Jump to content

Talk:Dance in the Dark/Archive 1

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

Canditate for deletion?

Why? Imho just leave it as it is. What's the point in deleting it? It would be better to have a stub of an article rather than nothing at all about it. ⓈⓓⓌ④•talk•contribs• 16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Dance in the Dark is a great article not to be deleted. The song has already been released as a single in Belgium actually. It is going to be the fourth single from The Fame Monster, and Wikipedia makes pages for singles, so why delete it now if we have to rewrite it less than two months later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.58.192 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Its already closed as keep. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Music video in production

Add this info. the source is http://www.zimbio.com/Lady+Gaga/articles/KC6cdT_Wj6u/Lady+Gaga+next+single+will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearofthe (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Unreliable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


It's probably a single from Born This Way (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Elektrik Band

:@

Why the hell is this article not semi-protected? It was before wasn't it? And then when someone edits it, you change it and say there' no reliable source. Semi-protect this page please :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.74.182 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

An article is protected only if there is enough vandalism from IPs. If such a case happens the article will be semi-protected again. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. No claim is made or supported that the existing title is not the primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dance in the Dark → Dance in the Dark (song) – There is a racehorse of the same, and I was thinking that Dance in the Dark should be a disambiguation page. What do you ink? 68.44.51.49 (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose WP:TWODABS Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

editrequest

Please add the hatnote

{{confused|Dancer in the Dark|Dancing in the Dark}}

Not to be confused with Dancer in the Dark or Dancing in the Dark.

-- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Done FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dance in the Dark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Depeche Mode

Something important is missing from the article, and it is strange that it is. In the beginning of Dance in the Dark is a sample from an old Depeche Mode song. Can't remember which one (Enjoy the Silence?) but it should be noted in the article. abelson (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's Strangelove. abelson (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a promo but cant source it

Look, there are no doubts that this song and Alejandro were released as promo's, but they were removed 2 days later off iTunes in certain countries. Once the fame monster was released, they removed from the remaining iTunes stores, such as the Australian (i still have the downloads from it in my purchased history). But the problem is that they no longer exist so to keep them on wikipedia is hard becuase now there are nothing to source them, unless we can look around online to find a source--58.161.68.159 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Reasoned discussion for this please. SunCreator (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect. Creating an unsourced article and then hoping others would add source is despicable. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well assuming good faith by the newbie that created it, I guess they didn't know of wikipedia's requirement to add sources. That why I tagged it wildly do there was no mistake.
So why have you redirect/deleted this article without discussion again? SunCreator (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Being unsourced is not good enough for you? Then please read WP:V. By the way there are a few songs from The Fame Monster, namely "Teeth", "Monster", and "So Happy I Could Die" that do not have an article. Would you like to create them too? --Legolas (talk2me) 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, this article requires a redirect. Is completely unverified. Please, do not make this difficult. • вяαdcяochat 10:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

← Not sourced and not notable on any level. I'm redirecting this. - eo (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Credits

i dont think those credits are correct for this song, they seem to be the ones for Speechless not Dance in the Dark. 190.233.125.138 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They are the same, its true as per the liner notes. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

then why did you change them if there were correct. obviously not true. 190.233.125.138 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sampled from George Michael's Careless Whisper

I don't really know how to edit these pages very well, but this song is a sample of George Michael/Wham's "Carless Whisper", shouldn't that be added in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.0.201 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't hear any part of the song has careless whisper in it. where did you even know about it? 222.79.156.151 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to add that I agree. I think it's quite obvious that Dance in the Dark draws from that song, and it should be in the article. I don't know if this is appropriate on wikipedia, but you could have two audio clips showing the similarities, perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.17.117 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Add This Info?

Should we add the Belgium itune slink? [1] And The Australian Radio Add? [2]--Apeaboutsims (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The belgium link doesnot give any new info, other than being a download link, hence not acceptable. The Australian link can be added. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please add it in. I am struggling on where to put it. Thanks --Apeaboutsims (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Single

Why is this categorized under the singles category if it hasn't been confirmed as a single? If it has been, then I don't see anywhere in the article a source, or a line that says "This is to be Gaga's next single!" Unless we can properly source it, I say take it out of the singles category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.55.131 (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

New wave

Is it fair to call this song New Wave? It does not match the New Wave article's citations of the genres style and era definitions on the article. I recommend we change it to match Lady Gaga's other albums style relations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources provided calls it new wave. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Being influenced by New Wave is not the same as being new wave. That's very clear. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The minute you opened the argument it was doomed. An album itself as a whole is likely to have 2-3 genres but then inidividual songs have genres which stray away from the album. "Speechless" for example is poprock but you wouldn't say The Fame Monster is Poprock right? Slant Magazine clearly says "Dance in the Dark" is new wave ... "but songs like 'Bad Romance' and 'Dance in the Dark' are stacked with towering new-wave synths". Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL. That's very true Lil-unique1. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that a synthesizer sound that emulates a given genre makes it part of that genre. For example a song with turntablism would not imply it's hip hop, a song with a 2-tone beat would not necessarily make it ska. I'd also provide this source to state that "New wave finally died out in 1984" here. This book here also notes that New Wave was between the late 1970s and early 1980s. I suggest both of you look up into genre before placing it so carelessly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of music genre revival? --Legolas (talk2me) 12:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Content must be encylopedia which means WP:verifiable. Calling the song dancepop because Gaga's album is dance-pop would be WP:OR. The article in slant magazine clearly speaks of the album have retro elements as show in another source. When Allmusic says things like "New Wave" is dead it refers to how the masses aren't producing new wave. A song can quite easily have new wave elements to it, just because everyone isnt doing new wave songs. Its no physically dead is it. Unless you have other sources which reliably source alternative genres synthpop and new wave are here to stay. The genre wasn't place carelessly quite the opposite in fact. And FYI I intervened as someone who's had little input into this article to offer a neutral opinion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It's carelessly put if one doesn't have an understanding of the genre or it's era. I've provided my sources saying why New Wave should not be used (in fact, I placed two). Just you can provide a cite (and only one two my contrary two). You aren't going to find many articles saying what song isn't part of a specific genre unless it's controversial, but it's not coinciding with this my other information provided. Most comparisons I find this song through google searches is with comparisons to Madonna, who is not a new wave artist. My main point is that we are placing the term out of context as are the sources. I'd like to note that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance that if you want to have a neutral point of view then it should be sided with more prominent sources. My sources are from a music site and book on music genre history and I believe mine are more prominent. I suggest removing the information on New Wave still. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that new wave is dead but the whole review from Slant Magazine is specific to The Fame Monster and speaks of the album combining many influences. The alternative source speaks of the album containing retro elements. Like i said just because the genre is 'dead' doesnt mean a song can't contain elements of it. Slant Magazine is a relevant and highly respectible industry relevant publication. To assume that a book talking restrospectively of the decline of a genre doesn't mean that "Dance in the Dark" can't be classified as new wave. Allmusic in fairness is just as good a source as Slant Magazine but again it speaks of the decline of the genre amongst the masses. Its a different context. If we were claiming Lady Gaga was a new wave artist i would understand and completely support your POV. Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with this still is that New Wave is categorized as generally music from this era. Since it is such a catch all term, placing new wave as this song is still just as incorrect as if someone called it "beatle-esque pop" and then placing that in the genre. If allmusic is as good as slant and they contradict each other then we still have the heads up with that book. It's still generally incorrect just as Rolling Stone calling Justin Bieber's song "Baby" as blending "winks at Fifties doo-wop with hip-hop chants" and "fifties pop music like "Tears on My Pillow", "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" and "Earth Angel". But you still wouldn't call it a doo wop song or a 50s pop song. Because it would be historically inaccurate. Just as calling this song new wave would be inappropriate. Slant offers no definition of the genre as allmusic does when it labels it. I do not think reference to style makes it. Can we find any more sources? If we are basing it on a one off song based on a b-side that was never released as a single, we are striving pretty weakly for sources that are somewhat sketchy in their description. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the Justin Beiber thing... you would call "Baby" a pop song with hip-hop elements a.k.a. infobox: Pop, hip-hop. The problem is new wave is kind of a big of genres rather than a derivative of them. 50s Pop is still pop. What's new wave derived from? Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't call baby anything. I was just noting how the they critics made several notices that it sounded like a 1950s doo wop song. But it would be inappropriate to add to the genre. Just as New Wave is inappropriate as songs based on older styles do not and should not necessarily be placed within the genre's confines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a single.

