Talk:Born This Way (album)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Scheiße section?

Should Scheiße have its own page since it had a music video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQb4bMIG2IY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.149.188 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Scheibe doesnt have a music video. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch the video I linked.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.149.188 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a music video, because even Gaga hasn't said so. Frous (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Brazil

http://www.hot100brasil.com/chtalbums.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Double Platinum in Brazil with 80.000 albums sold. http://www.ladygagabrasil.com.br/2011/05/30/born-this-way-e-platina-dupla-no-brasil/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.119.130 (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, both unreliable. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way album #1 in Japan (OFFICIAL - Oricon)

From oricon.co.jp/news, Lady Gaga debuts at #1 in Japan with 184,000 copies sold in the first week. The article also says she is the first western solo artist since Michael Jackson's 'This Is It' in 2009 to reach #1 and the first western female since Madonna's Hard Candy in 2008.

http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/rankmusic/88250/full/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception vs. Critical response

Hi, I'm not sure if there's a better forum for this post...

Anyway, before I initiate any edit war (again...sorry dudes), I'd like to ask your views on naming the header above the paragraph that deals with the critiques received by the album. All the album articles with sourced, notable critiques have the basically quite similar paragraph that lists them. In my opinion, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Internal_consistency is not a problem here, because all articles tend to have structurally the same stuff in the critiques section (1: X has received mostly negative/mixed/favorable/positive reviews 2) review by Rolling Stone, review by The Independent, review by Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.).

Therefore, I would prefer to stick to one standard header. Which one sounds more "encyclopedic": "Critical reception" or "Critical response"? "Reception"[1] seems to be more common than "response".[2] -- Frous (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Gaga articles are structured in a similar way all over. I would go with reception as I have structured them all in that way. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the About.com review? Did I miss something? --201.230.113.213 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

First Day Sales in the US

In the introductory paragraphs, it says that Born This Way sold 288,000 units in its first day. However, this article by Billboard says that she sold at least 500,000 units in its first day. Coldplay's previous record was 288,000 units in one week. Hope this article clears that up:

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/update-lady-gaga-s-born-this-way-will-sell-1005205482.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all tentative and crystal ball theories. Wait till tomorrow when Billboard releases the full details. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Third Major Release

Since it's been agreed (multiple times, even) that Born This Way is her second studio album, should it be pointed out that this is also her third major release? It lists The Fame Monster as her second major release, so it would make sense to list this as the third. MusicMonster96 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Its Extended Edition not Special Edition

Please correct this someone !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.134.184.189 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Czech Republic

The Born This Way album is #1 in the Czech Republic.

http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sales are in

Wait for billboard to publish officially tomorrow: http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi Orane (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

To the nor,mal editors of thjis page, dont use words like controversy, huge sales etc. as they are just bad wrikting. WP shouldnt preach any incident as controversy, it should be completely neutral. Anmd im typing with my left hand. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP isn't reporting any incident as controversial. WP is using the power of "attribution" as a means of reporting accurately how other sources and publications have described the incident. To say "Lady Gaga is a bad artist" would be POV. To say "The New York Times describes Lady Gaga as "atrocious" is acceptable on Wikipedia, and we should not decide for ourselves that she is a good artist and use that as reasoning to omit the NYT statement. Orane (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, I'm just saying that the word controversy does not sound good, nor it shows good prose. As I said in the talk page, received negatively sounds better. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Legolas negatively sounds better but controversial is also a neutral word for it. Penpaperpencil (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

60%?!!!

The Amazon deal contributed with approximately 450k, which is 40% not 60%. Someone correct it!--HusseinIED (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This; there seems to be an overemphasis on the sales from the Amazon deal across the article. Digital sales overall contributed 60% to the sales total, which obviously weren't entirely made up of those sold through Amazon. That said, it's highly unlikely/impossible that every copy sold through Amazon was sold at the sale price as this offer only lasted two days, so unless we get some solid figures, I think these references should be deleted for the time being. Americansicko (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Number 1 in Austria

Born This Way is number 1 in Austria in it's first week.

Look here at the Austria Top 40 Charts:

http://charts.orf.at/oe3/longplay/2011/woche21/main — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.42.71 (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Album #1 in Canada

Born This Way hit #1 in Canada with sales of 81,000.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/01/lady-gagas-born-has-monster-debut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW First week sales: 2 million

Acording to Ladygaga.com, the album has sold " GLOBAL SALES MARK OF OVER 2,000,000 COPIES IN THE FIRST WEEK". Plis add this --NicolásTM (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Not reliable.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

¿? It's the official Lady Gaga's page. It's not from the forum of the page, it's a official new (sorry for my english)!.--NicolásTM (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a Telegraph link detailing the overall first week sales worldwide close to 2.1m. Lets keep thast untill their website updates it to an url. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Croatia

http://www.hdu-toplista.com/index.php?what=arhiva&w=details&id=855 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazon deal in the introduction section...

