Talk:Prism (Katy Perry album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

cover

I know the cover is on her official Instagram used as a profile picture. 2.31.120.6 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, this is the official album cover: [[1]]. I used a Brazilian website to search for it when "Dark Horse" was released as an promotional single. It is equal to the iTunes album cover and note the differences between this one and the one used. The flowers are arrenged differently. THIS is the official cover. 16:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done, that is the deluxe edition cover. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's not. Look: [2] 17:47, 17 Spetember 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.155.110 (talk)

 Done, replaced the cover. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! <3 20:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 September 2013

Bad Photographs and It Takes Two are not confirmed to be on Prism. Popofculture (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Both are sourced appropriately ... and it is specified that these 2 tracks are on a deluxe edition, not the mainstream version ES&L 11:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Stacie Orrico reference

From the offiical Stacie Orrico Twitter page "Despite the rumors that I worked with @katyperry on her new album #PRISM, they are unfortunately just rumors. Love Katy though!" 129.180.160.213 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Images

There really is no need for pics in the article that don't contain writers or performances. Wait until she has gone on tour or at least done more promotions of tracks and add pics of those. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of influences, writers or performers are fine. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 18:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to add them if they didn't contribute any vocals, writings, artwork, performances, instrumentals, or anything, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Think the Mariah and Britney ones can go tbh. The Prince comparison is valid, while 2 songs were influenced by John Mayer so that's relevant. For the same reasons the Russell Brand one is valid too! → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

None of them contribute anything at all to the album, so none of their photos belong in the article. It would be better having artwork or performance photos than subject matters. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree... for example if you did not know who John Mayer was it adds significant context. As these are freely licensed images their inclusion breaks no rules and does have some contextual sense. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It would make more sense to add his pic if he contributed anything to the album (which he did not). Besides, people could just look at his own article for a photo. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I kinda have to agree with XXSNUGGUMSXX here. We are just going over board with this section and it has started to appear flowery and fancrufty. People not having direct relation with the album's development and production are just simply undue to have an image and associated paraphernalia. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, Indian Bio XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say remove all the images and revert it back to another pathetic state, which you just did. It is unacceptable the edit you did right mow. Some of the images had direct relation to the project and should be kept. And don't you guys know how to shorten or paraphrase? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I was saying remove some of the images and I'm not responsible for the prose here. Check the edit history and you'll see I've been trying to prune it. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm late but John Mayer did contribute to the album by co-writing Spiritual and playing the guitar. Its found in the liner notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jule Firework (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Stylized album name

The stylized name of the album is PRISM, just like Lady Gaga's ARTPOP. It is being sold on iTunes like this since it's announcement: [3] (Standard version) [4] (Deluxe version) 18:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.228.218 (talk)

 Done Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Martin vs Max Martin

This whole argument about not Changing Max Martin to Martin because that is not his real name is silly. At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Track_listing, it says that once a person is mentioned once by their first and last name, only their last name is necessary in sufficient mentions. It doesn't matter that Max Martin's real name is Karl Martin Sandberg because nowhere in the article is he referred to as this. Everywhere in the article he is referred to as Max Martin thus in the track listing after one mention he should be referred to as just Martin. There is no confusion as to who is being referred to. I would understand if the case was someone like Dr. Luke who is often credited as a writer under the name Lukasz Gottwald and then Dr. Luke as a producer. In this example it would be silly to just use "Gottwald" or "Luke" as the recurring mention but considering that Karl Martin Sandberg is credited as Max Martin for both writing and production I do not understand the reason as to why his name hasn't been shortened. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Max Martin's real name is Karl Martin Sandberg because nowhere in the article is he referred to as this is plain and stupid. I am telling this because, he does not use his real name for writing and a production name for producing i.e. he always uses Max Martin (which is his both production and writing name and not his real name!). Most of the times we shorten the name to only the surname (quite logical ha?) but in this case it's not appropriate. This is not a case when we have for example: Benjamin Levin for writing and Benny Blanco for producing (even though we had that case we should used Benny Blanco fully since that's a production name not real name). Quite clear I guess. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Martin" is not his last name, though. "Max Martin" is a stage name. "Lady Gaga" is also a stage name. Do we just use "Gaga" at later instances? No, we don't. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a rule against shortening stage names? Especially one where it's a proper name?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there's any rule against that, especially since Katy is credited as "Katy Perry" or sometimes just "Perry" when her actual name is Katheryn "Katy" Hudson. In any case, contributors should be referred to by the same name in the "producers" section as they are in the "writers" section. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviews

