Jump to content

Talk:Artpop/Archive 2

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

Redirects

I created the following redirects to Artpop:

I have already checked for proper disambiguation, so please expand these redirects as article development begins. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you do that? The tracklist has not been confirmed so there is no proof any of these songs will make the album at all, let alone chart and have significant lasting notability per WP:NSONGS. So of them might end up on the album and become notable, but more than half of these redirects are clearly not viable search terms. Every one of them that are not official album tracks are going to end up being deleted by RfD. STATic message me! 07:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Vincexgaga (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC) The only songs from there that are confirmed is Aura, I Wanna Be With You, Manicure, Sex Dreams and Swine. I have no idea where you got those from and those have not been mentioned by her at all. She is releasing the tracklist on the 29th of September so wait till then.

Update: I created redirects for the confirmed tracks, including some of the above plus:

Apologies for creating incorrect redirects before--I did not realize I was viewing an unreliable source. Please feel free to delete the unnecessary redirects, which I have striked out above. I believe all of the redirects that have been created for the album adhere to Wikipedia's manual of style. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

--Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have requested that some of the links above be deleted. Others have been redirected to the appropriate existing disambiguation page (there are other songs by these titles). Question regarding naming conventions for two of the confirmed tracks: is "Sex Dreams" or "Sexxx Dreams" more in accordance with MoS? Ditto for "Jewels and Drugs" vs. "Jewels n' Drugs"? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Singles" section.

Please, for the love of god, can someone edit this? It looks like it was edited by Lady Gaga forum goers who watch every Lady Gaga tweet. Now, don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that, but PLEASE stop it with the Twitter sources and editing the wiki page with EVERY thing she tweets about. It's kinda unnecessary! ~Sorry If I came on too harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.218 (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is the german release date listed?

Normally for american artists, the american release date is what is listed.

I know it's released in Germany first, but it seems odd. The media and the artist herself lists the date as November 11, so that should be under the release date. The overseas dates are secondary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2booze (talk • contribs)

Actually, it's supposed to be the earliest release date in all cases. Sometimes we have trouble with American editors overwriting the dates with American release dates.—Kww(talk) 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the German release date (November 8, 2013) is missing in the introduction and the section "Release history". Your best bet would be to name it alongside with german-speaking country Austria, wich is considered in the article. --79.240.169.154 (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fashion!

Do we know if "Fashion!" is this previously released song? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

add Gypsy info please

source In the singles section, can someone add that on October 7, 2013 her official Facebook cover photo was updated showing the album's official cover art with text next to it that read: The new album featuring ‘Applause’ and ‘Gypsy' availalbe November 11". The cover was later updated and Gypsy was removed. but i still think its notable to be mentioned because it is a hint that Gypsy was supposed to be the second single before Gaga decided to go with Venus instead.

It is not necessary to. This page does not need to contain every little thing that happens leading up to the release. Vincexgaga (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

MANiCURE

Why is MANiCURE written as Manicure? It has a double meaning, the nail treatment and being cured by men, so it should be MANiCURE and not Manicure. Dope on the other hand should be written in lower case. 82.181.198.121 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"MANiCURE" would not follow Wikipedia's manual of style, as far as I can tell. The article title would be "Manicure", with a note that the text is stylized as "MANiCURE". See the article for "You and I" (Lady Gaga) for example. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Venus (Lady Gaga song)

The link above can be expanded as soon as enough information exists for the album's second single. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Gypsy

GYPSY Gaga Said it was produced by Madeon AND Redone.

VENUS PRODUCER There is no confirmed producer for this. Why on earth would you list the rumoured female producer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.247.211 (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2013

Please change the phrase: "On October 4, a trailer for the movie Machete Kills, which marks Gaga's actorial debut," to "On October 4, a trailer for the movie Machete Kills, which marks Gaga's acting debut,"

I m requesting this change because actorial is not a word, and acting is a suitable replacement.

78.86.59.218 (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I've never heard of "actorial debut" before...only "acting debut", so I doubt there would be any reason to revert the change. Thanks for spotting that, 78.86.59.218. Acalamari 09:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Wiktionary does say Actorial is a word. Doesn't hurt to clarify though. — Reatlas (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out, Reatlas. :) Still, I think "acting" is probably a better word to use; it's more widely understood and "actorial" would likely have been changed, anyway. Acalamari 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Tracks

"G.U.Y" is actually called "G.U.Y (Girl Under You)". "Do What U Want" is "Do What U Want (With My Body)". "Manicure" is "MANiCURE". "Artpop" is "ARTPOP". And "Dope" is "DOPE". Please change :):):) xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.227.116 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammar fix

a revelation that instead was announced one month in advanced should read as a revelation that instead was announced one month in advance

(Forgive me if I'm submitting this wrong; I just made an account to point that out, since I can't edit the article myself.)

KeiBlossom (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)KeiBlossom

Posting here was fine; you can use {{Edit semi-protected}} template to request changes to a semi-protected article if you need to. As for your suggestion, I've made the change; I'm not aware of any American/British English differences that would prefer "advanced" over "advance" in this case. Thanks. Acalamari 09:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"I Wanna Be With You" VS "Dope"

So, although I'm not actually sure whether it's been officially confirmed or not, one of the songs that Gaga performed at the iTunes Festival "I Wanna Be With You" has been reworked into a new song on ARTPOP called "Dope". Fair enough. However, I noticed in the summary of the iTunes Festival (in 'Promotion'), it doesn't reference "I Wanna Be With You", but rather "Dope".

Should it not say that the song performed was "I Wanna Be With You", since it undeniably was called that at the time (complete with accompanying hashtag '#GagaIWannaBeWithYou') and was reported in sources as that? The rumours are only that "I Wanna Be With You" was REWORKED into "Dope", not that it's the same song just renamed. I don't know exactly how Wikipedia deals with things like this in regards to retrospect, but it's blatantly false to say that one of the songs that she performed at the iTunes festival was called "Dope", since there is simply no evidence that that is the case.

Of course, if "Dope" does turn out to be a reworked "I Wanna Be With You", which to be honest is looking much like the case, then a note should be made when mentioning "I Wanna Be With You" that it was reworked into "Dope". And if the section is changed back to read "I Wanna Be With You", the redirect I Wanna Be With You (Lady Gaga song) should link here again. FeFiFo (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To avoid an edit war, I just want to clarify on here what I'm trying to say. We don't know how much of "I Wanna Be With You", if any, has been used in "Dope", and so we can't say with any certainty that they are the same song, just with different titles. No source lists the song as "Dope", while countless list it as "I Wanna Be With You", some of which have already been listed in previous discussions.

It is original research at the moment to say that "I Wanna Be With You" is an "old name". One of Gaga's previously unreleased songs "Earthquake" later had its chorus reworked into "Fashion of His Love" on Born This Way, but you wouldn't then say that "Earthquake" IS "Fashion of His Love". Until the official version of "Dope" is released, it's more reliable to treat "I Wanna Be With You" and "Dope" as separate songs, and to refer to the song performed at the iTunes Festival as "I Wanna Be With You", with a note saying that "I Wanna Be With You" does not appear on the ARTPOP tracklisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeFiFo (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Title errors

The track listing section has a few errors in it -

  • "Manicure" is to be written a "MANiCURE" as it has a double meaning.
  • "Artpop" and "Dope" are both to be capitalised - "ARTPOP" and "DOPE" - as Gaga has confirmed through Twitter, her website and Instagram.

Please can you change as this article is incorrect!!!:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.230.131 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure why "G.U.Y" often gets changed, but "Manicure", "Artpop" and "Dope" are all lowercased for a reason, see WP:ALLCAPS. These are not errors and the article title itself is lowercased. Acalamari 17:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Just an FYI, "G.U.Y. (Girl Under You)" currently redirects to "G.U.Y." since more sources are printing the shortened version, or at least have thus far. The page can be redirected again if needed, assuming the subject gets enough material to warrant an article. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Few errors on tracklist.