This "although Amazon's decision to sell the digital version of the album for US$ 0.99 for two days during its first week of release contributed to 40 percent of its overall total." should be removed cause it's information that will be stated and detailed further in the article and tells the reader something like: "hey, the album sold 1 million, but a 40% of if was sold at 0.99 cents and that's not fair".

That information is not important for a general description of the album, not matter how controversial it was.

Sobercool Here2Help 02:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazon's 'heavily criticized' decision

Is this appropriate? It's not very well sourced as being 'heavily criticized'. It should be removed for now, I think. KnowitallWiki (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, it is true. It should be "controversial", but an editor made a fuss about it so that wording was chosen for now.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy is a media generated word, trying to over-hype any incident and can have any number of connotations. Amazon's decision was criticized by both the public and the media and hence heavily criticized is the correct form chosen here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It should definitely be 'controversial'. 'Heavily criticized' is far too biased. Had it been so heavily criticized, Billboard wouldn't have counted the sales. And how do you measure public opinion? Perhaps some people criticized it, but I don't see the 400,000+ people buying it complaining about it. This is simply you lulling yourself into your own kind of reality and refusing to listen to anyone else. The wording is preposterous and should be changed. 80.203.61.212 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2011

Well I actually observed more clearly in the past week that the people most criticizing it are either people who don't even like her (haters in a more formal way) or fans of other artists who are simply angry because she would join the elite group of artists who sold 1m copies in first-week sales by, as they say, "cheating" which is entirely based on public opinion, "Controversial" would be a more suitable word simply because not all the response has been negative; some media outlets saw it as an opportunity to minimize illegal downloading (which caused album sales to drop 65% over the past 10 years). In the end, it generated talk, both negative AND positive, making it "controversial", as "negative" would be biased like the user above says.--HusseinIED (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on all parts, both Hussein and that IP. There is not a single ounce of fancruft anywhere here which you should get in your head. The decision by Amazon to sell the album at 99c was criticized, whether you like it or not. The general public as well as the media criticized the decision and unintentionally Gaga was labeled as trying to manipulate sales. Controversy is a media generated term, and can have many different meanings. Political, economical, glamor world etc etc. which is not the case here. It would have suited if the decision led to any defamation suit claimed, any outpour from Gaga's part any BLP claims etc, none of which happened. So, see reason and dont get into the fandom thing. And that's coming from a Gaga fan myself. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To explain it a bit more guys, "heavily criticized" is actually a more severe term IMO than "controversial", so I doubt his intention is fan-cruft. Think about it...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Point in consideration is what happened. The decision was criticized, not the album, not Gaga (except for manipulation, and who doesn't). And please read what I wrote about the term "controversy" being media generated and how many meanings it offers. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but shouldn't we at least state that Gaga and the label did not take part in this decision and that it was part of Amazon's promotional strategy?--HusseinIED (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It already says so: "heavily criticized Amazon decision". That makes it clear that Gaga or her label did not have anything to do with it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

2+ million: sales or shipments?

Hey, I think these reports need to be put to balance: Reuters (a news agency) talks about 2.1-million shipments[3] and Digital Spy (an entertainment and media news website) talks about 2-million sales.[4] In my opinion, we should wait for sales reports from sources like Reuters (that I consider a tiny bit more reliable than Digital Spy) before we go gaga about huge sales... Opinions? -- Frous (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I found the Reuters source, I did write shipmentts, so I guess that implies that I agree with you.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, shipments is better here, since all the singles that are ever sold (surprise, surprise...) are first shipped from the record label to retailers. -- Frous (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(Ok, true. That sounds like no s*it Sherlock...) -- Frous (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Singles are not shipped anymore and nor are they certified as such. Most of them are certified based on the digital downloads and that's strictly sales. The physical single market is practically nil now. As for the source, I agree on keeping both of them. I don't see any problem with Reuters saying a shipment of 2.1 million, and DS saying sales of 2 million. Now if the converse happened I would have cried foul, but this comes within the reliability factor and both sources being reliable. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

US Platinum?

Platinum album is if sold more than 1,000,000 copies, isn't it? and Born sold 1,108,000 copies... is it true? Ofekalef (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at this also: [5].. Ofekalef (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's Platinum also in Canada, and Australia... Ofekalef (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Albums need to be certified by the RIAA for them to become platinum. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Ofekalef (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Belgium (Flanders AND Wallonia)

Flanders - http://www.ultratop.be/nl/weekchart.asp?cat=a&year=2011&date=20110604 Wallonia - http://www.ultratop.be/fr/weekchart.asp?cat=a&year=2011&date=20110604 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's the Malaysian album charts

It peaked at number one in Malaysia and some other countries, but I can't find a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.134.176.5 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot find a reliable reference, it won't be added. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A Question.