If the album holds a metascore of 63 in metacritics.com, wouldn't it make more sense to say that it has received mixed reviews, or mixed-to-positive reviews? The album has received an average of 3/5 stars in most publications. The Guardian is the only publication that has given the album a very positive critique. --StephenG (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

63% in Metacritic means "generally favorable", 59-40% means mixed. The incorrect "mixed-to-positive" or "mixed" has to be supported by an independent reference, like Metacritic, otherwise is a point of view. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Concept album?

What makes this record and concept album? (The album is currently categorized as such, for reasons I might be overlooking...) --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Spain

The 43 week in Spain "Prism" debuted #3 http://www.promusicae.org/files/listassemanales/albumes/top%20100%20albumes%20(publicar)_w43.2013.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanok1990 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Producer/writer names

Rather than continuing to revert, could both sides please give their rationales for changing the names in the "Writers" and "Producers" parts of this article and others? Thank you. Acalamari 14:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Writers-producers use different name for credit when they write and different for producing a song/album. For example Lukasz Gottwald is the writing name, his production name is Dr. Luke and that's the way he is credited in the booklet. So we should follow how they are in the booklet. Same goes for StarGate or Cirkut (record producer).— Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Listing them by different names in infobox/track box can make things confusing for readers, and could lead them to think they are different people. Therefore, it makes more sense to refer to them by the same name in "writers" and "producers" section. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not the policy of Wikipedia and is totally wrong! Here we talk about credits, he is credited as Dr. Luke for producing and Lukasz Gottwald for writing, we can change staff present in a legally acquired document [the booklet]. And also there is a link to the both occasions so there is no confusion. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to do that. Please don't get patronizing about how others are "totally wrong". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I patronizing a rule that is used on all the album articles on Wikipedia? Or you are playing with the encyclopedia doing "I think that doesn't make sense"? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither- it comes across as belittling to say someone is "totally wrong" in the way that you did, felt like you were yelling in a way. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

commercial performance

the article states that "Prism acquired the largest first week sum by a female artist", but the source linked to states that it was the largest first week sum *OF THIS YEAR*, which is quite a big difference. the text as is makes it sound like it was the largest first week sales by a female artist of all time. this should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.94.185 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

68.193.17.157 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Genre

I added a category for Genre to the Infobox, and entered Pop, Rock, Dance, Electronic, and Christian. It was reverted due to a lack of source. However, nothing else in the Infobox has a source, nor do I see sources in the info boxes for any other album. What source is really needed, other than listening to the actual album? Instead of deleting that section completely, can't you find a source if you don't feel that listening to the album is a reliable source and/or add genres that I may have missed or delete genres that you don't agree with? 68.193.17.157 (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems nobody has responded. Shouldn't the genre be listed? 68.193.17.157 (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't just assume those are the genres of the LP. The standalone song genres are known, but they don't define Prism as a whole. For example, you can't consider Christian to be a genre of the album just because they are included in one or two songs (furthermore, these are just elements of Christian rather than being considered a main genre). Also, you can't just listen to the album and think that's a reliable source. prism △ 14:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

iTunes lists Prism as "Pop", but that certainly doesn't describe the album as a whole. Same with the One of the Boys and Teenage Dream albums. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the argument that no one genre can define Prism as a whole. That makes sense. But should every genre be listed? If not, then maybe for each song, a genre can be listed. I know some songs have individual pages listing a genre, but most do not, so it would make sense to mention it in this article

68.193.17.157 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That is correct- no one genre can describe the album as a whole. Although there are albums that have an overall genre to describe each of their songs, this is not one of them. Listing all of the songs' genres in the "genre" section of the album would be excessive. If you were to mention each song's genre, then just be sure to make the genre descriptions brief, and of course cite the information. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Christian influence somehow be mentioned in the article? 68.193.17.157 (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to, but am unsure where exactly in the article it would be ideal to do so. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

prism

and `1st week 453 http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week45-2013.htm 2nd week 242k http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week46-2013.htm 3rd week 147k http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week47-2013.htm 4th week 112k http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week48-2013.htm 5th week 106k http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week49-2013.htm on it's 6th week 216k http://www.mediatraffic.de/alltime-track-chart.htm

that means WW sales

1,276,000

77.44.232.141 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Fourth studio album"