http://www.soundfiends.com/2010/07/and-the-fourth-single-is/

This website is some Australian music shit. It gets it's info straight from the record companies. Dance in the Dark is the 4th single. Finally LOL!

No. Unreliable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source - check the comments section of this page for the press release. If a press release isn't considered a reliable source, then what is....? http://auspop.blogspot.com/2010/07/australias-next-gaga-single.html220.236.81.177 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless I've missed something, that information appears false because it does not appear on Lady Gaga's website as mentioned. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7034/gaga4n.png

saw this on the discography page. it seems legit GOPTeen1995 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just *dead* at using an imageshack picture as source! That cracked me up. Seriously, untilla nd unless a confirmation comes from Gaga's label, such WP:CRYSTAL like things cannot be included in the article. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an official press release - as with most press releases, the artist's website is listed for promotional purposes. It does not say anything like, "for more information, got to www.ladygaga.com" Believe me, this website is never wrong and reports only official news, even being the only source of official detailed sales data in Australia. They have verifiable contacts at every record label and are sent official press releases all the time. To dismiss the press release as false simply because the release itself contains Lady Gaga's website is very short-sighted, in my opinion. Does her website feature other official press releases? What are we actually waiting for? Lady Gaga herself to go on TV and say, "I solemnly swear that my new single in Australia is 'Dance In The Dark'" or will it only be official once it's on her website?220.236.81.177 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of providing links for images of the press release provide links for the press release itself otherwise you need to explain where/how you gained access to it. We're waiting for official confirmation that means Gaga announcing the video or some WP:reliable source e.g. Rap-Up, People magazine etc to cover the story. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Right, let me make something clear. It's only been released in Australia. And it's been released on radio only and to be released digitally in a month's time. No video or promotion will be made. That's all, radio and digital release. It's an Australian single, just like Eh Eh -_-" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.196.204 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's "just like Eh Eh" wouldn't there be a video? Also Eh Eh was not just digital... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.191.79 (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well either way it would still recieve some sort of coverage. So until that happens it won't be changed in the article. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
All of Gaga's singles received official notification from Gaga's website or Interscope. This, if released, being an official release would not be a deviation of it and hence we have to wait for something like that. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what happens if the song leaps into the Australian Top 10 *before* the "official" announcement of its release as a single (since a press release obviously isn't considered "official" these days)? Will it count as a single then, or will it be described as a "track that reached the Top 10 on the official Australian singles chart, even though it wasn't a single...so it shouldn't appear on the singles chart anyway...or something....")? Incidentally, it will probably be one of the most added tracks at Australian radio next week - Australian commercial stations only play official singles, but of course that's irrelevant ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.81.177 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're being pedantic. You can't actually prove what you're saying with a credible source. Even "Eh Eh Eh" and promo single "Beautiful, Dirty Rich" recieved indepedent coverage. There is no rush to mention the release (if its true right now) and even if the song lept up the charts it will not be mentioned as an official release until coverage proves so. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one being pedantic, but I'll let this one go. AuspOp (the source of the press release) said that the news and the press release were 100% official, so at some stage in the near future, this page will become an official single page. The pedants can insist that it remain a tracks page for the moment. 220.236.81.177 (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Auspop is a blog. Anyone can start a blog. So if i started one tomorrow called Aus Gaga and said "I recieved official confirmation that 'Dance in the Dark' is being released in Australia" would you consider that to be official confirmation? Would my blog be a WP:reliable source? (hint: the answer is NO) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I guess it's a blog, but most blogs don't tend to receive official information from record companies, the Australian Recording Industry Association, touring promoters and artists themselves. Most blogs are definitely not granted exclusive interviews with artists. Clearly you do not know much about auspOp, so nothing anyone says is going to convince you that they are 100% reliable. They are as reliable a source as undercover.com.au, which is considered a WP:reliable source, but I guess because they originally started with a "blogspot.com" domain, they're not considered worthy of official status. Oh well. As I said, this page will become an official single page, because ausPop only report official information, provided to them by record companies. 220.236.81.177 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You still fail to understand. If wikipedia publishes unsourced information this damaging not only to our reputation but also to the artist and fans. Unless the single is announced properly without coverage it cannot be added into the article. Blogs in general are not allowed to be used as a source because they can never 100% prove where they got their information from and are reluctant to share their sources for fear that other blogs will 'steal' the information. Therefore for the reasons I've just stated it is best to wait before adding such info. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not failing to understand anything. If it was auspop.com.au, it would end up being a WP:reliable source. In spite of its reputation, though, it is officially considered here as a blog, so even if the single goes to #1, it won't be considered officially a single in Australia unless someone else categorically describes it us such. If people.com said that it was a single and quoted auspOp as the source, would it then become official, though? Incidentally, according to the WP:reliable source page, even if Lady Gaga herself tweets that it's a single, it still can't be described as such, since tweets aren't considered WP:reliable source. I completely support maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia - it's a brilliant resource. Sometimes, though, its definition of a WP:reliable source can be a bit narrow, especially when it comes to reliable and trustworthy digital sources (we're not talking about some teenaged kid's blog here - we're talking about a source that is given exclusive interviews with international artists). Anyway, in the end, the result will be the same. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue, though!220.236.81.177 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If people.com quote Gaga's twitter then yes the source could be added because they would have to have done some variation. If it really is being released don't worry I'm sure it will recieve some coverage. I respect you for engaging in discussion rather than just trying to edit the article. In the future you might want to consider making an account and joing wikipedia as an editor. The very definition of a single is "to release a song, usually from an album, independent of the main body of work". Therefore if the song is sent to radio this alone is not proof of it being a single. It has to be marketed and promoted as a single. That might just be one performance, or one mention by an artist or reliable source. etc. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Just find a source that shows Dance In The Dark added to radio. That's a start. Don't find sites that say it's a single, find sites that have an official add. If there isn't one, just wait. But there should be soon because Dance In The Dark has already gone to No.12 on the Today Networks Hot 30.--58.161.71.92 (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source Very Reliable Source as they source "PlayMPE" which can only be used by Radio Station's and record companies. Should be added.--58.161.71.92 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is another:UOL (official Source). another:94fm (official)--58.161.71.92 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Those are reliable sources. One from a radio station, another from a magazine and the 3rd from a proper news site. There should be no more arguments, the news site even has images from the site. It's the 4th single, and none of them have said it's worldwide. So it's 4th single in Australia. Should be added to singles. They even give a radio add date.--Morgan3136 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Another source with release date. Here.--58.161.71.92 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
They all quote the Auspop article. Hardly reliable. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they do. The ip is right. All the articles use the "PlayMPE" site as their source. That's extremely reliable as apparently record companies and radio stations use that program. And quoting that AusPoP article? No, they don't. AusPoP also got their information from the Press release sent through "PlayMPE" or another site. Radio station sites and News sites are JUST as reliable as MTV. If there are rules that say Radio stations cannot be used as official sources, than that's fine. However, I don't think there are any and we should add this unless its stated incorrect by a more reliable source. They are extremely official source's listed and It should be added to the article.--Jackex56 (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the official Radio Network in Australia not good enough? Excuse the typo LOL. Check It Here.--Morgan3136 (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Official radio add and infoi of it being a singe:http://www.themusicnetwork.com/music-releases/singles/2010/07/26/issue-797/Lady-Gaga--Dance-In-The-Dark/ It's now a single. Will be adding it to singles section.--59.101.225.104 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Being sent to radio alone is not proof of single release. songs have to be promoted as singles. This doesn't mean performances it means coverage has to state it is a single etc. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the info sent along with the release states "Its the ninth single from the fame/the fame monster" meaning it's the fourth off TFM. they do not include tracks like "BDRich" which means its an official single. You cannot argue with the Australian music network--59.101.231.150 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
If the official Australian Network has confirmed that this has been added to radio and announced it as her next single, we cannot state otherwise. If that's what they have said, that's what it is. This is an encyclopedia, not a news source where you can choose optional information to add to the page. We have to include the official announcement of it being a single. If INT (Interscope) and UMA (Universal Music Australia) have given that information to be present on the radio add, then that is what should be in the article. If an official add from those record labels and the information sent with the add is not official, then what is? For now, we must list this as her next single, otherwise the whole article becomes inaccurate.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. You are exactly right.--59.101.237.241 (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"Apeaboutsims" is right. There has been an official radio add and fact sheet sent from (INT/UMA) aka. Interscope and Universal music Australia has stated DITD has her "9th single" from the fame monster and the fame. This needs to be added.--Jackex56 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
If it's been decided, I shall add it. It's been confirmed as her next single and that crap about it needing to be "promoted as a single" is pathetic. A single doesn't need to be promoted in order to be a single. "Break The Ice" had hardly any promotion at all. (Britney didn't even film a music video for it, or a performance, and her company didn't even advertise the single). So that was a load of crap. It's been announced as a single, by her label, through the radio add. Therefore its a single whether you like it or not.--Morgan3136 (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It was released only in Australia. Morgan made the comment about "Eh Eh", well that is because the song was only released in Europe, but all her international songs are anticipated by Gaga herself. This is an Australia single only. TbhotchTalk C. 05:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh Eh, was released in Australia too. But yes, it's an Australia only single at this point. But its still a single none the less. And according to the press release released with the radio add, her label are treating it as her 9th single as well. Thanks for understanding.--59.101.237.241 (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

At last, common sense prevails!  :-) 220.236.81.177 (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Release Date

All the sources proving that Dance in the Dark is a single, in the above section "It's a Single", say the release date is somehing different from what this page says GaGalover13 (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Airplay Charts

It has charted at number 16 on the Australian Airplay Charts--Apeaboutsims (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Australain Charts

It has charted on the chart: www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/chartifacts.htm --110.175.56.28 (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a single, why is it labelled as one??

On Gaga's main discography page, it is listed as a single and on this page it appears in her singles chronology. It is NOT a single. Alejandro was the last.calvin999 15:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

Its a single, whether you like it or not. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but "Monster" is on the radios in New Zeland, and it isn't a single.--Trivia harrypotter (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
proof? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 17:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Sources: Ultratop and radioscope.net.nz. --Trivia harrypotter (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
neither of those prove single release. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but "Dance in the Dark" wasn't confirmed by Interscope or Gaga and you tell it as a single.--Trivia harrypotter (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually Interscope sent the record to an Australian Radio Industry Organisation that handles radio additions. (Effectively a large central database which radio stations can add songs from). I don't believe they've done that with "Monster" in New Zealand. Its only a single if the record label sends it to radio not if radios decide to add it to their playlist of their own accord. Plus we don't know if it charted from digital sales or airply anyway. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Monster charted from unsolicited airplay only, as it is present on the NZ airplay chart, but not on the download chart. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaga said herself on twitter that Alejandro was the LAST single and that there will be NO further singles. Where is the good, reliable source (i.e Interscope, Lady Gaga herdelf) that says "Dance in the Dark is the 4th single"???????? calvin999 20:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