The album sold 440,000 copies through Amazon, so shouldn't it be 44% instead of 40%? Penpaperpencil (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

No, because first week sales were 1,108 mio. and not 1 mio., so 440k is 40% of it ;) ! --79.199.57.134 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Concept album

I guess it should be included that "Born This Way" is a concept album: 1. it deals with her different personalities and how she is 2. the songs are mostly written by her point of view 3. the songs all have a major message: tollerance, acceptance and faith.--79.199.21.71 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it a concept album. It's nowhere near coherent enough to be seen as such. Chicolover (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's indeed a concept album. At it's core, Born This Way is about the juxtaposition of light and darkness, and their symbiotic relationship with one another. This is reflected on the album cover (bright chrome on black), in the lyrics (judas/jesus dichotomy, marry the night, bad kids, etc.), through the video imagery (Judas/Jesus, Born This Way's Manifesto: "rotating in agony between two ultimate forces" / "how can i protect something so perfect... without evil?"), and through melody and chord progression (dark churning techno verses juxtaposed against soaring joyful choruses). It's not about her different "personalities" per se, but about how she reconciles the dark and light parts of herself (i.e. how she deals with the internal hypocrisy of being an artist but also extremely commercially successful). 184.144.104.132 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said! Muthamonster (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Structure/layout

Editors to this article have argued for revising the layout of the article body's sections so that "Promotion" and "Singles" sections follow the "Reception" sections, citing other Lady Gaga album articles. User:Legolas2186 for instance expressed at his talk page that the reasoning for this is that "Promotion" is "secondary info" and less important (User_talk:Legolas2186#Born_This_Way_headings). However, Wikipedia supports internal consistency in their guidelines (Wikipedia:CONSISTENCY#Internal_consistency; "style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole"). I argued for structuring the body sections in a chronological style, seeing it as how most or all WP:Albums articles are structured (1) Background, 2) Recording, 3) Release/promotion 4) Reception), something more similar to the guideline shown at WP:Albums about the article body (Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body). And because there is no style set as policy, I've argued with the reason that it may be more accessible for readers of such articles to have a chronologically-based structure. Dan56 (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"The following is a list of possible sections that could be included in an album article. Because not all albums are the same, it would be difficult to create a uniform list of mandatory sections [...] Feel free to express your creativity and ignore all of the rules at any time you wish!" This page itself is a list of sections that help you to chose what to include; it is in no way a set in stone policy like WP:OR (for example); the structure itself is not telling you this is how it is to be, it is a suggestion. Consensus has told you (by like 4 changes ive counted) that the flow has changed, i can list you hundreds of article that follow this; the way you have at present is a form no longer used. WP:CONSISTENCY "It presents Wikipedia's house style, and is intended to help editors to produce articles with language, layout, and formatting that are consistent, clear, and precise. The goal is to make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use." this means not every article must be the exact same, but they should be as consistent as possible, since consensus and style has been established in her other article, this should follow as closely as possible. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting it as external consistency. Other editors that you cite as consensus also used the term "consistency" as "this article should be like the other Lady Gaga albums articles", which is not valid. WP:MOS#Internal Consistency "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole". The more important thing you should be addressing is why the style you support is better for this particular article than the one I proposed for this particular article. Dan56 (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO the current structure ( 1 Background and development 2 Concept and artwork 3 Composition 4 Promotion 5 Singles 6 Critical reception 7 Commercial performance) is fine as it is logical. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have always preferred having how something is critically or commercially received as most important after its bkgrnd. Also, Dan I noticed something that the so called chronology that you cite is again wrong because the album was indeed reviewed much before its release (Rolling Stone) and its commercial aspects were discussed from the point the first single came out. So no, the structure that Frous, CK and I are suggesting is also chronologically correct. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree it is fine as it is. I see no problems. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 14:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

To Legolas' point, most reviews did not come out as early as the album's worldwide release date, but after. And most of the contents of "promotion", in which the release info is mentioned, were long before what is in the "Reception" sections. I don't understand what you mean by "its commercial aspects were discussed from the point the first single came out", but singles are promotional efforts. In more general terms, this would be chronologically correct, as a response (by consumers/critics in this case) to something cannot be before that something is presented/released to be responded to. Dan56 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Norway

http://norwegiancharts.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, doing it. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it's already been added. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Second week sale

2nd week sales of 169,000? Expect an Adele takeover next week. Orane (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

N° 1 Greek & Mexican Albums

BTW it's n° 1 in the Greek Chart. We need a new "web cite" link.--NicolásTM (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC) PD: In Mexico, it's n° 1 with platinum.

#1 in Mexico

No. 1 in Mexico with a Platinum certification.

http://greaves.tv/amprofon3/Top100.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Done thanks a lot. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide shipments

Two weeks after the release, the album was already shipped more than 5 mio. times worldwide and reached No. 1 in 27 countries.

source: Germany's Next Topmodel, finale, 09th June, 2011 (announced by Heidi Klum before Lady Gaga's perfomance)

--79.199.42.60 (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

About.com rating?