It's spelled:

Jewels N' Drugs MANiCURE (with the 'i' being the only lower cased letter)

As confirmed on iTunes and Gaga on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.218 (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, they are all stylization as per Wikipedia and the generic name for the songs has been selected. Its the same reason why names like Ke$ha, P!nk, A$AP Rocky are not alowed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

single release dates

I noticed that on the ARTPOP page, on the upper-right side of the page, under the album artwork, there are the singles listed with their release dates. Shouldn't the dates be changed for both to the official radio release dates? So Applause should be listed as August 19, 2013 and Do What U Want as November 5, 2013.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.82.196 (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because those are the dates when they were first released.
© Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
and the fact that radio releases are promotional singles, not singles themselves under industry standard.
RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Venus the third single

Well, today (October 28, 2013) "Venus" was released for retail purchase on Amazon.com as a single. See this source. We should not be referring to this song as a promotional single, since if you read that article it says, "A promotional recording, or promo, is an audio or video recording distributed for free, usually in order to promote a recording that is or soon will be commercially available." So in turn because it was released to Amazon as a single, that makes "Venus" the album's third single. I would like to hear any logical objections that it is not a single, even though it received a retail release as a single. Keep in mind this is not a pre-order or countdown, it is an entire page dedicated to a retail release as single for the song.
STATic message me! 06:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I second this. "Venus" was released as a single. Saying "Venus" is a promotional single is incorrect, because this implies that the song was either released as a free or retailer-exclusive single or it was released as a radio-only single. Since it is neither, and that it was released as single under the literal definition of a single, it should be documented as such. It's a matter of Seperation of word and action.
RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Lemme ask you. Has the concerned artist or its label released it as a single? Has it officially given a press release(twitter, Reuters, Marketwire wateva) that "Venus" is the third single from Artpop? No they haven't since a google search labels "Venus" as such. Again, do not go by an unsourced Wikipedia article as to what constitutes a promo single or not. Wikipedia itself is a grossly unreliable source. Go by third party reliable sources or first party sources in this case the artist / label. Please can you show me where they have said such? I don't want to know whether it was released to Amazon, iTunes, Spotify etc etc. Those are all unreliable sources and do not hold a candle. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Third party sources calling Venus as promotional single:
And though "Venus" is now just a promotional single, Gaga assured fans... MTV News
Mother Monster takes listeners on a journey through "space and time" in "Venus," the new promotional single from her forthcoming third studio album "ARTPOP." .... HitFix
A snippet of "Venus," the latest promotional single from the singer's new album, Artpop, hadn't even been released yet ... Slant Magazine
The singer shocked clubbers at the famous London venue by taking to the stage to perform promotional single 'Venus' from her upcoming album ARTPOP... Digital Spy
while she strummed the opening chords of promotional single Venus on an acoustic guitar... Daily Mail
the second single from new album 'ARTPOP', but will now act as a promo track .. Capital FM
Venus was intended to be the second single from Gaga's upcoming album ARTPOP, but will now be used as a promotional track instead... MTV UK
... and the list goes on and on. I would be very much interested in seeing such sources calling "Venus" as the official single from Artpop. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
We do not need a press release, a Twitter post or any other WP:SPS to verify that is up for retail sale as a single on Amazon.com, and if you can count that makes it the third single. That is also an awkward thing to ask for since radio releases are generally not publicly announced, but only found by following the various websites that report them. Again, that article is sourced, maybe articles you edit are unreliable but that is your own issue to handle. Hell look at that, it only took five seconds to find NME, Huffington Post, The Source following Do What U Want's release, that refer to the song as a single not a promotional single. Just yesterday MTV called it the next single. If that is not enough proof along with the Amazon release, I do not know what to say. Again I would like you to see the encyclopedia definition of a promotional single. Also all the sources you provided are from BEFORE it received its retail release as a single today. STATic message me! 07:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You are confusing the fact that a promotional single is a "single" at the end of day. Just that it is not an officially released single for an artist's discography and chronology. And yes, you need to have a third party source calling this the third single from Artpop, else it is just a single, and as indicated by the sources above, a promo release. FYI, the MTV UK source calls it a single contradicting the source above I posted, along with Huffington Post, The Source, NME. They do not address it as the next official single by Gaga from Artpop. And I'm simply not interested in that unsourced Promotional recording article. I hardly go by what Wikipedia says since the website itself is grossly unreliable. So I'm not buying that. It is released to retailers, wonderful, you can buy it. Does that make it a single? No, that part is still not established. And who is this we you are talking about? You are here long enough to know that WP:V and WP:RS trumps all that we think off. I really do not care if "Venus" becomes a single, or is a promotional single or remains in Tim-buck-too. But I can see what third party reliable media is reporting and I cannot in any good faith come to a consensus over reliable sources. You wanna go by timestamps? The sources I posted are from 7 hours before, which is after "Venus" has been released as a digital download. Oh and since we do not have a precedence or previous consensus on this, why not discuss this once and for all so that it can be settled for any article facing such a situation? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I really am not interested in explaining to you what a single is since you do not understand obviously. The four sources I provided do refer to it as a single from Artpop, you are not going to see sources calling songs official singles. The promotional single article is not unsourced no matter how many times you want to falsely state so. Try to change it to your made up definition of a promotional single and see how fast it is reverted. Also refer to the many many discussions at WP: WikiProject Songs and WP: WikiProject Albums about this "promotional single" term, just search the archives, there are many many many discussions about this, but you must be new here to not know that. Every single discussion has decided that if a song is released for retail sale with its own download page on iTunes/Amazon it is a single. What it comes down to is that if a song is released for retail sale as a SINGLE with its own purchase page, that makes it a single, end of story, there is no real way arguing around it. The logic and consensus is against you no matter what way you want to put it. STATic message me! 07:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have much bigger knowledge of these terms than you want to believe so watever. Yes there are sources calling this as promotional single and you cannot deny that. The promotional single section is completely unsourced and might be fabricated for all we know, so there it goes out. TRy to change it with my made up definition? Lol, I fucking don't have any intention to have a made up definition and I go by sources (posted above for your blind eyes). Maybe you are the one who should be reverting for edit warring and content dispute? See how it works? And I see, you are talking about this discussion where no consensus was achieved. Or the handful of sections here? Or the discussions here where it talks about inclusion of Promo singles in album infobox? Again "What it comes down to is that if a song is released for retail sale as a SINGLE with its own purchase page, that makes it a single, end of story, there is no real way arguing around it" — is it the same we and logic that you spoke about above? Point is none of it is a precedence which is what I'm trying to achieve here. A consensus on this would affect a number of articles here in WP. You are saying this is a single since released to Amazon.com, but the same is valid for any song released there including fellow musician Perry's too. We cannot ignore the third party sources even if a discussion had taken place previously in light of recent events. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
At the end of the day, though, there's nothing that can disprove that there's a single release out there. As I've said earlier, it's a matter of Seperation of Word and action. What I'm basically means is that you can list all the third party sources you want, but there is a primary source that proves that there's a single. Essentially it also means that anybody on any website can say anything. The record label, the artist, the newspapers, anybody can label it anything they want, but there's still a standard in the music industry they have to follow and we have to follow. It was released as a single in the literal definition of the word single. Nobody can disprove that since such a release exists. "but the same is valid for any song released there including fellow musician Perry's too." Unfortunately, those articles are completely incorrect since "Dark Horse" and "Walking on Air" are merely songs instead of Promotional singles, since they were only released through Prism itself on iTunes, and "Unconditionally" is a promotional single since it only ever was released to radio for airplay. So yeah, it should apply to Katy Perry too, but does it really?
P.S. "I have much bigger knowledge of these terms than you want to believe so watever." You've only ever given us the fact that you've been reading Wikipedia consensuses for these types of things. Unfortunately, this is not how you learn things, I'm afraid, and it's definitely NOT how you possess a "bigger knowledge" of knowledge of these terms so we "can believe whatever". Also, the last time I checked, saying something like that and "Lol, I fucking don't have any intention to have a made up definition and I go by sources (posted above for your blind eyes)." is definitely not how you talk to people, no matter how heated the discussion is.
RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 12:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dope (Lady Gaga song)

I started to expand the "Dope" article, now that is has been confirmed to be the next promo single, but it has since been nominated for deletion. Feel free to chime in on the discussion. Or, please feel free to assist with the article's expansion. Are there more article detailing the name change following her live performance of the song in the UK? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Fashion" disambiguation

I am wondering about the best way to disambiguate Gaga's 2009 song "Fashion" with her 2013 song "Fashion!" Currently, Fashion (Lady Gaga song) redirects readers to the compilation album on which the song appears. Because I was not sure if the "Fashion!" that appears on Artpop was the same song or not, I did not create a separate redirect until more details were provided. I think we can assume now that, based on the writing credits, the songs are different. My understanding of disambiguation pages is that punctuation alone cannot differentiate articles, so creating Fashion! (Lady Gaga song) would not suffice. Should the previously-created redirect be moved to Fashion (2009 Lady Gaga song)? And the Artpop track Fashion! (2013 Lady Gaga song)? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If "Fashion!" is released (or have an article) the {{distinguish}} template is used. If both articles manage to have article, the year disambiguator is used. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

App details

Perhaps a section for the album app, including confirmed songs, the controversy re: album vs. app sales, etc.? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What a great idea - Added. With my body (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The section entitled "Controversy," what proof or evidence is there regarding the app and it being hailed as a "nothing more than an elaborate way for Gaga to boost sales of Artpop?" The Billboard article doesn't really talk about anything beyond vague details concerning use of the app. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.13.1 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much original research at this point unless expanded. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There was no widespread controversy about the ARTPOP app. The issue was brought up by a notorious Lady Gaga hate site that claimed individual song purchases via the app would count as an entire app download, so downloading Applause alone would equate to one ARTPOP album sales. Bill Werde from Billboard quickly shot down this incredibly ridiculous accusation, noting on his Twitter page that of course single sales do not count for album sales, only album sales count for album sales.