Did Gaga really say that it was the last single? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.116.139 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the tweet that says "Alejandro" was her last single? And "Monster" was added to radio in NZ and has charted on the chart. However, Universal and Interscope have not released "Monster" with a press release stating "The new single" from The Fame/Fame Monster era. Dance in The Dark was sent by the label with this press release. There is no proof that "Monster" had the same treatment. "DITD" was also added to radio in Aus in March. But we didn't list it as her single because it only got airplay.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In Australia (where DITD was promoted to radio and, according to her record company, is an official single), tracks can only chart on the official Singles Chart if the record company specifically registers it with the Australian Recording Industry Association as a single. A track can be #1 on the Digital Sales chart and sell 100 000 copies in a week, but if the record company hasn't officially registered it as a single, then it will not appear on the official singles chart (made up of digital and CD sales). DITD appeared on the official Australian singles chart. This means that as far as her Australian record company was concerned, it was an official single. Shouldn't this be enough proof? This really was sorted out last year after much debate, so I don't understand why the entry has been changed.220.237.238.215 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Music Video

Universal has confirmed No Music Video will be shot for the single. Should it be added?--61.68.135.145 (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if universal has enough jurisdiction to involve someone's album's singles as a sole source, but I'd be satisfied with the confirmation with at least two other sources. --Arathun (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts too. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Final Single

Universal has confirmed that this is the last single from the album. Should it be added somewhere?--61.68.135.145 (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why has this source been ignored? Isn't Universal Music her international record company? It is ludicrous that a track considered to be an official single by her own record company isn't listed as such! Go to Cyndi Lauper's page - they list tracks that were released as promo only singles in just one country as official singles, so why is Lady Gaga "protected"?220.236.213.153 (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Promo single?

It hasn't been released as a CD single, and I don't see any release dates for one. Wouldn't this be a promo single? –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And the only download release was promotional. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's been sent to radio, it is an official single. --Cprice1000talk2me 12:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Some promos are released to radio. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course any song can be played on the radio, but contemporary hit radio and mainstream radio are not for just any song. --Cprice1000talk2me 02:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that some songs are released as promos to radio stations. Not the radio stations playing the songs for the hell of it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm...... yeah, actually there is nothing that guarantees this is really an official single. --Cprice1000talk2me 12:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone. First of all, get it clear, simply releasing a song on radio DOES NOT qualify it as a single. Secondly, "Airplay" is not considered to be a format (of release). Just have a look at Put It in a Love Song by Alicia Keys Featuring Beyonce which did not chart very well simply because it was released only to radio. It charted from downloads it got from the album itself. Thirdly, Lady GaGa has never confirmed this is a single. In fourth place, there is no music video for it.. STRANGE. And finally (this may not be a valid reason), Lady GaGa is so successful, so why would this song take so much time to skyrocket the worldwide charts? Moreover, no release has been confirmed for Germany and the United Kingdom........ Jivesh boodhun (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It should not officially be listed as a single. There is no proof this is not just a promotional single. When it is released to CD, it will be different or if it gets a digital release aside from the Belgium release. --Cprice1000talk2me 13:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a general agreement among the users who have contributed to this discussion that the song should only be regarded as a promotional single. Aside from the promotional digital release prior to the release of The Fame Monster, the only form of release has been airplay. No CD single or digital single (aside from the Belgian promotional release) has been released and there are (as of now and as far as I know) no plans to release one. With all this being said, I shall boldly change this to say that it is a promo single. If any users have disagreements, feel free to revert and discuss why they disagree here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
At the Belgian iTunes page the price is listed as 1.29 €, not free. Doesn't this confirm that it is not a promo single? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Promo singles aren't necessarily free. That was a promotional release prior to the release of The Fame Monster. It wasn't acknowledged by Gaga or her team and it wasn't promoted as a single. (This happened with "Alejandro" too, in some countries.) Fast forward to July of this year and it was sent to pop radio in some countries, but no CD single, vinyl single, remix EP, etc. (And note that the promo download and radio adds were in different countries.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 12:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this being listed as a promo release. It is a limited release single (supported by Universal Music France - it was sourced in the article not sure if its there now). A release is a single release if it is promoted and pushed forward as once. I'm not convinced that the distinction between single and promo single is clear enough to say yes this is promo single. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The UMF article only supports a radio add date. No CD single, digital EP, or any other sort of standard purchaseable release (apart from the Belgian promo download and downloads from the album) has been issued and there aren't plans to issue one. The main factor in why this is so confusing is - apart from the radio adds in some countries - this hasn't actively been promoted as a single by Gaga or her label. This looks to just be a promotional radio single. If a CD single or the like is confirmed, I would say definitely change back to standard single. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'default position' should be when there is a release date (for purchase, not a free promo) different from the parent album, then it is a single, period. Even if the label chooses not to promote their single, they have released it as such. However, in the case of the iTunes 'complete the album' program where they strip songs out of the forthcoming album like one a week leading up to the release of the album, I don't call them a 'release' qualifying for the "single" moniker at all. I call them 'pre-released' songs. So was the Belgian "single" under this type of iTunes program?
We report the FIRST release date of singles and albums wherever it might be. If it is only 'released' in one country; just because I am not in that country, it doesn't mean that it hasn't been released. If the album was only 'released' in Belgium, would we call The Fame Monster a 'promotional album'?I am not in Belgium—Iknow23 (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the Belgian release was something similar to iTunes' "Countdown to..." program. "Alejandro" and "Dance in the Dark" were released in some European countries in early November 2009, and they were just promotional. As in, they weren't sent to radio and were not actively promoted by Gaga or her label. They were just to promote the coming release of The Fame Monster. The radio adds for this song from July onwards are in two different countries where the digital promo single was not released. And since then, it hasn't been released as any standalone digital single, digital EP, CD single, etc...
It's a rather confusing situation, as not too much information is known, but it looks here as if there were two separate releases, both promotional. The digital in Belgium and the radio in Australia/France. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Did any other retailer sell them? Or is it just iTunes doing this? Especially if it is only iTunes and the album did come out in those countries in the same month, then I can certainly see a stronger case for calling them 'promotional' as similar to the "Countdown to [album] release" program. If so, I would just call them 'promotional songs' (pre-released songs).—Iknow23 (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hang on. I thought that promo singles were simply free songs? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That is what I had thought until recently (see my 'default position' above). Then iTunes comes along and strips songs out of albums just before they are released and 'pre-sells' them. Does anyone really think that this qualifies for a 'single' no matter what the iTunes header might display? If it is not a single retailer (no pun intended) but generally being sold through other outlets as well; then it would be more likely to be a true 'single' (unless the other retailers are just doing the same thing as iTunes.)
It is also true that all singles 'promote' their parent album, whether released prior to or after the album's release.—Iknow23 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
There is some glitch in the term pormotional single I feel. Now a single would be something that actively prmotes the album throughout the rein of it. A promotional single I feel is sonething that promotes the arrival and the buzz around the album, before its release or its take-off. In the latter case, "Dance in the Dark" fails as a promotional release and is indeed a single. However, if we consider the former case, it is a promotional single, as not actively promoted like a normal single, by the label or artist, not any CD single or digitally release took place for it. It was just sent to radio. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what we think. Her label have said it's a single, and that's that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.167.12 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
That only says that it was sent to radio. Generally, CD singles or digital maxi singles will accompany a single release. It was released in Belgium for download prior to the release of TFM, but that was purely promotional. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not a promo, its a single. The press release from her record label supports this. It says its the "9th Single" from her album etc. It also does not include the Promo Single Beautiful, Dirty, Rich in the 9 single summary, so therefore, it's a single.--59.101.134.226 (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The music release network is a completely unreliable source.