Why are people constantly removing it? It's a professional rating and review that's included in most Lady Gaga articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobercool (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

About.com's reliability is disputed now, and very soon it will be removed from other Gaga articles too. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobercool (talk • contribs) 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be because Bill Lamb says that he's published in so-&-so newspapers and he's a critic, but no one can't find his contributions except in About.com, making his statements not provable. Let's see what happens. About.con is not removed from the critical reception section though. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You and Sorry, but where did he said that? In his bio he clearly states that he's been in About.com since 2005. There's no mention of another contribution to other news papers. Since when it is needed dig so deep in the critic's background in order to include their critic? It's the same thing for other people you don't (even bother to) know, but they say a few words about the album and because they are featured in a newspaper with more widespread recognition than About.com (hence the newspaper is recognized, not the 'reviewer') they automatically qualify as 'reliable'. Whomever cares about the balance and fair edit of this article, please (POLITELY) answer to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.34.229 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. About.com is owned and operated by The New York Times Company. (Please go to this link for the Wikipédia article The New York Times Company: Company Holdings for the source.) If a critic paid by The New York Times is not a reliable source, I don't know what a reliable source is. Scheiße ! Charvex (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions regarding About.com at WP:RSN and WP:FAC (search archives). Consensus is that About.com guides must have independent reliability per WP:SPS. For example, Mark Edward Nero is reliable because he has written about music for several reliable newspapers. Bill Lamb has no specialist experience or qualifications in music, and therefore is not considered reliable. Newspaper critics are reliable because newspaper articles are subject to review by newspaper editors, who check facts and accuracy. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were reliable, this discussion is about the rating in the template. It would be removed b/c the publication is the least notable of the 10 that can be included and its misrepresenting the reception of the album. WP:Albums states "When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view". Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"the least notable of the 10 that can be included and its misrepresenting the reception of the album." I fell back laughing at that. So a 5/5 ranting is misrepresenting the reception of the album. In which way, may I ask, is that rating doing that? Sobercool Here2Help 22:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the only publication to give the album a maximum rating? Dan56 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

#1 in India, South Korea & Taiwan

In the official Lady Gaga's site, is written that "The album has also debuted at the top spot in [...] India, South Korea & Taiwan" LadyGaga.com News | Born This Way First Week Sales Results! --Emish94 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

India doesnot have any official chart, so its likely that info is false. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Source: Taiwan international albums chart http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard2.aspx (week 21 and 22 at the bottom)

additional source: Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/06/10/2003505430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.241.211 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources state that BTW topped all the music charts, but doesnot specifically mentions which Taiwanese chart. Hence the g-music chart is the one we can go with. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon

The album was unbanned in Lebanon days ago, can't seem to find a reliable source. But the government issued a statement on this matter and I have friends over there who have already bought the album!--HusseinIED (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Billboard 200 chart update for this week

http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi 142.150.48.113 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OMG, Adele back at number one in thus week's Billboard!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.242.187 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Peter Van der Veen

"Government Hooker" contains vocals from Gaga's bodyguard, Peter Van der Veen. Should we ad this under the tracklisting? 75.26.254.185 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Source for this? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1659254/lady-gaga-government-hooker.jhtml The article says that DJ White Shadow had said 'Let's get Pete in here.', which was referring to her bodyguard, Peter Van der Veen. 75.26.254.185 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes the source is reliable, and I think it can be added to the composition section. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking it would go under the Notes for the tracklisting, perhaps saying, '"Government Hooker" contains vocals from Peter Van der Veen'. 75.26.254.185 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance

Reaching No. 1 in Germany, it's the first time that an artist had a No. 1 song and a No. 1 album with the same name since Robbie Williams' "Rudebox" in 2006. The last female artist to achieve this was Britney Spears with "... Baby one more time" in 1999.

Please include this! --79.199.21.178 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why source? In charting questions, you can also look it up yourself and so I did. I went through the charting years of German Albums / Singles Chart to find it and it didn't happen after those albums I named... --79.199.24.6 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Promotion

why is her performance in the uk, Berlin, Rome (or Romania) and France not included in the release and promotions section? YZJay talktome 10:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

is there any reason? YZJay talktome 10:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to verify these performances? If so, be bold and add them in yourself, or post links to references here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Special Edition

Itunes calls it "Bonus Track Version". I suggest it should be renamed from the "Special Edition" to the "Bonus Track Version" 119.153.22.235 (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Four million?

