fact that you provided many sources is a good thing however your overall tone is not going to help to put people in your corner. Whether or not you're a musician makes no difference, and I highly doubt that your assumptions about what Lady Gaga would personally want in this situation have much validity. That said, I'm sure there is a way to work with other editors without attacking or inferring that people "think they're almighty gods" or "don't care" or "don't give a damn" or name-calling like "close-minded", "arrogant", "ignorant" and "indifferent". It's one thing to be frustrated but there's no use in complaining about other people this way. - eo (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To reply to some of this too: I'm not a major editor of this article - I visit the pages because I'm a fan of Lady Gaga. If you have a look at my contributions (link in my signature), you'll see that I've worked on a few Gaga-related articles and used to work a lot of Gwen Stefani and No Doubt pages. I responded because you left a message here that insulted people. I said that "I don't care" (and I'll admit it was poorly phrased) whether it's classified as an EP or LP because I was responding to the tone of your message - the EP/LP debate has been argued many times and I'm not invested in it. I got into a similar argument over whether "Christmas Tree", which I took from AFD to GA with the help of Legolas2186, was a "single" or "promotional single"; it didn't help that people provided different definitions of "promotional single". My concern was to build the article. If you compare the histories of the article and its talk page, you'll see that no one involved in the argument actually added anything to the article - they merely derailed the GAN, which was very frustrating.

No, I'm not a musician but I've worked on a lot of music articles. If Lady Gaga were offended by having TFM called an EP, I'm sure she could mention it in an interview and we'd correct it. Or she could call and instigate an WP:OFFICE action. Or she could state it in any kind of official way and ask for the wikipedia page to be changed. But "if I EVER had a situation like this ... I would even get lawyers if you get ballsy, like you totally did with me" - what? You're threatening to sue an editor who has barely worked on the article in a vague, veiled way for being "ballsy"? Despite being a huge fan of Gaga and owning nearly everything she's released, this is why I work on unrelated pages. (And when I have more free time, I'll do some more Gwen Stefani work.)

You've insulted me and other editors, some of whom I've worked with in good faith, quite a lot there. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors, please ignore this asshole. he's been stirring up the same pot for the past two months now (on both this page and TFM page) and he just won't stop. There's no use in reasoning with him when consensus was reached last year. The horse is dead, dammit, and it really doesn't matter how many legs it had either. Give it up. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I went to the drawing board and cooled of and thought of a new solution. I will mention both sides of the argument inside of the article. I will show you later (when I am not on a shared computer). I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way Ball?

I watched the "Google Goes GaGa" video, and GaGa mentions something about a "Born This Way Ball Tour." Does anyone have any information on this? Samlikeswiki (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture

The cover of the 'Born This Way' album has been revealed so shouldn't there be a picture of it on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.174.29 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been revealed yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.135.215 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It definitely 100% has look it up on Google or something.

LOL. The photos here are recycled from old photoshoots/events. Why would Gaga reuse old photos for a highly highly highly highly anticipated album? You just know that she wouldn't - she's always striving for the next biggest thing. The covers that are available now look cheap and tacky. Plus, it has been reported that Gaga has recently completed a photoshoot for the album while she stopped in London last December. Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The one I'm talking about is the one where she's wearing a jacket with a unicorn on the back and the words 'Born This Way' and she is naked from the waist down.

That was never confirmed as the album cover, just a promotional image.92.235.254.101 (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is the album cover, there is evidence to support this. Try checking websites like MTV or something.

No. provide source. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It says the website's 'spam' so I can't show you. Who cares if Wikipedia don't like eating spam?! What's that got to do with the article?!

If a spam website is all you got then bye. I don't need to discuss this further. The image won't be added . — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

--91.154.100.153 (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree whit Legolas, its not he album cover!

• That photo is not the album cover. Several sources online state that it is a promotional image. Do your research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.95.150.205 (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know either way, but Amazon UK does show it in the image field. [1] Though it is most likely just there to replace the cover until it gets there. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 04:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We have the picture! http://gagadaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/btwart.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.33.128 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To the person above me: that's the single art for born this way!! it has been out for 2 months. the real album art has not been revealed, lady gaga just tweeted that she JUST took the album art for born this way. go to her twitter. no one has the official artwork yet. The other picture she released at the beginning of the year was for promotional purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.164.201 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 220.136.41.187, 6 April 2011

Please change the release date of "Judas" from May 8, 2011 to April 19, 2011 because Lady Gaga has announced this in her Gagavision episode. Another source for this information can be found with this link: http://www.gigwise.com/news/62347/Lady-Gaga-To-Release-New-Single-Judas-On-April-19

220.136.41.187 (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Zpenguin23. — Bility (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New songs without sources; please check for authenticity.

Four new song titles have been added to the list.

"One", "Justice," "Strangers", and "Unfathomable" need citations.

70.131.156.23 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They are fake, I've reverted the edits. As far as I know, the only source is from a faked CD cover of the album. (http://fuckingbornthisway.tumblr.com/post/4058236854), though the person who released it later said it was faked. (http://fuckingbornthisway.tumblr.com/post/4070962393/is-it-real-or-fake). Something that is troubling me, however, is this screenshot of Gaga's twitter, of a post that was supposedly later deleted. (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110326141637/ladygaga/images/2/23/IMG_1031.jpg) I'm not sure what to make of it. ɧαεςαתɖɾσϻᴇ 11:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Another one. Fix it, please. 70.131.156.23 (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

album cover!!

who put that pic as the cover, its not an official, it was used to promote the album and THE SINGLE, what the hell isnt this a protected page, remove the picture now!!