Also, since it's up for a Grammy, they might release it in the US. Nothing right now, but I will pay close attention. It often happens. --Cprice1000talk2me 17:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Highly doubt it considering the first Born This Way single is supposed to be released in February. Also, album tracks can be submitted for Grammy consideration. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Every single is a promotional single. That is the point of a single. The "song" infobox is for songs that have charted or whatever that aren't actually singles. With this song, there was actually a release as a single in Belgium. We have no other option than to refer to it as a single. The chronology must be fixed. Grk1011 (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The release in Belgium is a peculiar one... its the only download release of the song and would mess up the chronology as it happened back in Nov 2009 before the other singles were released. Since it received no video or other forms of single treatment in Belgium and received an extremely limited release elsewhere its correct as a promo single. Its more than a charted song but nowhere near a full blown-single. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Not all singles have videos and are "full-blown", in fact a vast majority of singles released do not have videos. Videos are usually made when a song becomes popular enough to warrant the cost associated with a video. It is not up to us to decide what the threshold is to be considered a single. Our sources are calling it a single in Belgium, so we really have no other choice. Grk1011 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A release date is not enough to claim single release. Songs are released to iTunes all the time... that don't make them singles. Plus what about all the other sources calling "Telephone" the second single and "Alejandro" the third. "DITD" was never a single ... singles don't get treated the way this song did.... you don't release a song in one of the world's most minor music markets as a single and not release it elsewhere. The source we have does not explicitly define "DITD" as a single. It just shows you could purchase the song separately from the album in Belgium and get a specific cover art. Its WP:OR to assume that makes it a single. Songs have to be referred to as singles. Nicki Minaj releasing a remix of "Roman's Revenge" to iTunes in the US, doesn't make it a single from her album because no one in her camp refers to it as one. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 04:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Except it is listed as a single. There would be no point to have it listed separately unless it was intended to be released as a single. Who are we to second guess the actions of the record label? They chose to release it as a single in Belgium alone based on whatever reasons they had. This really isn't something for you, me, a group, etc to debate. Furthermore, isn't it OR to call it a "promotional single" or whatever that is supposed to mean? All singles are released for promotional purposes. Grk1011 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Like I said there are thousands of songs on iTunes ... which are clearly not singles. Simply being made to purchase doesn't make a song a single... btw promotional singles are usually released as product endorsement, limited market releases or in promotion of something other than just promoting the album. You have addressed the fact that all the other sources call "Telephone" and "Alejandro" the 2nd and third singles respectively. No independent source calls "DITD" a single. Its not available from other retailers just iTunes. Hence its promo. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 04:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Promo releases are not a part of the main single chronology. Why is there such a fuss? And iTunes doesnot confirm a single release as I have stated earlier. This is a moot discussion. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the link needs to be changed to something else as according to promotional recording, it is something distributed for free always. Also, singles are released to a single retailer all the time (new Britney song??). This single is part of the main discography and it will be added once this discussion is over. Sorry, but in this case, iTunes has "confirmed" the release of the song as a single. It has a different release date, an album cover and the works. What is the big deal about properly referring to a song as a single instead of hijacking "promotional single" to be what you want it to be? Answer this question for me and maybe I will back off: How is this song a promotional single based on the description of a promotional recording? You seem to be changing what a promo single is to be what you want it to be. Where are the sources for that? I'm going to bed now and I'll reply to whatever you guys have to say tomorrow. Grk1011 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You still aren't answering the question about the other sources referring to Telephone and Alejandro as her 2nd and 3rd singles. You're also missing the point here... iTunes confirms the release of the song NOT the release of a single. Again so many songs are released to iTunes but are not singles. I gave you the example of the Nicki Minaj one? That ain't a single... no video no mention of a single etc. The Britney Spears comparison is invalid as "HIAGM" was released to iTunes for a week, it is now available from other retailers, has coverage from the label and independent sources which call it her first single and thus is not comparable to "DITD". -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 04:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Good night. and take it to WP:SONGS since you are talking of a bigger issue here. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think it’s a single only release in France and Australia. This text, from Universal France, wrote that Dance in the Dark is the last single from The Fame Monster (“C’est ce titre qui, paradoxalement, clôture l’acte The Fame Monster = This song, which concludes The Fame Monster”) and that it’s the ninth single of The Fame and The Fame Monster (“en étant le 9e”), so the fourth of TFM. Are you agree?--Raphael99 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Raphael brings some interesting information to the table. I don't think it is necessary to go to WP:Songs as this is a specific case that only affects this article. I'm being told over and over again that it's not a real single because it's release was so small, but my concerns are still unanswered. What sources call it a "promotional single" and where has the definition of a "promotional single" been established on wikipedia? Additionally, promotional recording (which it's wikilinked to) describes it as a free release only, not just sometimes, or in special cases. Grk1011 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not if digitally distributed. See Today Was a Fairytale and Wait Your Turn. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
According to which reliable sources? My concerns are still outstanding as previously mentioned. Grk1011 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What does being solely a digital released have to do with anything? All markets are different, and market conditions continually change. For example, in Greece singles are predominantly released radio only or digitally only for the past few years. Even outside of that example, "Hold It Against Me" has only been released digitally thus far. Only one country has planned a CD-single release of it. I fail to see how a 'digital only release' makes it less of a legitimate single. As for your examples of other "promotional singles", they are simply mislabeled in my opinion. If anything, "Today Was a Fairytale" was a single from the soundtrack. Besides, promotional recording is not well defined. I fail to see how "Dance in the Dark" or any of the other songs fall under that category per its definition. Perhaps if its definition were to be re-defined, but as it stands now, I don't see how it falls under that category. Calling it a "promotional single" without a source borders on original research, especially since it does not fall under that category per its definition on Wikipedia. Greekboy (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, "Hold It Against Me" was serviced to US radio, justifying an official single release. And it falls right into that category. What I don't understand is how you call a release to the Belgian iTunes before the album was even out an official release. That's saying this was the second single from TFM. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Greekboy. The promotional recording page needs some attention. In fact, Wikipedia is the only place I have seen the term used. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