I don't know whether this is considered a proper source, but a press release on Lady Gaga's website is citing the official album sales as being 4 million to date. Link RM-47 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaga's official website is not a reliable source. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, though I can't see why personally. It is official, after all. RM-47 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we need reliable third-party sources, not affiliated with Gaga or her team. In a sort of attempt at promoting an album, record labels, and in this case, her website, use inflated sales as a way to market the project. They hope that the more impressive the sales seem, the more people will think its popular and buy it. The album was confirmed to have sold/shipped two million in its first week. I would say overall sales dropped a good 70% everywhere during the second week (US went from 1.1 M to 174k, while in the UK from 215k to 60k), so I doubt sales doubled. I would guess them to be at 2-2.5 at best. Even if you find a reliable source claiming 4, I doubt we can add it, just due to the lack of certifications and actual recorded sales.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

gagadaily said it sold a total of three milions they said that on the text before the fourth single poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.223.241 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sales

"It debuted atop the US Billboard 200 chart with first-week sales of 1.11 million copies. Over 430,000 of these sales were at a special price of US$ 0.99, which Amazon offered for two days during the album's first week of release."

I think I read somewhere that the 430K sales came from digital stores, not necessarily Amazon only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.151.133 (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

We Will Rock You?

So this was seen at the bottom of the tracklisting: ""Yoü and I" contains elements of "We Will Rock You" recorded by Queen and written by Brian May." Is there a source for this? The only resemblance I hear is the pattern, not the actual drums used in "We Will Rock You"; wouldn't that make the sentence incorrect, or am I mistaken? 75.26.254.185 (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The album notes credits WWRY sample. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

The song "Born This Way" is about how everybody is equal, regardless of the color of their skin, their sexuality or their creed, and that every single person can fulfil their dream

Dispute... I really, really, really don't think that's what the song is about at all.

That is what the song is about, haven't you heard it? That is the whole point of Born This Way, both song and album, is about being who you want to be and not letting anyone tell you otherwise. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 10:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Source itself is not credible.

not a neutral POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oygp (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bloody Mary's page??

Could we make a page for Bloody Mary, it topped the Taiwanese Top 10 Singles Chart this week... I think it's sufficient... --Emish94 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BiggestLittleMonster, 4 July 2011

hi i'm a big fan of lady gaga and i'm hoping you respond so either you can edit or i can edit by putting "Hair" and "You And I" on the part where it says singles from the album :) BiggestLittleMonster (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC) thats all if you say yes thanx and if no thanx for reading this :)

Not done: It appears as if "Hair" is classified as a Promotional Single and "You and I" was not released as a single. Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Performance in Taichung, Taiwan

Should the setlist for her performance in Taiwan be listed here? I don't have the setlist, but if it's found... Squidoh (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the setlist:

1. Born This Way 2. Just Dance 3. Telephone 4. Alejandro 5. Hair 6. Yoü and I 7. Bad Romance 8. The Edge of Glory 9. Judas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.39.75 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Scheiße

Scheiße needs to have its own article. It has been overly popular. It has been voted by many people to be the next single. She performed a snippet on Germany's next top model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.26 (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Expand

I've just expanded the composition section, because, frankly, I thought that it wasn't right just to have a description about the singles and not about the album's other tracks. --Theologiae (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You did a wonderful job. Thanks a lot Theologiae. Once you are done, I'll format the references. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to do a part on the bonus track singles as well. Should I do a sub-section, or keep it all as one part?

--Theologiae (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

One section, four paras should do it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Theologiae (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way certified 2xPlatinum in Japan for shipments of 500,000

Source - http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/201106.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the info. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Platinum

I don't understand it. The album sold more than 1 million copies in the US, but RIAA (is this the site) still didn't write this. I also thinks Edge is also platinum. Ofekalef (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Record companies have to apply for certifications, they are not automatically updated. Hence RIAA does not show it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why gold or platinum status is even listed for artists on wikipedia, if it has to be 'applied for' and doesn't automatically happen then it's bound to become a flawed way of guaging success (and let's face it record companies have better things to do than constantly applying for these stupid accreditations when billboard already announces actual the sales). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.228.10 (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

5 million

Here had a source.--NicolásTM (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Not reliable.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So, why this is "reliable" to the discography? It's contradictory.--NicolásTM (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

HitFix is reliable because they credit NS for the sales, however, the sale info about the 5 million worldwide is unreliable because they are crediting it as from Gaga, which being a primary source is unreliable. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So the sales have gone in reverse? from 5 million back to 2 million? the 5 million sales has been talked about COUNTLESS TIMES over the last few weeks in the media! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.228.10 (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia

Gold for Born This Way in Indonesia...

http://www.metrotvnews.com/metromain/news/2011/07/14/57829/Lady-GaGa-Terima-Plakat-Penjualan-Album-Terbaik-di-Indonesia

--79.199.53.47 (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry needs to come from the official certification website of Indonesia. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

->>> Here http://creativedisc.com/news/music-news/lady-gaga-got-best-selling-album-in-indonesia/

still don't believe it Legolas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.6.180 (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

http://id-id.facebook.com/notes/universal-music-indonesia/lady-gaga-got-best-selling-album-in-indonesia/10150243415339226

check that out, it's from Universal Music Indonesia official Facebook page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.6.180 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh if i might add, if you are busy enough to translate those articles at google translate. I'll help you. It says, Gaga got 5X platinum for The Fame Monster (I think you need to add this on The Fame Monster page) and Gold for Born This Way.