Here are links to Bill Werde's tweets clearing up this so-called "controversy".

https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/362722995518709760 - Stating that if you BUY the album from within the app then of course it will count since the album is being bought.

https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/362723505986469888 - The Lady Gaga hate site claimed Gaga's team would "lie about album sales through the app to boost sales", Bill said not true.

https://twitter.com/bwerde/status/362726550745001985 - Confirming that one song purchase WILL NOT COUNT as an entire album purchase.

So far the album itself has been controversy-free. That might change in the future considering it's Lady Gaga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthagio (talk • contribs) 08:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pre release

It might make sense to add information about pre-release to Release history. It was pre-released in UK to O2 Tracks customers on October 26. See Lady Gaga's ARTPOP available exclusively on O2 Tracks pre-release. Xdmytro (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also this article from Billboard talks about the app and its development. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Leaked in full

The album has been leaked in full. Please check with the news agencies and update. --117.213.220.20 (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The album has already been released in some countries. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

ArtRave

... almost enough info for its own article... --Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Track listing

Why is Anton Zavlaski listed as Zedd in the producer section and Leclerq not listed as Madeon? DJUnBalanced (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Gold certificate in Spain

The gold certification is a FRAUDE. It hasn't been sold 20.000 copies but less than 8.000. It's been filtered the real Spain sales http://www.abc.es/cultura/musica/20131228/abci-fraude-industria-discografica-espaola-201312272217.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.178.240 (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really agree that it's "fraud", because it's pretty standard practise for most major record labels. They tend to over-ship albums in certain territories. You can even see several instances of that with ARTPOP - it was certified platinum in Canada [80,000], when it had sold just 25,000 copies; it was certified platinum in Japan [250,000], when it had sold just over 110,000 copies (Gold). Anyway, I'll include the sales figure in the certifications field - because the source seems notable enough. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

#3 in South Korea

http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/album.php This can be added! Please! JLeemans1 (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

#1 in Japan

No.1 in Japan, selling over 58.000 copies in its first week.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20131111-00000326-oric-musi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.90 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been added now. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

White Shadow interview

...Phew. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

UK Charts

Lady Gaga is heading for her third UK No 1 album source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patry B. (talk • contribs) 07:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not officially confirmed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a531426/lady-gagas-artpop-predicted-to-sell-75-percent-less-than-born-this-way.html and http://www.lacapital.com.ar/escenario/Artpop-el-album-de-Lady-Gaga-que-llego-rodeado-de-obstaculos--20131114-0024.html from La Capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.165.231 (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Critical Reception

There is consensus to report the critical reception of the album as "mixed to positive." Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The source that has been cited for this section is Metacritic, which states that the album has received "generally favorable reviews". The argument has been made that there are more mixed than positive reviews listed on the site, but from what I can see from other album pages (Prism (Katy Perry album), etc.) who have received more mixed reviews than positive on Metacritic actually go by the overall weighted average in their listed critical consensus. "Generally positive reviews" is listed on the Katy Perry page and this standard should be reflected here as they are both listed as receiving "generally favorable reviews" on Metacritic. The standard is the weighted score, not the sheer number of articles. Reece Leonard 10:42 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments do not work and will not get you anywhere. See the Metacritic link, the album received twice as many mixed reviews then positive, and is only about one mixed review away from dipping to 59, which it would then change their summary to generally "mixed". You should be happy that we do not just label it as just mixed, as I am thinking that is what we should do. I mean it is not hard to find other multiple reliable sources saying it received mixed, negative, mixed, mixed, and mixed reviews. This looks like a pretty open and shut case to me, unless you are not editing with a neutral point of view, and just want it to be labeled with only having positive reviews, which is frankly factually incorrect. @Smarty9108:, @Sven Manguard: any additional comments? STATic message me! 06:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Um why are you mentioning me? I was just making sure they didn't change the reception to Positive, check your accusations at the door sir, and see this is things I GET. Smarty9108 talk 7:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Presumably, he is mentioning you because you are already involved in the dispute. If you also became involved by reverting a change while using Huggle (which is how I wound up involved in this), then I fail to see why you're getting angry, or indeed where you see an accusation at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You added the hidden note, so I assumed you had an opinion on the situation, all my comments were refering to the OP, so I do not understand where all the hostility is coming from. STATic message me! 07:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We gotta problem?, Okay, listen sorry for my cheap behavior or whatever, bye. User:Smarty9108 (talk) 7:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't view 60% as being generally positive. Metacritic splits ratings into three numerical groups for ease of color coding, but we don't have to follow those breaks ourselves. In the context of music, I equate 60% to something around three stars out of five, which is "decent, but not great" territory. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
not angry, it was more like "What did I do? :worried:", but I agree the album should be mixed, if you view the critics reviews and rating listed in the article of course. User:Smarty9108 (talk) 7:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
But on this website we DO follow Metacritic's rating system, which in this case lists the album as receiving generally positive reviews. "You should be happy that we do not just label it as just mixed" - What on earth are you talking about? Your personal opinions have no place here. This is wikipedia, where we adhere to the sources listed, which, in this case, lists the album as having received generally positive reviews. Mentioning other articles that make it obvious that we adhere to Metacritic's weighted score for the sake of uniformity is relevant and for you to claim otherwise based purely on your personal opinions of what YOU think the album should be listed as reminds me of other issues you've caused in the past when it comes to Gaga articles, namely when multiple other users had to engage in a lengthy debate with you over whether or not the Venus (Lady Gaga song) article was to be listed as a single/promotional single, in which you likewise claimed that your personal opinion was superior to sourced fact. This is unprofessional and incorrect. The weighted score is based on the fact that some publications are larger and get more of a voice when it comes to reviews, something that we adhere to on wikipedia. The consensus is "generally favorable reviews" and this should be reflected here, end of story. If you'd like me to link you to the multiple other album pages where this is proven to be the standard, I will do so. Reece Leonard 12:49 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Where is this made up guideline that says to always follow Metacritic's color coding? There is none. I am implying that you are letting your personal opinion or the artist or album get in the way, I have no opinion of Gaga or her music, I am just making sure facts and common sense are followed in the article. Bringing up other articles and other situations do not change the discussion one bit, so you are kind of wasting your time arguing that. We do not blindly follow Metacritic's sometime inaccurate summary, I just provided more multiple reliable sources that say the album only received mixed reviews, nothing about being positive. Unless you can find more reliable sources saying the album received overwhelmingly positive reviews, I suggest we only label it with receiving mixed reviews. Metacritic clearly says that it received twice as much mixed reviews then positive reviews. STATic message me! 19:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We should not base a generalisation based solely on a single website. Commonsence (and the ability to read) shows that "mixed to positive" is correct. Yes, at the extremes there has been some calling it the end of her career but none calling it the best thing since sliced bread. Within the usual review sites - newspapers, music magazines etc. - even those who are praising the album or awarding a high star rating have also offered very harsh critique of the album and artist. The telegraph for example gave 4/5 stars but called the album unoriginal and criticized yet another fame based album. Digital spy also gave 4/5 but was even harsher calling the songs "half-finished plagues". When even the positive critics are that harsh.... with friends like that who needs enemies! Frankly "mixed to positive" could be on the polite side. But to declare it universally positive is just deluded. Writing it on wikipedia isn't going to make it true... --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Here are a list of pages that adhere to the style of generalization (It's spelled with a z, by the way. Don't make catty remarks about my reading comprehension and then proceed to misspell words and phrase sentences in a nonsensical manner like "could be polite side". What would be "delusional" would be your operating under the opinion that your synthesized narrative is more relevant here than a site that presents a weighted average of all major publications and assigns a consensus based on actual fact, not pure conjecture).
Prism
Take Me Home
MDNA
These are just a few of Gaga's pop contemporaries who's pages adhere to the style I've proposed we implement here. All have received a large number of mixed reviews on Metacritic but have "generally positive" listed as the consensus because that IS the consensus of the collective. This isn't some trivial website; it's the largest, most credible and successful site that compounds all major reviews from credible sources into a collective consensus, a site that is always listed on every major album page on wikipedia. Its consensus should be the basis of that that is listed here. The page should say "generally positive reviews" because it HAS received generally positive reviews; mixed reviews almost always compare her favorably to her contemporaries in terms of substance and innovation and the weighted score based on the idea that certain publications' opinions are more valid than others, contests to that. Your personal view of the critical trajectory is irrelevant. The consensus has been reached and refusing to acknowledge it is counterintuitive to the accuracy of this page.
No one is advocating for a "universally positive" label. It should read "generally positive", possibly with a disclaimer if you absolutely have to address the fact that there are detractors; "The album received generally positive reviews but saw less praise than Gaga's previous work" would work to adhere to the summation of the reviewing collective and address your complaints about the larger amount of mixed reviews for this album than her previous albums. A simple "mixed" listing would be nonsensical seeing as how the consensus is listed as "generally favorable". Reece Leonard 01:40 02 December 2013 (UTC)


