Talk:Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song)

Enigma

Should the article mention Gaga's performance of "Shallow" in Enigma?

• https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lady-gaga-bowie-cover-shallow-enigma-las-vegas-773641/
• http://www.newnownext.com/lady-gaga-shallow-enigma-opening-las-vegas-residency/12/2018/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/a-musical-analysis-of-shallow-from-a-star-is-born/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.22.142 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Accolade Table

Have put this back as it is a common feature on ‘singles’ pages, and can see no reason why it was removed. If anyone disagrees, we should discuss reasons here. BenBowser (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly you have no idea how articles and lists work in Wikipedia. The whole information is already present in the article and in the actual section and this is not a WP:LIST. And you were reverted multiple times previously, so it is your onus to first discuss here. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Woah, ok calm down. Whoever that IP is, it isn’t me, so you don’t need to be so abrupt. :) I came to the talk section to ask why it had been reverted, since it is a useful table to have, especially for a song such as this which is performing unusually well with accolades. It is helpful for giving information quickly, without having to read the paragraphs. Quick information after all is what most people use Wikipedia for. BenBowser (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? That IP isn't you? Oh well, you were still removed in the next edit so yeah you are correct in discussing. MOS:LIST only allows usage of Embedded lists for See also and References section. This is Wikipedia rule-governed, not my personal preference. All details of the songs' awards are present in the Lady Gaga awards list, which is linked in the {{See also}} tab at the top of the section. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot my ‘:’s! Don’t worry, I’m not bothered enough by this to start an edit war, I see you’ve had enough of those on here already, haha. Wiki rules on this are just weird I guess. As you seem to run these pages, maybe you should be a little more fourthcoming, understanding and open with IP Wikipuppies over these issues? Explaining reasons properly etc. would’ve saved me (and I’m sure others) from making the same mistakes, as we’d understand more where you’re coming from. At first glance it seems like you’re just being pedantic. (I understand now of course! I don’t mean this in a bad way. Just suggesting what I think might save you from all those pesky rollbacks!) BenBowser (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all, glad you understood. Sometimes I feel like my hands are tied because of so many rules and etc. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding a line about the techniques used by her fans to generate streams?

In the past week there has been a lot of coverage of different strategies utilized by Lady Gaga's fans to generate more streams for the song.

https://www.thefader.com/2019/03/01/lady-gaga-shallow-starbucks-twitter-scam-shallowbucks-spotify

https://www.iheart.com/content/2019-03-03-lady-gaga-fans-create-starbucks-scam-to-boost-shallow-streams/

https://www.altpress.com/news/lady-gaga-shallowbucks-shallow/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/starbucks-shallow-lady-gaga-scam-shallowbucks

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/lady-gaga-scamming-starbucks-and-spotify-to-get-shallow-to-no-1.html/

not sure how credible these articles are but it's certainly noteworthy enough to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukestepford (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. WP:FANCRUFT and WP:UNDUE applies. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pop Culture Moment

Guys I am having a bit difficulty in thinking where this particular source about the song's popularity. An impact section maybe? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Or rename the Critical section to Critical response and impact? But it would be great to include some of the infos from this source. --Sricsi (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. Let me work out something. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cover versions section

Why is there an infobox for one of the covers? There are at least 10 other covers mentioned in that section. Putting an infobox for just one of them seems WP:UNDUE weight to the Keiino cover. Schazjmd (Talk) 21:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, But Keiino's cover seems to be only one recorded and released as a single. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, the versions by Pentatonix and Andy Mineo are released for sale. (I can buy either on amazon) Schazjmd (Talk) 01:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I understand those tracks are available for digital download, but not necessarily released as a single. I don't feel strongly about keeping the inbox, but I'm trying to decide if single release is enough to justify inclusion. I'm also wondering if cover art should be added. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, could you explain what you mean by "not necessarily released as a single"? Schazjmd (Talk) 01:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Singles are released to promote albums. Simply recording a song and making it available for digital download as part of a collection is not the same as releasing a single. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer I'm not seeing an album release by Keiino, only singles, same as the other two covers. When you look at this page on mobile and go to the covers, first thing you see is the large infobox for Keiino. It seems like promotion. Schazjmd (Talk) 01:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Ok, then I'm not sure and I'll let others decide. Not too concerned either way, TBH. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, Another Believer, I'll wait and see if anyone has any arguments for keeping it, thanks! Schazjmd (Talk) 01:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Artwork