As I said Timmy94, for certifications, we need it to come from the certifying body's website, else it won't be added. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But do you have the official certification website for Indonesia? I couldn't find it... I also have got official press reports about her reaching certifications in India and the Philippines, is there no way to include them?

By the way: BTW reaches Platinum in Europe, therefore I've got the official site: http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat_month_20110713.html

@Legolas: How come you know that I'm Timmy94 :) ? --79.199.20.226 (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kevindehulsters, 21 July 2011

4th single: Yoü and I release date: TBA

Kevindehulsters (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable source? Otherwise it's original research. —Andrew_stalk 05:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia

Gold for Born This Way in Indonesia...

http://www.metrotvnews.com/metromain/news/2011/07/14/57829/Lady-GaGa-Terima-Plakat-Penjualan-Album-Terbaik-di-Indonesia

--79.199.53.47 (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry needs to come from the official certification website of Indonesia. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

->>> Here http://creativedisc.com/news/music-news/lady-gaga-got-best-selling-album-in-indonesia/

still don't believe it Legolas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.6.180 (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

http://id-id.facebook.com/notes/universal-music-indonesia/lady-gaga-got-best-selling-album-in-indonesia/10150243415339226

check that out, it's from Universal Music Indonesia official Facebook page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.6.180 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh if i might add, if you are busy enough to translate those articles at google translate. I'll help you. It says, Gaga got 5X platinum for The Fame Monster (I think you need to add this on The Fame Monster page) and Gold for Born This Way.

As I said Timmy94, for certifications, we need it to come from the certifying body's website, else it won't be added. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But do you have the official certification website for Indonesia? I couldn't find it... I also have got official press reports about her reaching certifications in India and the Philippines, is there no way to include them?

By the way: BTW reaches Platinum in Europe, therefore I've got the official site: http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat_month_20110713.html

@Legolas: How come you know that I'm Timmy94 :) ? --79.199.20.226 (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian music?

The album includes a lot Christian elements and lyrics, so shouldn't "Contemporary Christian music" be added to the genre? --79.199.57.134 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No way...The album has religious allusions (very distinctive from elements), but is not pro-christain in any way. Gaga is not a gospel or contemporary christain singer, she's a secular pop artist. She sings about bloody Mary and falling in love with Judas, the man who betrayed jesus. Those lyrics are her way of pulling people's strings because she herself has said countless times that she does not condone or believe in any form of organized religion. Also, christain music does not allow explicit lyrics. She swears several times over the duration of the album, and she has FAR more lyrics that reference sex than she does referencing any religious deity. I think people keep getting the wrong idea from from the lyrics of the title track. She did that intentionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.91.124 (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You claiming her to be a secular artist is wrong. She went to a Catholic school her whole life. If she was secular she wouldn't declare "God makes no mistakes". And she doesn't really love Judas Iscariot she ascutally is in love with a man who betrayed her kind of like the way Judas betrayed Jesus. Gte your facts right man before you post anything recklessly. --Mishternagy (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ethnocentric, what i wrote was not wrong. I did do my research, and so should you. My consensus was drawn from 3 years worth of observing interviews and all media outlets. She's said so herself that she "sees god in her fans." Her version of god isn't the supernatural deity that Christians believe in. She's actually closer to being labeled agnostic, because she is spiritual but doesn't believe in a popularized god and isn't quite sure which one she does believe in. And as for the catholic claim...I went to a catholic school as well. Both her and I are no longer Catholics. Going to a faith based church does not make you a believer any more than being born into a religion makes you religious. And i did not respond to this innocent person's question to argue with people. You have your beliefs, Gaga has her own, and so does everyone else. The end. Look up the word ethnocentrism and do the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.158.72 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In no way is Lady Gaga agnostic, and in Born This Way when she says God makes no mistakes, she's talking about the deity, not Little Monsters, she's referring to how God creates people to be who they are, if she meant Little Monsters, the that would mean Little Monsters are the ones that create everyone, seriously think about these things before you type them, I'm a true Little Monster and I happen to know that she STILL is Catholic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick0627 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget in You & I she claims "there's only three men I'm gonna serve in my whole life, it's my daddy and Nebraska and Jesus Christ". Pretty pro-Christian, in Bloody Mary, a song about Jesus' death from Mary Magdalene's perspective, she says, while talking about Jesus himself, "my religion's you", then later says "I'll dance with my hands above my head like Jesus said", thus following Jesus' commands. Pretty pro-Christian too. People have also pointed out the "God makes no mistakes" line, and if you took a moment to look past the title of Judas, you'd know she quite clearly calls Judas a demon, and Jesus her virtue. Regarding the first point about adding the contemporary Christian music genre, I don't think it'd really work out, seeing as it isn't the predominant theme of the music, rather it's just a reccurring image. Some songs are completely devoid of any notable Christian analogies. 92.235.224.50 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead Vocals

The Personnel section of the page states that Lady Gaga provides background vocals for the album. Shouldn't it also say lead vocals/"vocals" in general? According to the Personnel section this album contains only background vocals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.113.88 (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. ;-) —Andrew_stalk 02:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Concept of "Born This Way"?