"Generally positive" LOL. If we're using Metacritic as the key source, it should state it received "mostly mixed reviews", as on Metacritic it has 20 mixed and only 9 positive.
Also "Generalisation" is correct with a S OR a Z. Z is more commonly used in the US, but both are in the dictionary.... Perhaps when you crack open the dictionary, you also look up "consensus" ;-)

I'm going to ignore the unsigned and vandalistic message above and move on to more pressing matters: I've just been threatened with being blocked from making edits on the grounds that my efforts to change the consensus on this page don't align with user STATicVapor's, after bringing in another source to back up my claims. (x) This hypocrisy and blatant disregard for the facts in favor of this individual's synthesized narrative are unquestionable. You cannot deny the facts to buoy your own biased opinion. The consensus has been reached and it doesn't match your own perception and you're unhappy about that; get over it. Stop making baseless threats (you cannot block someone on the grounds of a conflict of interest, so you can just stop throwing that out there. This is not an example of disruptive editing), act like a professional, and adhere to the sources. Update: This user is also now going back and attempting to revert multiple of my other edits on projects unrelated to this page. Reece Leonard 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Five different editors disagreed with you, yet you continued to disruptively add it. Ignoring clear consensus to add the same contested content, is a blockable offense. Five different users are not an individual, so I do not even know how to respond to your complete lack of sense and literacy. Actually, if you would have added it again, and you were reported a block would have clearly came. You have been edit warring on a lot of pages recently, and immediately removing the warnings from your talk page does not make you look innocent at all. Also about your last sentence, go ahead and keep making up stuff. STATic message me! 01:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The consensus on this page is unsourced and untrue; there are now multiple, factual sources that discredit this supposed consensus. I've made no attempts to make myself look "innocent", so I don't know what you're talking about there. As I've said repeatedly; the sources are not in your favor. Five people with internet access can't change the facts no matter how many times they state their disagreement on a wikipedia talk page. I'd also like to point out that no one had responded to my previous point on here with any kind of factual rebuttal in four months and I did come back and re-add my edit with more sources as you explicitly asked, so... Reece Leonard 16 February 2014 (UTC)
A source for consensus? What in the world are you talking about. Metacritic clearly proves that over twice as many reviews were mixed, the "overall score" means nothing when it clearly shows that more reviews were mixed. Also, I looked at the HPost source, and it only takes 10 early reviews of the album and in no way summarizes the overall reception of the album. Actually, you might want to read WP:CONSENSUS, four experienced editors disagreeing you is what matters, do not keep twisting the facts, reception was mixed. Not a single editor has agreed with you. Yes, you came back and ANOTHER editor reverted you, yet you again revert back violating WP:BRD. STATic message me! 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt from a previous debate I've had with the above commentator who refused to respond other than to tell me to "stop bugging" and that he "wouldn't change [his] mind", despite my repeatedly proving his above statements to be entirely without merit, proving that he is working in the interest of his own opinion and not in the pursuit of factual representation:

"I've stated, multiple times now, that a focus on the number of categorical reviews is an overly simplistic approach that Metacritic itself does not adhere to. The source that you claim to be citing undermines your argument; Metacritic presents a mathematically calculated weighted score based on the philosophy that large journals such as Entertainment Weekly, Billboard, etc. have accrued more integrity over their run and, in turn, have more bearing on the ultimate consensus, which is why the consensus reads "generally favorable reviews". According to your logic (again, that Metacritic does not adhere to), small blog-based start-up sites that have a history of false reporting (the Examiner, to give an example) would be given equal weight in deciding the consensus as an established and respected journal like Entertainment Weekly. I've spelled this issue out multiple times, but instead of responding to it with sources or even measured argument, you've resorted to repeating your original argument of "Numbers!!!!! More mixed reviews!!! That's all that matters!!!" and threatening to block me from editing for questioning your own viewpoint of the critical consensus that blatantly ignores the consensus listed on the only source you have. In regards to the other wikipedia users who have agreed with you; you have to admit that their arguments are rarely coherent and ultimately repeat the same talking-point of "there are more mixed reviews listed and that's all that matters" that I've already raised issue with. Rushton2010 spouted off his own personal narrative based on his research in reading the reviews (a practice you've accused me of in the past and pointed out was against the guidelines of wikipedia); the others acted on similar lines (Sven Manguard gave his own personal interpretation of a 60% Metacritic score, again, against the policies of wikipedia in your own words, as did Smarty9108). You keep redirecting me to various guideline pages in the hopes that that will make you out to seem like the educated veteran dealing with a persistent and ignorant nuisance, but the fact is the page on consensus states, and I quote: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." - You've discussed your own personal interpretation of one source (that the source doesn't concur with) and I've given you another valid one from a respectable journal that lists multiple different reviews and draws the conclusion that the consensus was positive and instead of responding to that in any way (other than calling it an "early" list of reviews when you've previously attempted to use smaller, lesser sources that not only didn't refer to other reviews, but that were published on dates on or very close to the date that my new source was published to support your factually inaccurate opinion of the consensus), you just repeated your original argument of "Numbers!!! More mixed reviews!! That's all that matters!!" again. I came back four months later (after being ignored in the talk page for that duration of time; how do you expect me to react if I can't engage in debate to make the truth available for your consumption?) and attempted to assert my factually sourced consensus with a new source and you responded with a threat. I've laid out the facts. The consensus is generally positive. Not unanimously positive, not simply "positive", but generally positive. That's not me saying that, it's the source you claim to be citing and The Huffington Post. End of story. (Sidenote: most of the "mixed" reviews on Metacritic are 60, AKA one point below positive, and have obvious positive leanings, but that's too obvious and lengthy to go into detail about. I won't go into detail on the numerous critics who have taken issue with the biased and unintelligible reviews that critics gave the album as that's not the issue here, but that is also something to take into account.)"