And why Cprice, can it not be the second single from Gaga in Belgium? Singles can be released in whatever order the label wants to release them in specific countries. It's not like because she's an American artist only the US counts in the ordering. The label chose it release it there as a single, it's pretty much cut and dry and there's a source to back me up. What there isn't a source for is calling it a promotional single. Grk1011 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Same as there have been sources saying TFM is a studio album. It all comes down to just what a promotional single is. THe Belgium release was an iTunes countdown single. Saying that it is a single because of that is calling "Cannibal" and "Sleazy" singles. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You not only have a source calling it a single in Belgium, but you have a source calling it such in France as well. With TFM, you had a source supporting both sides. With "Dance in the Dark" you only have sources calling it a single. A digital only release does not make it any less of a single. What exactly are you defining a "promotional single"? The fact of the matter is that it currently does not fall under the category of "promotional single" per what is defined on Wikipedia. It is only a promotional single based on what you think a promotional single is. On the contrary, by definition of a Single, all songs releases as singles are done so for promotional purposes anyway. "Often, these are the most popular songs from albums that are released separately for promotional uses, and in other cases a recording released as a single does not appear on an album." Additionally, the definition of a single also supports it being released in different formats, "This can be released for sale to the public in a variety of different formats". Using these definitions, it falls well within the category of what a single is. Greekboy (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have an issue re-defining all "promotional singles" as singles, but this isn't really the place to discuss it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think Dance in the Dark is not a single in Belgium (it is a Itunes countdown so it's only has a digital release for promote the album before that it release) but that DITD is a single in France (See the text of Universal France) and in Australia (see the text of Music Network). So, I don't know why this song is called as a 'Promotional Single' when Universal, the label of Gaga, said that it's a single.--Raphael99 (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Raphael, if I remember correctly, a previous consensus noted that since DITD wasnot accompanied by a CD single release, hence the consensus denoted it as promo. Not that I exactly agree with. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion is going nowhere. I consensus cannot be built upon original research. Unless someone provides a source for it being called a "promotional single", I will be forced to swap the infobox once more in the name of WP:Verifiability as the only sources are for it being called a single. Grk1011 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. In the mean time, I might as well go change "Sleazy", "Upgrade U", and "Wait Your Turn" over to singles then, too? It fits in with the definition of a "promo single." --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Do what you gotta do. I'm concerned with this article and cannot comment on the reliable sources used to chose a release type for other articles as I am not familiar with those songs. Right here it is plain and simple, only one sourced release category so only one choice. Grk1011 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't just say that and be over with it. All those songs are in the same situation. Just because sources say "single" means nothing. Sources called all those songs "singles" but it all comes down to the difference between a single, and a promotional single. This falls under the latter. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that it falls under "promotional single" according to who? Not Wikipedia's promotional single article, not even reliable sources; only the opinion of some editors. If there is no source for "promotional single" than it should be changed to whatever the sources say for those other articles. This is a fundamental guideline of Wikipedia here. Grk1011 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it fits under what a promo single is as described on that article. An iTunes countdown release and two radio releases to two small music markets does not equal an official single. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
According to the article all promo singles are free. What source says its a "countdown release"? A release in any market on the radio and as a paid digital download as a single make it an official single. Grk1011 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) How does this exactly fall under the category of a "promotional single"? One of the biggest defining points of a promotional single is that they are released free. This song was not release free. As I stated earlier, it does not fall under what a promotional single is as defined by its page on Wikipeida. You can't just make up your own meaning of what it should be. If anything, as I already stated, it falls under the category of a single per its definition. All singles are released for promotional purposes. Again a single is: "Often, these are the most popular songs from albums that are released separately for promotional uses, and in other cases a recording released as a single does not appear on an album." Also just because it was released on on iTunes, doesnt make it less of a single. Again per its definition "This can be released for sale to the public in a variety of different formats.". Please explain how exactly this song falls under the category of a "promotional single" per its definition. So far you have not done that. Greekboy (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
XD lol!!!!! As explained many times before, promotional singles are also offered by digital retailers paid. It's in the promo single article and yet, you both have either missed it, or ignored it completely. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Notice how Greekboy provided a quote from the article. Where is yours? More importantly, even if it could be classified as a promotional single, there are only sources relating to this song specifically to the contrary. Grk1011 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I have provided why it is several times: an iTunes countdown release and two radio releases to two small music markets does not equal an official single.--ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, says who? That is according to you, and it is pure original research on your part. Again, it does not fall under the definitions of a promotional single. Earlier you said that the promotional single article says that they can also be offered by digital retailers paid. I see nothing of the sort in that article. On the contrary, it specifically says "Despite the recording industry's insistence that promos may not be sold, given away, or even discarded,". What a promo single actually is, is a free recording made available to nightclubs, radio stations, music publications, and other media outlets by a record label for the express purpose of promoting a new single or an entirely new album. What you are doing is creating your own definition of what you think a promotional single is. Greekboy (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It is right there. Digital download - Promotional single. I cannot explain in anymore detail why it is a promo single. I'm sorry that you both don't understand why, but consensus has been reached and the definition of a promotional single is what it is. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You are the one that is confused. When it says "Promotional recordings are distributed to commercial AM and FM radio stations for airplay in the form of either CD or digital download." it is referring to the method of distribution used by the label. As it explains under the "Online promotional distribution" section, labels use online services/hosts to distribute the recording as a digital audio file to radio stations and other media. It does not mean that it is released as a paid download to the public. Also consensus has not been reached. And even if it had been, consensus can always change. Once someone challenges it, especially when there are reliable sources to back it up, then there is no consensus anymore. Maybe you should read up on it. It is not a compromise. Greekboy (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, even after your sources, consensus still stuck to promotional single. You are the only two out the four or five of us who do not feel it is a promo single, so I think you are confused. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is this consensus you speak of? I see none. Show me where it was agreed upon. All I see is a bold edit change to a "promotional single" on November 1, 2010, in which the user even commented that if anyone disagrees, the WP:BRD cycle can begin. The ensuing discussion created no consensus, with a variety of users disagreeing with the term "promotional single". Also we are not the only two users who disagree with it being a promotional single. Just from this discussion (this month), User:Adabow seems to have an issue with the definition of a promotional single, as does User:Raphael99, while User:Legolas2186 also stated he does not exactly agree with it. Even if we were the only two, the concerns still need to be addressed properly to create a new consensus as previous consensus can change. (Not that there even appears to be one to begin with) The fact remains that you are still trying to make the term "promotional single" mean something that it is not. Greekboy (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Cprice:
  • There are no sources calling "DITD" a promo single
  • The promo single article only discusses promo singles as being records distributed free of charge, and there has been no source brought to our attention that a promo single is anything else. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Not all promo singles are free. It says in the article that that is false. It is called an iTunes countdown release. I guess you three have no clue what that is, because if you did you would realize this was an iTunes and radio promo. iTunes releases promotional singles all the time, Amazon, too, and this is one of them. All your sources have been struck down, too, including UMF. If I need to explain myself anymore, please look up at previous replies that has answered everything that you have told. You are using stale arguments now. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
But where is your source? Grk1011 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Stale. Look up. Where is your source? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The iTunes and Universal France links posted above over and over again. Whether you feel that they are inadequate is not an issue because as we can see here, the community feels that they are fine. Grk1011 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as Chase and Lil-Unique have already said, the iTunes release means nothing and songs are released with "- Single" on iTunes all the time. And UMF does not say why it is a single. It just says single and in on place a radio add date. Stale. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 16:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Here you go again trying to discredit other sources instead of providing your own. Where is it called a promotional single? Produce some sort of source, or else we have no choice. After reading over the discussion again to get a better feel for the situation, it seems that there really was no consensus at all and that it was boldly changed to "promotional single" with the editor saying if anyone disagrees change it back to single. I disagreed, but took the high road and was participating in the discussion, but it would be perfectly fine for me to change it back to single citing no consensus for the change since it was originally labeled a single on the page. You are doing exactly what I told you you cannot do: making decisions based on how you want things to be, not how they are. Grk1011 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead. Your edits will quickly be marked as vandalism as Legolas, Chase, Lil-Unique, and I all agree it is a promo single and have tried to explain to you why so many times that they are just through with it and have already left. For some reason I have continued to try and explain. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 16:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest your read over the discussion and see exactly how each person feels, because the majority don't see it the way you do. We don't have the time to continuously explain why your position has no merit nor support from any reliable sources. Grk1011 (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I did. And they all left with Lego saying take it to WP:SONG. They feel promo and you are kidding yourself if you think they had a different view. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. And an important point has been highlight, that promotional recording doesn't reflect the state of a what promotional song is. I'm going to recommend that a new discussion thread is opened at WP:NSONGS and its thoroughly discussed there because this is not an isolated issue. And I agree with comments that CPrice made on my talk page about there not being a clear indication of what is/isn't a promotional single. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Great timing. I literally just started the discussion at WP:SONGS and came here to notify everyone about it. The thread can be found here. I opened it at the Wikiproject as opposed to notability as it really isn't in relation to the song's notability. Additionally, It would be preferable if those of us involved here did not run over and start replying in the new discussion as a heated debate sometimes discourages new people from joining in. Grk1011 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Not at all GRK1011, in fact it might be worth noting that a discussion took place here first so others can see what was written here before we start steamrolling the various opinions. With the regards to the new discussion it would be good if we could get some input from a record label and/or radio industry sources e.g. MediaBase or FMBQ. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
(WP:Edit conflict) right now there's no sources for either viewpoint if I'm entirely honest. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion I started links here twice telling people that there is an ongoing discussion. What do you mean there are no sources for either viewpoint? Belgian iTunes, Universal France, and that other music one linked somewhere above in November. Grk1011 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Per the principals of WP:OR iTunes only tells us that a song was release it does not specify whether is a single, a promo or just a song release. I've mentioned before how so many songs get released to iTunes without ever being singles. Although Universal Music France calls the song is single its vague as apparently the song was only sent to radio (and I'm not sure if radio counts for charts in France0 which is why other users object to this being called a single. Its the ambiguity here that needs addressing. I've linked to similar discussions about airplay etc. because its all inter-related. It all boils down to what counts as the release date. If for examples sake we conclude that "Dance in the Dark" is a single then should it be listed as the 2nd or 4th single from the EP? It was released for download only in country is that its single release? Or is its single release later in 2010 where it was released to airplay in two countries and Universal Music refers to it as a single? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a very important aspect that has been overlooked is that even if it was a promotional single, it is still a single and should therefore use the singles infobox. We do not denote the type/format of single in the infobox anyway whether it be digital download single, cd single, radio single, maxi-single, etc. Why is this any different? Why does it make sense to override the songs infobox to make it say single? Just something to think about. Grk1011 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In Australia (where DITD was promoted to radio and, according to her record company, is an official single), tracks can only chart on the official Singles Chart if the record company specifically registers it with the Australian Recording Industry Association as a single. A track can be #1 on the Digital Sales chart and sell 100 000 copies in a week, but if the record company hasn't officially registered it as a single, then it will not appear on the official singles chart (made up of digital and CD sales). DITD appeared on the official Australian singles chart. This means that as far as her Australian record company was concerned, it was an official single. Shouldn't this be enough proof? This really was sorted out last year after much debate, so I don't understand why the entry has been changed. 220.237.238.215 (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:PROMOSINGLE --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that Dance in the Dark WAS released to foreign radios therefore that makes it a radio single. Ok not official. BUT, why is Rihanna's radion only single "Raining Men" listed since as a radio only single under the "LOUD" article. Why should Lady Gaga's song get any less of this recognition