Ok, I don't know why no one adds the reason why Lady Gaga has chosen the edgy pictures for her Born This Way artwork?! Some people are misleading that she has chosen them to "shock" people. I don't think so! In numerous interviews, Gaga has stated things like that!

The album cover features Gaga fused into a motorcycle. She explained why in an interview with London's Metro newspaper:

"On the album cover I'm half motorcycle as I now feel that I'm in a space where I can explain artistically that I am endlessly transformative and I'm now the vehicle, not just for my voice, but the voice of my generation and what we have to say about the world."

Some kinds like she's a vehicle, and she wanna ride her fans through the endless journeys. Do you think we should add some? :\

Some sources for "I'm a vehicle" things: http://www.shallownation.com/2011/05/23/lady-gaga-on-the-view-video-may-23-2011-interview/ http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Lady-Gaga-talks-bullying-and-SNL--releases-new-album/8146729

On portraying herself as half woman, half motorcycle: "I am endlessly transforming and riding, and I am the vehicle for the voice of my fans, for the voice of my creativity, and I'm always on a freedom ride to myself." => Source: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/05/lady_gaga_im_on_a_freedom_ride.html

(Sorry guys, I don't have MUCH time to edit my stuffs! :( †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! DAP388 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ARGENTINIAN ALBUM CHARTS PEAK:4

Hey guys. Born this way peaked at Nº4 in Argentinian Singles Charts. http://www.webcitation.org/60TO1kiGb If you go to www.capif.org.ar , then you go to "Ranking y estadisticas" then "Ranking Semanal Pop" and the week of 29/05/2011. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbebitodelamuerte (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No RIAA?

There is no RIAA for this album...? Didnt it sell well over 1 million on the first day alone?108.49.68.75 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The RIAA homepage currently says "Check Back Soon!" for BTW where it says G&P Status (Gold and Platinum Status). The certification is still pending. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Third studio album?

"Yoü and I" is the fourth single to be released from Lady Gaga's third studio album, "Born This Way." Billboard says... --NicolásTM (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ya and they are wrong. I sent a mail to BB already on this. Seems like the whole website is turning crap nowadays, with innumerable mistakes happening left and right. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gold in Philippines and India

Gold in Philippines: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=70&articleId=706671 Gold in India: http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/lady-gaga-born-this-way-hits-gold-india

I know that this is not a chart web, but is the only source that I found. And It seems reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.33.19 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cannot be accepted if they are not from the certifying body's website. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Certification

BTW is platinum in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe71941 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's still pending for RIAA certification. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 09:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Consistency

Born_This_Way#Background_and_recording says Gaga revealed the album art Apr. 15, but in Born_This_Way#Concept_and_artwork, it says the 17th. Please clarify to avoid confusion. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's the beginning of the problem with the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It was actually the 16th (http://twitter.com/#!/ladygaga/status/59119379643760640 and http://twitter.com/#!/ladygaga/status/59356655732793344), and you really need to learn how to be helpful, Legolas. AngloMonsTer (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd trust CBS News over Pop Eater any day. The former says 4/16. I fear someone's gonna revert my edit so someone else can make the change. Being BOLD is easier said than done. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Argentina

If you check 'Ranking Semanal Pop' (weekly ranking) for the week dated 22/05/2011, Born This Way was #1 in Argentina. The #4 peak shown on the charts section of this page actually refers to its monthly position.

http://adminlic.capif.org.ar/sis_resultados_rankings_web.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.115.195 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Jesus † Amen Fashion Debuts 22 in SPAIN

http://www.promusicae.es/files/listastonos/Top%2050%20Canciones%20(PUBLICAR)_w35.2011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.192.16.118 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Album topics

Its said that this album is predominantly focused on fame and wealth, while the main focus of the album is identity, freedom and love. Please, I the owner of the page to change that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.225.14.19 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Changes

Hi i just wanna ask for some things that would be changed on the article:

•Fist of all: Can be shortenned the "Judas" composition section i mean it's too much information just for one song that i'ts explained better on the main article

•Second: In other natable songs [6] shouldn't be added the chart performance of the most notable non-singles songs?