Obviously I took issue with every point he raised and disproved them as conjecture and he ultimately just refused to discuss the issue anymore because he knew he had no case. Again: The consensus has not been agreed upon. It has been proven to be generally positive a million different ways (here is the Entertainment Weekly source I listed early that further proves my claims: x. This page is flawed and needs correcting. Reece Leonard (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Metacritic and the overall reviews listed there, it seems like that this album barely passed the positive level of reception, so mixed to positive is a very good consensus I believe. Reece, you need to read what Static has written and I have to agree with him, though I usually disagree with him, lol. Experienced or not, there is simply no other way to call the overall reception as wholly positive, because its not. People who follow music related news can simply blurt it out for you. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
As I've stated multiple times above, I'm not advocating for a "wholly positive" consensus. "Generally positive" implies that there are dissenting opinions and that the ultimate trend falls toward the positive even with these dissenters; this is what the sources say, and what you just admitted is the case. The album's score is in the "positive level of reception". That's indisputable. If there needs to be a disclaimer referencing the slightly ambivalent nature of the critical response, then fine. "The album received generally positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work" would further address these issues and dispel with the inaccurate and factually unfounded "mixed-to-positive" consensus currently stated. I can assure you I've read every word he's written and discredited it above in my response. I don't write that amount of text in response to someone if I'm don't read their statements first and find significant fault with them. Reece Leonard (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that they have not been generally positive, when twice as many have been mixed. And I can assure you you have not discredited any single point a single person has said here, yet alone mine. You just write a lot about the same bull, and run around in circles, saying not much of anything that has any weight. STATic message me! 06:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You're projecting; you just described, point for point, what you're doing. I've raised numerous issues with the logic behind what you're ascribing to this page (the fact that Metacritic, the source you claim to be citing, doesn't base its consensus off of the number of reviews in each category but off of the weighted average of the reviews listed and has come up with a consensus of "generally favorable", and the fact that twelve of the reviews categorized as mixed are literally one percentage point from being labeled as entirely positive and are obviously not simply "mixed" reviews) and in response, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again about how many reviews are in the mixed category, as if that changes the fact that you're picking and choosing information from one source that ultimately states, point blank, the opposite of the consensus you're for arguing here. The Huffington Post also gave a round-up, sourcing multiple reviews, and stated that the consensus was positive. That would mean that two separate sources concur with my viewpoint, including the one you're attempting to cite. And then you tell me that I'm biased, an unproven and untrue fact, when I'm giving you sources as opposed to your giving me your own personal summation of the reviews, which violates the guidelines on the WP:OR page. Also, more attention needs to be given to the fact that this is an album page that doesn't have a genre listed (an obvious issue). I've brought this up in the proper section.Reece Leonard (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed because Third Opinions are only for disputes involving exactly two editors. If you still need dispute resolution, consider DRN, MEDCOM, or a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic indicates that the album received 21 mixed reviews and 9 positive reviews, now why in the world would we say it received generally positive reviews, when over twice as many were mixed. I never had a problem with listing it as mixed to positive, but listing it as generally positive is just ridiculous and not adhering to a WP:NPOV. The other source brang up by the Reece, was a cherry picked source that states only 10 of the album's reviews, some of which were positive. But the source did not say it received generally positive reviews, so more WP:OR on his/her part. As I said earlier in this thread; it is not hard to find multiple reliable sources saying it received mixed, negative, mixed, mixed, and mixed reviews that also summarize the album's critical reception. STATic message me! 22:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Static, what is your thought on the one liner present in the article at this moment? Do you support "mostly positive"? I was thinking another thing. The general consensus showed a decline in Metacritic for Gaga albums, can we include this as a means of representing the true facts? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
'The album received mostly positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work'? Reece Leonard (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a bitch doctor, but really, I think the entire Critical reception field is entirely too positive as it is. We're all here debating about the Metacritic line, when really the entire section should be up for consideration. For an album with the sort of critical reception ARTPOP has received, the Critical reception field should at least have 1 positive paragraph, 1 neutral/mixed paragraph, and one negative paragraph. But, as it is right now: it has 1 very positive paragraph, 1 neutral paragraph with many positive inclinations, and one more neutral/slightly-negative paragraph with some more positive one-liners thrown in at the end. Only 1 negative review is currently included. But then we have that whole fourth Forbes-paragraph at the end, claiming that all the negative reviews were just BS. It's all VERY one-sided, and needs to be re-written. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're operating on your own WP:OR and you've repeatedly committed acts of WP:Vandalism by removing sourced information without consulting this talk page. Everything in the critical reception section is sourced and factual and will not be tailored to your personal viewpoint of the album's reception. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
First up, don't accuse me of vandalism. I don't particularly care about the over-all internet reception of this album. I care about the source-able reception of this album, which this article doesn't currently adhere to. If you want to make some massive deal about me removing some GRAMMATICALLY-incorrect material from this article, then so be it. People who investigate the edits can see: I was removing some nonsense about "reliance on the noise" from some blog that shouldn't have been included on this article in the first place. The original point of my above post still stands. The entire Critical reception field needs to be re-done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Forbes Magazine is not "some blog". If you care about what's source-able, why are you removing direct quotes from established journals that are exclusively positive? That's bias, plain and simple, and removing sourced information without reason is WP:Vandalism. And seeing as how this debate has been going on for over five months and no one else has raised these issues, I'll ask that you leave your personal opinions out of this page. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
blog.forbes.com/sites/nickmessitte/ is certainly a blog. And I've provided more than ample reason why the entire thing should be removed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The url is actually "http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmessitte/" . Sticking "blog." in front of it obviously doesn't make sense. That url is of the specific contributor who wrote the piece that was published in Forbes Magazine. Please stop wasting my time and taking up room on this page trying to justify your obvious WP:Bias and WP:OR. You're not listing any sources to claim that the critical reception section needs to be re-written and you removing exclusively positive sourced information is WP:Vandalism. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Your previous edit disrupted a much lengthier reply I was attempting to make: the jist of it was - stop trying to recreate entire WP policy on Metacritic to suit your own needs. Either accept Metacritic for what it is (accepting the album for what it's been reviewed for), or leave it alone. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
You've now completely changed what you were originally saying! I don't believe you've read every past argument I've made on this page as my responses are lengthy and have addressed this issue multiple times. Forgive me if I don't take advice from someone who has repeatedly vandalized the page at hand to suit his own negative biases. Adhere to the sources listed (including Metacritic, which states that the album has received generally favorable reviews) and stop vandalizing this page. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
So, back to important matters. Is "mostly positive" acceptable for you STATic, as IndianBio has suggested? Reece Leonard (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
No it is very much not acceptable. Reviews were not "mostly positive" or generally positive, they were "mixed" or "mixed to positive", without a mention of it being mixed which is clear by Metacritic, is not editing with a WP:NPOV. For the record Homeostasis07's removals made sense, it was just unnecessary blabber used to make the reviews seem more positive. STATic message me! 03:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
No, they did not make sense and you reverting them in favor of him is the exact opposite of what you did in the past when you reverted the article back to your original standing when I attempted to change the consensus to generally positive. You can't claim that the one inciting an edit war is at fault one time and then claim that the one who is responding to the one inciting the edit war is at fault whenever it benefits your opinion. His edits were nonsensical as he accused Forbes Magazine of being a blog and deleted sourced quotes from reliable articles. Your edits are becoming increasingly nonsensical in pursuit of opposing me. Reece Leonard (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What? You are so hard to understand sometimes. You are the only one edit warring, you have made three reverts within 24-hours, most of which did not even contain an edit summary. Yes, it is their "blog", blog=/=unreliable, it is just a common word to describe opinion pieces, when they are not necessarily reviews. And again, keep being paranoid, it's not gonna help you any. STATic message me! 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
An edit war by definition would HAVE to involve two separate people. He's initiated the edit war by changing the article without any logical reason to do so. The section that you are now attempting to discredit was published on the entertainment section of Forbes Magazine's website. A piece of material published by a major journal in no way constitutes a blog. This argument is completely nonsensical and you repeatedly threatening to block me will not do you any good as you're the one breaking wikipedia's guidelines here. Homeostasis went through and removed multiple sourced and quoted sections purely because they were positive and he personally felt that the review section was too positive based on his own WP:OR, which violates the original research guideline as well as the bias guideline. You can't go through and pick out positive reviews and delete them just because you feel like it. Those are sourced reviews, and you defending his obviously vandalistic actions seriously calls your own neutrality into question here. Reece Leonard (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting pretty sick of being called a "hater" by Lady Gaga fans, TBH. I don't hate Lady Gaga. I don't particularly feel one or the other about Lady Gaga personally. But I'm very aware that Lady Gaga articles are prone to a hell of a lot of WP:Fancruft (read Critical section of Lisa Goes Gaga - you'd swear it was the best thing The Simpsons ever did, and not the then-fourth lowest rated episode in the entire shows history). I've grown accustomed to the fact that you can't remove all fancruft from her articles. I'm simply here to try and create a balance between the fancruft and the facts. The last paragraph of the critical reception field reads fine as it is right now. The stuff I removed from that paragraph:
  • "in a three-part piece for"
  • "and music journalists in general"
  • " in addition to following a "herd mentality" influenced by the blogosphere that resulted in reviews that "border[ed] on the incoherent""
What's the big deal, Reece, in removing those three lines? Also, I'm sure you'd need a separate source to support Nick's claim that the negative reviews were "bordering" on the "incoherent". The mixed reviews seem fairly coherent to almost every one else. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has called you a "hater" here Homeo? Just because Reece reverted you he did not mean you hate Gaga, but yes you are right, the rabid fancruft is annoying and I revert it whenever I see it. Even I kinda like Gaga and have to admit that the reception of this album was not on par with her previous endeavors. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the line "bordered on the incoherent" is a direct quote from the review. The section is very clear in stating that this line is the opinion of the contributor for Forbes Magazine and not that of the reviewing collective. The part about the source being a three part piece is important because certain quotes in are taken from different parts of his article and if you had gone through all three parts, we wouldn't be have having this discussion. And of course this album hasn't recieved the same reception as her previous work! Nobody's disputing that. I'm just trying to have the consensus accurately represent the Metacritic source's consensus and the consensus of an article by the Huffington Post, aka sourced fact. I even previously stated that I thought there should be a disclaimer after the Metacritic line (in the vein of "the album recieved mostly positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent than her previous work") to make sure that the more ambivilent nature of the reviews are made clear. I'm not some crazy fan trying to remove all trace of negativity from the page; there has obviously been negativity around this album, but generally, as proven by my previous points, the reviews have been positive, even though some weren't ecstatically positive. And Homeostasis, I'm not trying to be rude when say that you're operating with WP:Bias, but when you come onto an article and start removing all the (sourced) positive remarks from it, it's going to look like you have a hidden agenda. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
No, you just want it to seem like the reviews were generally positive when they were not. The only one editing with a bias and not WP:NPOV is you Reece. They are little unnecessary statements that clog up the section, completely uneeded of course. In no way is the HuffPost summary of 10 reviews, more reliable then The Week which says mixed, The Guardian which says mixed, and The News which says mixed. Also IndianBio comment on content and not contributors at the DRN discussion, I notice you also have a major problem with that. No need to gossip on various talk pages either children. What should I expect from Lady Gaga fans though lol, back to some Ghostface Killah. STATic message me! 17:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop using needlessly inflammatory and derogatory statements on this talk page and insulting various users as this is grounds for blocking. The pieces that Homeostasis deleted were direct quotes from the reviews sourced on the page, so your accusations that I'm attempting to twist reviewers' words is ridiculous. The Huffington Post is a credible journal that sourced their claims of the reviews being generally positive. You sourced one very small publication and two gossip blogs in addition to a review of "Aura" and attempted to make it seem like it was a review of the entire album, so the only one twisting the words of reviewers is you. You've just made your WP:Bias obvious by expressing your negative view of the artist that this page deals with and her fans with your "what should I expect from Lady Gaga fans though lol" comment. Your bias is a violation of wikipedia's guidelines and if you don't recuse yourself, this is also grounds for blocking. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if your getting hurt, I have not said anything "inflammatory" or "derogatory", at all. No one is being blocked, but it would take me two hands to count how many times you've came close to being blocked. All I ask, is that you is to act like an adult in a professional environment like this, but then again it is a Lady Gaga article. The Guardian a small publication or blog? What planet do you live on? A national publication that has been in print for nearly 200 years is much more reliable then a "online news aggregator and blog" that was founded nine years ago. That one source is enough to discredit the HuffPost source completely. The fact that you called The Guardian s small publication shows literally how much knowledge and weight your opinion has. Not to mention, the other two sources I cited are both clearly reliable sources. You have even yet to counter a single point I have made. I have no bias, I always edit with a NPOV, no matter if it is my favorite artist or my least favorite, and I do not have any negative bias or feelings towards Gaga, just her fans are very childish. STATic message me! 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Reece, the simple fact is that the album hasn't received generally positive reviews. Remix albums aside, it received her lowest ever stats on Metacritic, by some distance. The Fame, The Fame Monster and Born This Way all had twice or even three times as many positive reviews than mixed reviews. That's not the case this time. You can call people biased and vandals and keep telling people they're gonna get blocked, you can sing and dance around the issue all you want (like you've been doing here since November), but that doesn't change the fact that it clearly received a mixed critical reception, and that the Critical reception field needs balancing to correct the discrepancy here. An opinion piece on Forbes alone can't negate 21 other reviews on Metacritic. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me first point out that the mere idea that you, STATic, would attempt to claim that I'm refusing to address your points is ridiculously laughable as I've addressed all of them repeatedly in the arguments above. YOU are the one who has consistently ignored my points (something IndianBio has pointed out) and repeated the same "there are more mixed reviews listed therefore it is a mixed consensus" argument over and over again in addition to calling me and IndianBio children and insulting Lady Gaga (the artist who's page you're attempting to edit; that obviously constitutes WP:Bias) which, yes, do qualify as derogatory remarks (your talk page is full of such insults towards other users who've questioned your domineering, rude, and unprofessional rhetoric) and are absolutely grounds for blocking. I'd also like to point out that you just glossed over the fact that you cited a review of "Aura" and attempted to pass it off as a review for the album, which constitutes as citing false sources, another offense punishable with blocking. Your consistent condescension, inflammatory remarks, obvious bias, and unprofessional behavior on this talk page have no place here. You're undermining the authenticity on this website by attempting to skew the critical consensus of an artist you have admitted you don't like. Enough is enough. Homeostasis, the fact that the reviews for this album are less positive than her previous albums is obvious and is something I've pointed out numerous times in the past. Repeating it here does not constitute as an argument and it doesn't address the fact that the consensus still reads "generally favorable reviews" on Metacritic, the source you're trying to cite. The context of her discography's critical reception is inconsequential here. You've been accused multiple times of being biased against Lady Gaga (something you yourself have admitted to) and going into this article and removing all traces of positivity from the critical reception section is obvious bias. Let me also point out that you have yet to address the fact that you removed direct quotes from the Forbes piece (calling it an opinion piece doesn't discredit it, by the way. All reviews are opinion pieces.) and when I told you that they were you refused to comment further because deleting direct quotes from a review because "they sound too positive" is obvious WP:Bias. You also can't just keep repeating that the consensus is mixed just because you see it as being mixed when Metacritic states that the album received "generally favorable reviews". Seeing as how STATic has asked me to combat his "arguments" again, I will do so, for the umpteenth time:

Metacritic, the source you claim to be citing, doesn't base its consensus off of the number of reviews in each category but off of the weighted average of the reviews listed and has come up with a consensus of "generally favorable". Metacritic forms a conglomerate of reviews for the sole purpose of using them to form a weighted, calculated score and consensus based on the idea that certain publications are more recognized and authoritative and get more of a voice in the consensus. In the matter of this album, the consensus is "generally favorable". There are more mixed reviews listed on the cite, but focusing on the number of categorical reviews is overly simplistic; It doesn't tell the whole story. It's also not the approach that Metacritic, the source where this information is coming from, adheres to. Picking and choosing information from a source and ignoring others doesn't make any sense. Even if you were to go by the standard of focusing on the number of reviews in each category (again, an act that Metacritic, the source being cited, does not practice), twelve of the reviews that are listed as "mixed" are literally one percentage point below being listed as entirely positive and cannot simply be passed off as mixed. They consist mostly of 3/5 star or 3 and a half/5 star reviews, otherwise known as positive reviews with reservations. If those reviews are discounted, the vast majority that STATic has been claiming to exist in the mixed section evaporates. In response to this rebuttal, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again about how many reviews are in the mixed category, as if that changes the fact that you're picking and choosing information from one source that ultimately states, point blank, the opposite of the consensus you're for arguing here. The Huffington Post also gave a round-up, sourcing multiple reviews, and stated that the consensus was positive. DigitalSpy also stated, point blank, that the album received a generally positive critical response while sourcing multiple reviews that allowed them to come to that factual conclusion. That would mean that three separate sources concur with my viewpoint, including the one you're attempting to cite, while you have one article by The Guardian that concurs with your viewpoint, a gossip blog, and a local newspaper that hardly constitutes as a reliable source. When it comes to the sourced fact, your argument falls apart. When it comes to bias, you have admitted to disliking this artist and her fanbase and suggested that you feel rap is superior to her type of music in general, which means that you not only have a biased viewpoint of this artist but a biased argument against pop music in general. Homeostasis, you admitted that you have been accused multiple times in the past of bias against this artist. You both have a responsibility to recuse yourself as your biased viewpoints require your abstention from this page. It is not just me saying this, as IndianBio has stated that I've made numerous factual arguments that you repeatedly ignore in lieu of your own personal view of the consensus. Adhere to sourced fact, stop insulting users who question your vandalistic actions, and move on. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sick of the harassment, false statements and personal attacks from you kiddo. Comment on the CONTENT not the CONTRIBUTORS. You trying to comment on another editors behavior is ridiculous, you need to try and read your own comments. I am done with this discussion, you have no WP:CONSENSUS for your change, so it will not occur, simple as that. Until someone agrees with you (not a single person has fully agreed with your nonsense bias), then it will not be changed. You keep running around in circles, not fully addressing the points and issues I have brang up. Your arguments make zero sense, and your literacy needs to be questioned. I have no bias at all. I am not you, I actually try to constructively edit outside of my favorite artist. Just quit synthizing the sources and guidelines you are horribly attempting to use. I tried to make a compromise, agreeing to listing it as "mixed to positive", as IndianBio also supported, yet your stubbornness refuses to discussion remain civil, so suffer with the article in its current state. @Sven Manguard: or @Rushton2010: would either of you please add to this discussion in the slightest, I do not plan to continue playing this game. STATic message me! 00:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had enough of this, Reece. I can't discuss anything with someone who insists on being so illogical. "You've been accused multiple times of being biased against Lady Gaga (something you yourself have admitted to)". You're the only one accusing me of bias and I have never admitted to such. You're taking tiny little things (like STATicVapor using a review for Aura) and blowing them up out of all proportion. Stop threatening to have people banned and discuss the simple topic at hand! We're discussing a tiny little line: "mixed" or "generally positive". There is no need for any of your excessive tyrades. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: My feelings exactly. I just laugh every time she threatens a block, the only one being blocked is Reece, if they continue with these personal attacks. STATic message me! 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
We should just leave the discussion right here for the time being, @STATicVapor:, and wait for Dispute Resolution you're currently involved in to wrap up. If that doesn't change anything, I think ANI would be the way to go. It's been 4 months now, and in that time: me, yourself, @Smarty9108:, @IndianBio:, @Rushton2010: and @Sven Manguard: have all agreed in principle to using "mixed to positive". No other editor has come forward to support his positions. And it's been FOUR months?! Enough. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
YOU'VE had enough?! I was discrediting your arguments, your biased opinions, and your actions on this talk page in my last paragraph. Accusing them of being personal attacks when you've called me a child and illiterate multiple times is disgustingly ironic. I've had enough with consistently discrediting your arguments and then being met with a biased refusal to cooperate and a statement of "Well, you don't have a majority, so I'm not changing it". Do you even read my arguments? Do you see the fact that you're citing sources that don't support your opinion? Do you see the fact that I've cited multiple sources that support my claims? (The Huffington Post, DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, Entertainmentwise) You've never agreed to compromise; leaving the page as it originally read (mixed to positive) isn't an act of compromise. You've ignored my sourced, factual arguments multiple times and then baselessly accuse me of being incoherent because you don't want to hear the fact that your argument is built on nothing but your own biased conjecture.