Rihanna's single was released to US radio.... US record labels often release singles to radio as iTunes and Amazon already allow users to purchase songs as individual tracks from an album. The release of "Dance in the Dark" to airplay in Australia and France is entirely promotional because Airplay is not an aggregate component of the AUS or FRA single charts. If "Dance In the Dark" was intended to be a single it would have been released and notified as such, Gaga's singles always receive much media coverage. WP:WAX is not a suitable argument.... By the way the allegation that songs only chart in Australia if they are registered with ARIA is not strictly true... "Set Fire to the Rain" (by Adele) charted a week before it was confirmed as single as did "Turning Tables" which is not a confirmed single yet. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
My "allegation" concerning ARIA is actually 100% fact. ARIA will only chart a track on the official Singles Chart if the record company has specifically requested that it be included. "Set Fire To The Rain" charted because Adele's record company requested this (it was performed on "Australia's Got Talent" and they probably knew that it would get a lot of promotion as a result, so wanted it to chart). Tracks can appear on the "digital tracks" chart for weeks before they appear on the official Singles chart, because ARIA do not consider a track to be a single until they are specifically requested to do so. Madonna's "Revolver" was released to iTunes Australia, but it never charted because Warners did not register it as a single with ARIA (ditto for "Miles Away", and they waited for two weeks after "Celebration" was released before requesting that it enter the Singles chart). As far as Warners are concerned, "Revolver" was never an official single in Australia. As far as Universal is concerned, "Dance In The Dark" was. If it wasn't, why did they request that ARIA include it in the SINGLES chart...? I can provide a link to the ARIA rules if you like211.31.247.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC).