•Third: Just asking, should be added a Legacy/Cultural impact Section similar to Adele's 21? [7]

Sorry 4 My English, Have a cool day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrock (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is messy tbh. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Understatement. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy will be written in due course... --&レア (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

deluxe edition cover

i dont see whats the big problem that we cant have the deluxe edtion cover, they have it on rihannas talk that talk album...??? --91.154.98.180 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Singles

Edge of Glory and You and I are merged into one paragraph in the singles section. it looks a little un-neat, and i suggest you to please sepreate them into different paragraphs. 203.99.178.80 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cover

This album has two cover, and there is only one! Please add a second cover. Coverings can be found here: 1, 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalaKapanadze (talk • contribs) 12:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we possibly include the Born This Way: The Collection cover as an alternative cover? http://www.ladygaga.com/photos/detail.aspx?fid=22274&phid=22276 –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to include The Collection cover because it is not an alternative cover for the actual album Born This Way, it is a cover for a collection of items from the era itself.

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Samlikeswiki (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Marry The Night release

Can we please pick a confirmed release date for Marry The Night? Samlikeswiki (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

November 21, as the articles say. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but people keep changing it to October 17, 2011. Samlikeswiki (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see what people mean, because the song was released to Australian radio that date, but they do not necessarily play singles, which is the problem. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If the label is promoting a song to radio, that means it is a single. The fact that some radio stations play non-singles is not relevant. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way – The Collection

Just wondering, is it worth making an article for the collection? Or maybe just a section in the "Born This Way" article itself? It seems relevant. Samlikeswiki (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Has Sold 8 Million Copies

Two reliable sources claim this number. Not only that, but we had multiple sources from late June that reported it had sold 5 million by that time. I find it hard to believe that it is just now reaching 5 million when we had multiple reliable sources for that figure three whole months ago. Furthermore, the album sold 2.5 million copies in its first week alone. Is it so hard to believe that the album would have sold an average of 250,000 copies for the twelve weeks after it reached 5 million? Of course not. 8 million is the most up-to-date figure we have and comes from reiable sources. Digital Spy, I'm sure, is just as reliable as itself (the source used to justify a 5 million claim). MusicMonster96 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Now Digital Spy claim that BTW sold 5 million. I think we should find another source because we can't trust a site that first say BTW sold 8 Million and two weeks later say it is 5 million. Mediatraffic is not a reliable source but their total are not far from the reality and BTW sales are around 4.6 million. Yes, it sold 2 million first week but sales since then are not that big. If there are multiple sources claiming BTW sold 8 million you should use one. I really don't trust Digital Spy and we should remove it.--Albes29 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I used only a different source. Digital Spy probably shouldnt be used in the future for referencing BTW's sales. MusicMonster96 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the other source that say that BTW sold 8 million used Digital Spy article as a reference. I don't think that is reliable source. I think we need more people to get an agreement. We have to be honest, there is not way BTW has sold 8 million and we all know that.--Albes29 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW doens't sell 8 million copies. You can count the sales here: http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week40-2011.htm so it's just nearly 5 millions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.221.125.154 (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

mediatraffic.de is as reliable as the tales our mothers & grandmothers used to tell us, when we were little kids. --178.10.137.182 (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WTF?! That 7,2 million is reported by her manager[8] – that's not a reliable source. -- Frous (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't her manager be a reliable source? he is the one who knows how much the album has sold. -- Christianrxx (talk) 1 November 2011 (UTC)

By common sense. Her manager has a financial interest in boosting the sales by making claims about the album's superiority. It's exactly the same case with record labels. Compare that for exmaple to a situation where Gaga's manager says Gaga is the singer-songwriter at the moment, can we use him as reliable source? No frigging way. Big sales indicate that the album is worth buying -> more people are more likely to buy the album. Here are some stuff on that. -- Frous (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW has definitely sold more than 5 mil copies. it is somewhere between 7-8 million Gaga tweeted on june 22 that btw almost reached 5 mil copies. im a big fan of hers and she would never lie - she has no reason to. since you dont trust her manager i provided a different article [9] comment added by Christianrxx (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"She would never lie, she has no reason to". Well...that's your own belief, and therefore no rationale to forget source criticism. The artist herself is even worse as a source. I already told why she/record label/manager are not reliable: Gaga, her record label and her manager all have a motive to boost the sales—they get money from the sales and the sales are likely to go up even more if it becomes known that BTW has sold a lot already. IMO, looking at the current Wikipedia guidelines, the IBtimes article is ok as a source, since it's a third-party source. But anyway, you get the best reliable figure by counting the certifications from every country and that's what I would do with EVERY article. (Media tends to lack source criticism, too, and specially entertainment websites, so I wouldn't trust even them, OR I would write explicitly that "artist X is thought to have sold at least Y amount of records during his/her career" and back that up by adding some news agency source, for example.) -- Frous (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone else's sales are based on the Media Traffic site. Its the most accurate site that keeps track of international numbers. Adele has crossed 12 million fare and square. Loud is hardly at 5 million despite Def Jam saying 8. BTW debuted huge (with and without the help of Amazon) but it also suffered a huge decline in pretty much every market afterwards. Just look at the charts in the following weeks and today. Its had little staying power compared to 21 or even Loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.157.114 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, when Adele commented on her sales and said that she had sold 10m, it was around the time Media Traffic reported it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.157.114 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)