I will say again: When it comes to the sourced fact, your argument falls apart. When it comes to bias, you have admitted to disliking this artist and her fanbase and suggested that you feel rap is superior to her type of music in general (Quote: "What should I expect from Lady Gaga fans though lol, back to some Ghostface Killah."), which means that you not only have a biased viewpoint of this artist but a biased argument against pop music in general. Homeostasis, you admitted that you have been accused multiple times in the past of bias against this artist (Quote: "I'm getting pretty sick of being called a "hater" by Lady Gaga fans, TBH.") You both have a responsibility to recuse yourself as your biased viewpoints require your abstention from this page. It is not just me saying this, as IndianBio has stated that I've made numerous factual arguments that you repeatedly ignore in lieu of your own personal view of the consensus. Pointing out your bias is not a personal attack. You don't get to table a disagreement just because you don't want the page to change, especially when you're refusing to adhere to sourced fact. IndianBio does not agree with you two and has stated that you need to attempt to refute my arguments instead of ignoring it. The other three stated their opinions four months ago and have not participated in this recent disagreement. Citing them as consenters is ridiculous. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's my popcorn? Listen, REECE, Nobody here cares that you are a big Gaga fan, it clearly says that on your page :LOL:, and the album received mixed reviews and that's FINAL. I mean girl, there's like tons of people that have disagreed with you, and for real its been like four months and you've been seriously still trying? It shows it... Smarty9108 (wanna fight?) 10:07, 23 February 2014 (CST)
And Dude or whatever you are, DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED on my input, it says all over the place that the album is mixed, and its time to accept that. Smarty9108 (wanna fight?) 10:16, 23 February 2014 (CST)
My page doesn't say that? And no, you don't get to decide when something is final on a page and when it isn't, especially when you're arguing against sourced fact: DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise. Please refrain from speaking in such an unprofessional manor and ascribing loyalties to myself that don't exist and ignoring my numerous arguments in the process. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Reece Leonard, STATicVapor, and Homeostasis07: guys time out please. You are vehemently bickering over somethign that is just so fucking trivial that it would put Britney's singing to shame! Smarty9108 (talk · contribs), cease talking when you know its not helping else I will report you for trolling. STATic this is not a vendetta, you are equally responsible for getting the situation out of your hand and don't call yourself an adult when you have equally muddle in the mud. Homeo, no one is calling you a hater (and I will cut one if they do) so don't lose your head. Reece, understand their output and points too and don't go in some foolish statements discrediting reputed publications like The Guardian. That would make your points also seem less weighty. And for the love of God, STOP! There is a DRN open, please comment there if you want. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I actually didn't try to discredit the Guardian and stated above that that publication agreed with his statements and conceded that he had a reliable source on his side, but you're right. This is out of hand and should be discussed on the DRN page. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
No need for a reply as I am just leaving this here. More reliable sources saying mixed; Los Angeles Times, SF Gate, and also from a more recent article by The Huffington Post says "It comes amid mixed reviews for the album". STATic message me! 20:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Here are nine sources that describe the album as recieving generally positive reviews: DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, The Southern Digest, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf, Street Insider. That SF Gate source was originally posted by a gossip blog called The Daily Dish and cannot be used as a source. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable, and neither is this. Can we just say it was mixed-to-positive? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yahoo Music is not a blog. The Huffington Post isn't reliable? Really? And no, we cannot. We can say "generally positive reviews" and then add a disclaimer ("although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work") after it to address the fact that the reviews have been more ambivilent. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
If not a blog, then why does it have "blog" in the URL? And Huffington Post is definitely not reliable- I've often seen them make fraudulent claims in reports on politics (they have a liberal bias), science, and medicine. Besides, it is prominently a blog, and blogs cannot be used. The site has frequently been criticized for false reports. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I;ve seen your arguments against The Huffington Post and its supposed liberal bias before, but you were told by multiple users that The Huffington Post was a credible source and to leave your personal views out of it. Even if that page wasn't reliable (which it is), I've listed multiple other sources. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I completely object to the idea of a poll. Content is not decided by a majority vote. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't so much basing my arguments on my personal views as I was its frequent criticisms. At least in comparison to the other links you provided, it is a very poor source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, even if you personally don't like the Huffington Post, what do you think of the other ones I provided?Reece Leonard (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The other ones you most recently provided are definitely better sources, no question about that. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
And how does that effect your opinion on this matter? Multiple sources list it as receiving generally positive reviews, including Metacritic. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1. MetaCritic appears to be basically the unspoken indicator of reception levels
2. 50–70% or maybe 50–75% would be mixed-to-positive, 30–50% or maybe 25–50% would be mixed to negative. 50% would be mixed. Generally negative would be below 25–30%. Generally positive would be above 70–75%.
3. My guess as to why it said "generally favorable" is that it takes below 50% as generally negative, above 50% as generally positive, and 50% itself as mixed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Where are you getting those percentages from? Metacritic adheres to a score of 60 and above as "generally favorable reviews", which should be listed on this page if Metacritic is the unspoken indicator of reception levels. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Since when is Metacritic the "unspoken indicator of reception levels"? I find this in no guideline or policy. STATic message me! 00:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The percentages are listed as such depending on whether one goes by "quarter positive, half mixed, quarter negative" or roughly "one third positive, one third mixed, one third negative". As for "unspoken indicator", that was based on how it is used in numerous, probably most, of album reception ratings and calculates reviews given. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
See, STATic. I told you months ago that a metacritic is the unspoken indicator. And XXSNUGGUMSXX, that's not something that metacritic adheres to. They have the album listed at generally favorable reviews, something that should be reflected here. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Reece, I could be wrong on the "unspoken indicator"- don't quote me on it or anything. This was simply a guess based on observations. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I agree with you. That's how almost all other album pages work. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Poll

No discussion here, there has been enough of that, so just sign you name on what you think should be listed based on the sources provided.