Ok well in Lady Gaga's Monster Ball Tour she stated it will be released as her final single. Google it. And if that is true (which it is) isnt the artist that wrote and performed the song 100+ times allowed to declare her song a single? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishternagy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

#11 in Czech Airplay Chart

http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.236.34 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's untrue. This link clearly shows that the song peaked at #10 on the Czech Airplay Chart. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It was the 4th single from The Fame Monster (album)

OK so first of all this is the official 4th single from the album. I clearly remember it being listed under Alejandro (song), in about July 2010 as the 4th single. Why was it taken off. It met every criteria to become an official single. It hit foreign radios, it was announced by Gaga at her Monster Ball Tour ....however it did not recive a music video. A single can still be a single without a music video. For example Unusual You by Britney Spears and Raining Men (Rihanna song) by Rihanna . Also Unusual You wasnt even released in the US. It meets the exact same standards as Dance in the Dark but for some reason Unusual You is listed as a single and Dance in the Dark isn't. Gaga herself confirmed it as a single at her tour in 2010. If she artist that wrote the song and claims it as hers by copyright doesn't she deserve the right to have it listen as a single on WIkipedia --Mishternagy (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, previous consensus and discussions suggest that it was neither released physically nor sent for radio adds, making it a promotional release only. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It was sent to radio in Australia and France. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Legolas, previous discussion resulted in the article being changed to "Single" status. Then, suddenly, it went back to being a Promo Single. Where was the discussion and consensus that resulted in the article being reverted?211.31.107.234 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hasn't it been discussed before that a song is a single if it has a radio date? Take It Off (song) had only a radio date, no digital or physical release, like Dance in the Dark (the digital release appears to be a promo). And didn't the discussion at Talk:Raining Men (song) come to conclusion that if a song has been sent to radio, it is a single, even if it has never been referred to as a single by the artist or label? The right thing to do here would be to change Dance in the Dark to a single, not a promotional single. Pancake (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, US radio dates are the only dates that seem to matter. I do agree with you, though. And the song was even released to radio twice in two different places. ℥nding·start 14:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Billboard allows songs to chart as singles on Hot 100, if it is serviced only to radio. That is not the case for Australia and France. SNEP does not allow radio songs as singles on their cahrt, and today I got confirmation from ARIA that neither they do. Both need physical release to be declared as single. I waited for their reply to answer this. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
They would need a a physical release to chart, not to be a single. Regardless, all singles are promotional in nature. The "promotional single" is a non-standard use of an infobox. We don't note the type of single like that, that is what the format field is for. Grk1011 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Legolas, I don't quite follow your logic. Physical singles aren't released in Australia any more (only very, very occasionally), so if a physical release is required for a song to be "declared a single" in Australia, then Australia's "singles" chart shouldn't exist. What was ARIA's exact wording in their response to you? ARIA's policy is clear - for a track to chart on the official singles chart, the record company must specifically request that it be considered a single. A physical release has nothing to do with it.220.236.226.242 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who boldly changed it to promotional single and it remained through silent consensus. However, all the proof that is really necessary to show single release has been discussed above. The Music Network and Universal Music France both refer to it as the ninth single from The Fame/The Fame Monster. It should be changed back to single. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up! Since you changed it in the first place, perhaps it would cause less trouble if you were the one to change it back to "Single" status?211.31.248.150 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This move, like my change from single to promotional single, will also be rather bold, but I'm prepared for all hell to break loose and to continue the discussion if need be. There hasn't been a reply to my post for almost a month and there are sources that show it was released as a single and none to prove that it was only a promotional single. With that being said, I will change this back to a regular single. Anyone who objects, please provide a source that this was promo only. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No protests so far - it would seem that people have finally accepted that it really was a single. Again, common sense prevails! Thank you for making the change.211.31.126.76 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

AUS chart says it is a promo single. --Mathiassandell (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Many official singles are accompanied by promotional CD releases. The Music Network and Gaga's record label have both referred to the song as a single. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove from being the 4th single from TFM

There were only 3 singles from The Fame Monster. Knowing Gaga, if DITD was actually released as a single, she would have made a music video for it and had a whole fashion era dedicated to it (like she did with her 13 other singles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo52311 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not a justification. The song was released to Airplay in France and Australia. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
A single is a song released apart from a parent album. It's a single; whether or not there was a music video is irrelevant. Statυs (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hair (Lady Gaga Song) was released as a promo single which is apart from the parent like Circle the Drain, Sleazy, and Wait Your Turn and all 4 of those songs aren't singles.

Fleetwood Mac

I know it's common for songs to resemble other songs in places, but I wanted to draw attention to the similarity between the chorus of this one and the chorus of Go Your Own Way by Fleetwood Mac. Custardslice7 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Dancing in the Dark is a DAB page. A direct link to it violates MOS:DAB, and is flagged as an error by User:DPL bot. (I haven't checked, but I guess that your revert will have triggered DPL bot again.) The link must go through the (disambiguation) page. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dance in the Dark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Single date

Um…I'm not sure that release on iTunes can count as a single release… infsai (dyskusja) 01:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Lacking Super Bowl Mention

Since this song has single format, it might be worth mentioning in the article for substantive purposes that the first song heard of Gaga's at her Super Bowl performance is in fact the instrumental to Dance In The Dark which plays as she jumps and drops down from the ceiling. Scotstee (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Slovakia

Because source given in article wasn't good enogh I searched for better one, and I found out that actually "Dance in the Dark" did not chart in Slovakia (nor radio or single chart): "Dance in the Dark" in singles chart; "Dance in the Dark" in radio chart - as you can see there is nothing there, but for example in Czech Radio Chart there is something. So Slovakia should be removed from the table in "Charts" section. infsai (dyskusja) 13:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure

Appearance (compare Diana's pic, e.g. the caption is closer to relevant text) and, ironically, not. Sorry. (Dis sayin'.) Doodoodave (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You’re moving images/files one section upwards where they have absolutely no relevance. Plus, their placement between two sections pushes the heading a little towards right, which looks awkward. FrB.TG (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dance_in_the_Dark/Archive_1&oldid=1124560353"