--91.154.97.222 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to remove it, but it seems to reappear. If you will claim that it's "confirmed" please include a citation. For the record, Amazon.com has a slightly different image. Ditto21688 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga tweeted just yesterday that the album cover was just shot, so that can't be the cover. Just saying :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.10.77 (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Judas Article

We already got a release date and even a review. We know who wrote it, who's producing it and that she is going to perform it at the American Idol finale. We kinda need an article now, we're only days away from the release. --201.240.72.94 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it's beyond basic we need to put up an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.216.225 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus among the editors suggest to put it up after its release only. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus, the Judas single cover was "leaked" on Transmission Gaga-Vision Ep. 42 which came out on Tuesday. 88.195.50.33 (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way No.1s in 19 countries

According to the article on the single it's gone number one in 19 countries. Explain or fix please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.216.225 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What is there to explain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_This_Way_%28song%29#Charts lists the charts, and they are all sourced. DanielDPeterson (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It says in the Singles section that it's gone number one in fifteen countries that is what I was questioning sorry I wasn't clear about that :).

Judas is out. make an article. PRONTO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.164.201 (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Judas

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/judas-single/id432505481 Judas was released on all iTunes time for article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.216.225 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wooot. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not all of them. Yves (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not on the US iTunes DanielDPeterson (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Even so- it's article time!!!

I am curious as to where this link came from, because Lady Gaga's iTunes page doesn't lead to it. DanielDPeterson (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I just picked this link at random (out of the countries it was released in of course) as an example but as I have bought the song myself in Ireland then it's safe to assume that it was released only a few miles away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.216.225 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/judas-single/id432534186 It's on Itunes now! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.179.67 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys this is ree-diculous this song is charting in itunes everywhere and we don't have a wikipedia page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.216.225 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Charting on the iTunes Store is not valid for a song to gain notability on Wikipedia. If you IPs are restless for an article, one is currently being developed at the Wikipedia Incubator here. Consensus needs to be reached before it can be moved to the mainspace, though. Yves (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we were told to wait until the song was released to create the page. It's been released. Create the page. End of story. Simple, see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.205.66 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But it's already in creation. See the link I posted to the Incubator. Yves (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You and I Producer

Gaga confirmed that Mutt Lange produced You and I and Brian May played guitar on it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh9XIowYC3o&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnoopRoyale98 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. ℥^nding·start 22:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 187.54.245.191, 17 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Could you add an "Artwork" section, commenting on the new released album artwork? That would be great.

187.54.245.191 (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Cover art authenticity / Twitter (TwitPic) as reliable sources concerns

Per BOLD and USERG, I have removed the image. Since when do we allow Twitter / TwitPic to pass as reliable sources? It would seem prudent to wait for an official release to Amazon.com or other retail site before posting a cover image. We're here to be right, not to be "first". --Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is present in Gaga's official website, plus a number of reliable sources validate this. Retail cannot be an official source as this will only come from the horse's mouth. Baseless removal. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, here's listing just some of the sources,

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2011/04/lady-gaga-reveals-album-cover-releases-second-single/1

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/04/17/lady-gaga-morphed-into-motorbike-for-new-album-cover-115875-23066222/

http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a314323/lady-gaga-teases-lp-artwork-deluxe-edition.html

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lady-gaga-premieres-born-way-179206

Album Artwork Theories etc

I think we should definitely add a section about all of the conspiracy theories that are going around about the album artwork. We could definitely mention that many fans were upset and disliked the cover. Also, we could talk about how - maybe - she was betraying her fans, similar to how Judas betrayed Jesus? That'd be interesting to read!

Also the special edition cover is out. Please add that in too!

Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.211.253 (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's so far beyond original research it's stupid. Not only is that not encyclopedic at all, but these stupid "Judas/betrayal" rumors are just a way for her fans to rationalize their hate for the cover. The Mach Turtle (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Foreignboy221, 19 April 2011

On the list of confirmed tracks, a new one - "Bloody Mary" was confirmed today by a PopJustice article. The track was originally supposed to be on The Fame Monster EP, but didn't make the final cut. It will be appearing now on Born This Way.

Source: http://ladygaganow.net/?p=4972

Foreignboy221 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done That website fails RS per their disclaimer on the front page, an excerpt of which reads "Lady GaGa Now is just a unprofitable fansite...". Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 01:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New song confirmed in NME? "Bloody Mary"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little Tidbit of information needs citation

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

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

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

New song titles

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

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

Track Listing

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

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

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

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

Marry The Night, Third Single

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

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

Marry The Night

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

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

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

Edit request from 200.101.38.232, 2 May 2011

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

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

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

Born This Way Cover Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born This Way Special Edition Cover Art Released

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You and I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Track listing

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

- Scheiße (Remix) - Living on the Radio

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

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

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

album cover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yoü and I

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

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

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

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

Length of songs.

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

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

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

Americano

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

Yoü and I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ or †

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Edge of Glory

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

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

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

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

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

The Edge Of Glory

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

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

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

Japan Bonus Track

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

Hair

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion tag on "Yoü and I" article

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

Government Hooker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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