Talk:Masseduction

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Genres

Earlier today I added a 'music and lyrics' section mentioning genres that publications have directly described the album as (electronic rock, electropop, new wave), alongside other genres which were mentioned as influences (ambient rock, techno, etc.) – only the main genres should be cited in the infobox, but a user keeps adding them onto the infobox and changes the section's wording to fit his agenda despite it not matching the articles.

The version before the changes: "Musically, the album has been characterized as "futuristic pop",[12][13] electronic rock,[14] new wave[15] and electropop,[13] while also incorporating ambient rock,[10], "industrial-tinted techno",[12] and dream pop.[13]"

The current version: "Musically, the album has been characterized as "futuristic" pop,[12][13][14][15], new wave,[16][10] ambient rock,[10][17] electropop,[18][14][15][13] and "industrial-tinted techno",[13][19] while also incorporating electronic rock[20] and dream pop.[14]"

First of all, the majority of the sources cited for futuristic pop now don't mention "futuristic", the new source added for ambient rock doesn't even mentioned ambient rock, but only states that there are a few "ambient dream pop tracks", does that equate to "characterized as an ambient rock album"? and the new source added for "industrial-tinted techno" only states that "Sugarboy" contains "half techno beats, half theatrical banger," – again, doesn't equate to "characterized as industrial-tinted techno." Not to mention, they removed "electronic rock" completely from the article which came from Under the Radar, and was the most direct statement of a genre regarding the album from a reliable source.

I'm not continuing edit warring over this. – SpaceSong (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpaceSong: View Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jimmio78_reported_by_User:MarkSewath_.28Result:_.29. --MarkSewath (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

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

From Ss112 :"I don't think what sources call Lady Gaga's songs are relevant. They may be singles; maybe editors on Wikipedia came to a different consensus. That's what you should seek now to remove "Pills" since you evidently don't believe it's a single. You said "revert if I'm wrong". Well, I think you are wrong, because we have a source on the article calling it a single. If you disagree with that source, open a discussion on the article's talk page as you have already been reverted. See WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you."

No, I don't believe "Pills" is an official single. The song was released as a promotional track, just like Lady Gaga's "Hair" and "Dope", in order to promote the album. They didn't go on to become official singles, despite sources saying they were singles upon release. Again, Annie Clarke herself never referred to it as a single, but instead a "new song" (https://twitter.com/st_vincent/status/917783334666883073?lang=en)

Also, we have sources calling "Pills" a new song instead of a single. Do they not count? And I don't see how my examples (with sources calling Gaga's songs singles) aren't relevant. Sources referred to many promotional tracks as singles and yet I don't start referring to them as such. Obviously we don't agree on this matter, but why isn't my argument good enough? I don't believe I'm the wrong one here. Thank you.

Edit: You said that the Gaga songs may very well be singles... but they're not. "This was after the previous promotional release, "The Edge of Glory", was made the third single from the album. Nevertheless, Gaga explained that "Hair" was not planned to be a single, but may be made one if it sold well like "The Edge of Glory". This is from the "Hair" article. If they were singles, that would have been made clear in 2011 and 2013. I'd rather take the artists' word rather than a random source. -- Drivingincalifornia (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure those with a more thorough knowledge of which artist has said what on Twitter from pop music over the last 10 years could be used as an example to the contrary. There are probably plenty of instances of artists not declaring "THIS IS A SINGLE" and Wikipedia ends up calling it one. Let's not act like what Wikipedia articles say about songs and their selective mentioning of what artists have said about their songs and whether they were singles or not is gospel. It's not. Plenty of artists announce songs as singles and then decide against it or it's clear it's not happening; singers have given conflicting statements on what's next in their career countless times. That's why your cherry-picked example of Gaga is not relevant to whether "Pills" is a single or not. "Oh, Annie's just doing what Lady Gaga did, the song's a promotional single". What are you basing this on other than your own ideas? Sounds like WP:OR. Songs released before the album, even a few days before the album, can still be full singles. Regardless, you've named only one source, Annie herself, because apparently she needs to declare which songs of hers are singles before we can ever utter that word in relation to the song. I don't see that she does need to do that either. Wikipedia does not require an artist to declare single status for a song if we have sources calling it one. Annie also didn't deny it was a single; she simply used the word "song" to refer to it. Singles are still songs. Ss112 07:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you did not need to copy my talk page message to the article talk page. You should have phrased it in the way of a new question and given your evidence for it in a new light. This is not the place for you to aim a direct reply at me, because you already did that with your message on my talk page (which should not really have been done either—ping users where the discussion was begun originally, i.e. your talk page, if you wish to reply). Thanks. Ss112 07:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. Just skimmed your response. You don't want to be wrong, you don't know what your talking about. I know what I'm talking about and I still believe I'm right. Whatever. You win I guess. -- Drivingincalifornia (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drivingincalifornia: Yeeeep. Mate, it's not about "winning". Claim you're right but you have no interest continuing the discussion you initiated with your irrelevant example of some crap Lady Gaga did. Makes sense. Sources call "Pills" a single; Annie Clark doesn't have to declare every single is a single for it to be one. Sources call it one, that's good enough. That's the end of it. Ss112 06:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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