Was the alleged cover ever posted by a primary source? The chart website linked in the upload is not a reliable source for artworks. A reverse image search only reveals usage on fan pages and unreliable secondary sources. We need to remove it unless proof of it being official is provided.--NØ 12:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Recording Asociation of America (RIAA) lists the image as an official cover in their database. The official website of the German Charts also lists the image as the official cover

• https://www.riaa.com/home/lady-gaga-shallow-album/
• https://www.offiziellecharts.de/titel-details-1799181 --213.214.19.84 (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Chart and certification websites are not reliable sources for artwork though. A simple reverse image search reveals that this cover is of fanmade origin and has never been shared by Gaga, Cooper, or the record label. Those chart websites probably saw it as the cover on Wikipedia and just went with it.—NØ 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That's quite an arrogant assumption to make about the hegemonic intellectual power of Wikipedia. The Recording Industry Association of America, which Universial Music/Interscope Records is a part of, listing the image as a cover should be enough of a source to verify its officiality. --213.214.19.84 (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What exactly that I said was arrogant? Use any reverse image search engine, fan sites and fan twitter accounts were posting the "artwork" months before it was used on RIAA. It was never posted by any primary source (Cooper, Gaga, on a CD single, or by the label), so where exactly do you suppose it originated?—NØ 12:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The RIAA is about as close to an official source as you can get as they are the official certifier for US singles and albums. Adding the cover back and updating the file info to use that site as a source. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No. And the RIAA has used a fanmade cover for their plaque for Taylor Swift's "Style" before. You need to produce a link to a primary source (which doesn’t exist because primary sources wouldn’t share a fake cover they know they didn’t create)—NØ 01:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

---

I have done more research on this topic, and found this GagaDaily thread, which attributes it to the Twitter account artfloozyyedits. This checks out with their watermark, which is clearly visible on the piano on the artwork. The twitter account itself has claimed to create the artwork: [1], [2]. With that in mind, I am formally disputing the copyright status of this image and nominating it for deletion.--NØ 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The new lawsuit. Here are a couple of sources for those who wish to add to the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, and 4

Digital Song Sales Decade-End Chart

Shallow occupies the 3rd position in digital song sales decade-end chart shallow--179.56.154.81 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Year-end charts 2019 Spain

Shallow (2019) - '#40', source: https://www.promusicae.es/documents/viewfile/198-top-100-canciones-2019

A Star Is Born soundtrack (2019) - '#43', source: https://www.promusicae.es/documents/viewfile/197-listas-anuales-albumes-2019

X2franklop (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Covers

Is it really necessary to include so many obscure covers in the Cover versions section? It seems unreasonably overlong for me... I think it needs major cleanup. Sricsi (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, it might need but for me it is fine, I mean, the song is huge everywhere, there really are many covers. By the way, I have removed the link from Instagram, unnecessary. GagaNutella^talk 22:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Key

There was a description of the song as being written in G major. This is at best debatable or just wrong. If the published music has one sharp in the 'key signature' it could indicate G major as the key but it could equally indicate e minor as the key. Equally a one sharp 'key signature' could refer to various other modal scales. The 'key signature' of the published piece does not define what the key is. Rather it defines a group of keys/modes. Only analysis of the piece will tell you what the key actually is, and this is slightly subjective. Sometimes it will seem clear whether a piece is in a particular key, but sometimes there may be room for debate, especially since a piece is not compelled to stay in the key of the 'key signature'. Since this piece starts and ends on an e minor chord, there is a strong case for suggesting e minor (natural) as the main key. You would have to do some serious analysis to be certain, which is probably beyond the scope of this article. I believe there is a problem because many of the online sheet music sources are not bothered about accuracy and if a piece has one sharp they just describe it as being in G major. The academic debate as to whether it is in G major or e minor or a mode is of no interest to them. It is simpler for them to ignore the issue. I think contributors are copying this erroneous source rather than analysing the piece to check the key. Alansrobinson (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)