Mixed
  1. Personally I feel "Mixed" fits better due to the actual content of the reviews; "mixed to positive" could be on the polite side, as even those giving a supposedly positive review were extremely harsh in their critique -for example Digital gave it 4/5 but called the songs "half-finished plagues".
However, given the overwhelming consensus for the "Mixed to positive" label, I am willing to concede and go with the group. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Mixed to positive
  1. STATic message me! 23:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC), seems appropriate given Metacritic's rating and most reviews having at least 3 out of 5 stars
  3. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. "Generally positive" alone doesn't seem to reflect the overall reception accurately, especially when there are other sources which blatantly describe a polarized reaction (including the Christgau essay, in which he discusses that in detail). Holiday56 (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Exactly. If you describe this album as having received generally positive reviews, then the entire paragraph describing how so many of the mixed reviews were "clueless" and that it was "2013's most underrated album" would become redundant. Homeostasis07 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. It seems a little odd to describe the reviews as "generally positive" when they only just meet the criteria that one aggregation website sets out – a touch of common sense needs to be applied here, as I don't think an assertion of "mixed to positive" constitutes original research. By the way, on a good-natured but more serious note: can we please spend less of our editing time bickering over one small wording issue in an article already of okay standard and actually put a slight bit of effort into improving all areas of certain pages in rubbish condition that, in reality, need our work more and are probably more important in the context of an encyclopaedia? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Positive
  1. User @Prism: Has voiced that he agrees that the page should read "Artpop received generally favorable reviews, though critics were ambivalent towards some factors", as seen on XXSNUGGUMSXX's talk page. Reece Leonard (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

No, you don't get to just instigate a poll to avoid my numerous sources. According to WP:CONSENSUS, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes unanimity will never be achievable with your stubbornness, but if the poll makes it clear that more editors want it to say one thing, then that is what it will be. Cut and dry, no way around it. That is the definition of WP:CONSENSUS. STATic message me! 00:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not. The page specifically says that voting is against wikipedia guidelines. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
While WP:NOTADEMOCRACY applies, the arguments made have so far had stronger support to have "mixed" or "mixed-to-positive" than "generally positive". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, Mixed apparently hasn't recieved any support at all, but numerous issues have been raised with the validity of "mixed to positive". If you're citing Metacritic, you can't ignore the consensus it's assigned to the album. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Holiday56: That's exactly why I'm not just arguing for "generally positive". I've also stated that we need a disclaimer after the consensus that would look something like: "The album received generally positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work". If "polarized" would work for you instead of "ambivalent" than that would work as well. Reece Leonard (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: No? It wouldn't? It's talking about the fact that this album has received a MORE polarized reaction than her previous work. It would, in no way, become redundant. You're not using that word correctly. I'm assuming you mean that it wouldn't make any sense in the context of a critical reception section that states generally positive, and that's not true either for the above stated reasons. Reece Leonard (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Sufur222:There are numerous sources listed above that state that it received generally positive reviews. Here they are again: DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, The Southern Digest, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf, Street Insider. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The Huffington Post source can be countered by a more recent Huffington Post article.
  • The Entertainmentwise source does not say the album received positive reviews; the first line of the article is "Lady Gaga's ARTPOP Met With Lukewarm Reviews: 'It's Disappointingly Conventional'."
  • Pride Publishing Group copied and pasted that entire paragraph from this very Wikipedia article: it even goes on to cite the exact same reviews here - and with the exact same quotes used.
  • Street Insider: check the very bottom of the page. It's a mirror for PRWeb. PRWeb is an "online marketing and publicity service" (i.e., they were given the entire thing by a PR company), which is not an objective source so can't be cited.
  • And I can't see anything in the Southern Digest source that you're trying to espouse to it. The closest is "Lady Gaga continues to stun her audiences with her innovative ideas and deep lyrics in her new album", the "audience" no doubt referring to her fanbase, and not critics. And the rest is just a bio. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The Entertainmentwise article says, and I quote: "Lady Gaga's new album ARTPOP has been met with positive, if unspectacular reviews from music critics", so it is certainly viable as a source. The Huffington Post article I posted actually cites the sources that it used to come to it's conclusion, unlike the more "recent" article (It was only posted five days after mine). I misread the Southern Digest article, so it can be disqualified. The Pride Publishing article used the exact same information on this page and still came to the conclusion that it had recieved generally positive reviews. If anything, that makes it more important. Even if you were to disqualify it, that still leaves six sources that state exactly what I'm arguing, including Metacritic, which states that the album recieved "generally favorable reviews". Reece Leonard (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You're synthing the Entertainmentwise article. It lists a bunch of three star reviews, most of which said just as many negative things as positive things. If anything, it corroborates a positive/mixed consensus. You can't take an article that happens to use the word "positive" and ignore the actual "conclusion" of the entirety of the article, if journalistic "conclusions" are what you're pushing for. The Pride Publishing article copied-and-pasted directly from this website, so the idea of you claiming that any actual work was done there or a genuine "conclusion" was reached is untrue. We don't accept mirrors and/or lazy journalism here. That leaves you with 3 genuine articles (Digital Spy, HuffPost, Yahoo), plus Metacritic and the non-notable Clermontlibrary. Then, for the mixed consensus, there are Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, the more recent The Huffington Post article, The Week, Pop Crush, The News and SF Gate. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I should mention that this is not a reliable source as indicated here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Either way, take out that source and it is still pretty obvious that more total and the more reliable sources indicate that the album received mixed reviews, rather than positive. STATic message me! 01:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Homeostasis, you have a serious misunderstanding of what the word "synthesis" means. The Entertainmentwise article claims, point blank, that the album received generally positive reviews. I just gave you the direct quote ("Lady Gaga's new album ARTPOP has been met with positive, if unspectacular reviews from music critics") which stated almost EXACTLY the consensus I'm arguing for on this page. I legitimately don't even understand the point you're trying to make against it. You're citing ridiculously tiny sources and blog (The News is an extremely tiny paper for a small college in Kentucky, SF Gate's article was originally posted by The Daily Dish, a gossip blog, and cannot be used) and then trying to discredit mine for being "non-notable". I have seven sources: DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group (which states "the album received generally positive reviews"), Off the Shelf. You have four (The Week, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and this Huffington Post article that doesn't cite its sources like mine does. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


The arguments here seem to be quite cyclical, despite a fairly strong consensus having emerged among other users. At what point does it become time to put this to bed?
Consensus is not unanimity, but what seems to have emerged is very strong broad agreement, and far more unanimous than many others seen across Wikipedia.
Maybe its time for everyone to move on and get on with their lives? --Rushton2010 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny how this was over and had consensus four months ago, however Reece just had to start edit warring about it again. Now, here we are again and the consensus remains the same. Now once we have the poll open for a few more days we can officially close the discussion and never revisit it again. STATic message me! 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Nah. There are a significant amount of sources that state that the consensus was generally positive (more than mixed or mixed to positive), including Metacritic. Wikipedia doesn't condone voting, so the discussion will continue. Reece Leonard (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, the two users most impassioned about this page remaining the way it is are attempting to block me, despite my multiple sources that disprove their argument. This discussion is over. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


"This discussion is over" -Thank goodness for that. Everyone please move on with your lives and return to enjoying contributing to Wikipedia.
Reece, It's sad that they have felt the need to take that route, but continuing a discussion when all the others so obviously disagree just becomes disruptive and is a waste of time for all involved. Perhaps if you volunteered a topic ban you might avoid a formal site wide ban? --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah, they were both told that there was no grounds for banning (obviously) so that's not necessary. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artpop/Archive_2&oldid=1085909184"