Is it appropriate to refer to this as her "fourth studio album" considering her "first" album was as Katy Hudson and not Katy Perry? 70.53.172.4 (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, cause Kate Hudson + Katy Perry = same person! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for what Tomica said, plus, in interviews and reviews, Prism is acknowledged as Perry's fourth studio album. Prιsm △ 12:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

By all means, yes. For the reasons previously stated. I've seen many people discount the Katy Hudson album and have never understood why they would do so if they know of its existence. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Prism UPDATE

Katy Perry's "PRISM" in it's 8th week, ascending two positions to No. 5 with 99,000 (up less than 1%)

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5855135/beyonce-leads-for-third-week-at-no-1-on-billboard-200-chart

and WW sales is 1,8 million copies

http://www.mediatraffic.de/year-end-albums.htm

77.44.232.141 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The first one is fine, the second one cannot be added. Its a WP:BADCHART. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Birthday" as fourth single?

Hello. According to Katy Perry's manager, "Birthday" is set to be the fourth single off the studio album. Should this be mentioned or not? LINK; [5] GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 08:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps..... I also found a Billboard Brazil article indicating so, but let's wait for more confirmation first..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The article says its single release proximity is close, does not 100% confirm. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Official Charts Company has an article detailing the announcement of Birthday as the next single.[6] --BenSomner (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A little too late but thanks. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Burning Baby Blue Japan DVD Extra

The extra DVD content entitled "Burning Baby Blue" is not listed under the 'Prism – Japan deluxe edition DVD' section. It is the 4th DVD extra and should be listed after "Queen of the Jungle" and before "The Third Coming". Burning Baby Blue has a total time of 0:31.<ref>http://www.discogs.com/Katy-Perry-Prism/release/5044100</ref>. I also own a copy of the album. --BenSomner (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

nowiki'd ref tags to keep link here rather than at bottom of page Bazj (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your posts and your source for this? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've now added the reference - see above BenSomner (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Genre

Please, insert the album genre! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.8.145 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In order to do so, there would have to be a reliable source describing the album as a whole. If none can be found, then it is best to leave the field blank. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by CamiloSanchezz

@SNUGGUMS: and @CamiloSanchezz: are requested to discuss the latter's continuous removal of sourced sales from the article for Australia. Sourced sales indicate that the album scanned 179,000 units till the end of 2013. The album is certified 5x platinum per Billboard however, certifications are solely on shipments. The album could have shipped so many copies and yet still have sold 179,000+ copies only. When we have valid sources for sales, we use it and his reasoning for using shipments to indicate sales is simply wrong. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I also tried to state that shipments are not the same as copies sold, though understand how the two can be seen as synonymous. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, they can be synonymous, but for ARIA it is not. They solely certify on shipments. So to randomly assert a sales indication of 350,000 even if Billboard says it is wrong. FWIW, Billboard actually got that info from her label, its mentioned in the article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think CamiloShanchezz is right in saying "Your source is January, sales in 10 weeks. Now 60 weeks in the chart." in their edit summary. Usually, I would just leave a sourced sales amount that is lower than the certified shipments if it's certified within a few weeks or months from the time when the sales amounts are published, but since it's almost been a year now, surely the actual sales of the album would be well past 179,000. That source was published about two after the album's release and it's now been six times that length of time. Even if the actual sales have not reached 350,000 they're most likely closer to that amount than 179,000. 350k is nearly double 179k and surely Katy's record label wouldn't exploit the system and push out double tens of thousands of copies of the album if no one would purchase it solely to reach a certification. The table also states that both sales and shipments can be included so technically no policy has been violated. Just my opinion. — Usfun8991 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so ARIA still shows Prism as being 4× platinum, maybe they are still processing the certification, but 280,000 is still a far reach from 179,000. — Usfun8991 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)