Jump to content

Talk:Telephone (song)/Archive 2

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

SHOULD HAVE 1 PAGE FOR PAPARAZZI/TELEHONE AND CONTINUATION TRILOGY OF VIDEOS!

title says it all —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverL906 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. As per prior discussion, only ONE video has its own page: "Thriller" and thats because over a decade later its still being talked about. This is not a legacy yet. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Background and composition

Should these two sections not simply be merged? Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel it warranties their own section based on the amount of content it has. The background is not just one line, but 5/6 lines + a quote embedded. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you feel about reducing the music video development quote? Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I already reduced quite a bit. Will reduce further. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Illuminati mind control?

This is probably not worth a mention in the article because it is complete bollocks. It is worth a look to see how daft some people can be on the Internet. Is the Telephone video an example of Illuminati mind control? You decide. Now, where did I put my tinfoil hat?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture of her performing

That picture on the article of her "performing Telephone" is not her performing Telephone. That is a picture of her performing Money Honey. It needs to be changed. --Sdoo493 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

New cover?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Telephone_(Official).jpg

I'm sure this one is fake. It's easy to make it using the remixes EP cover since the font is available everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirillgdaily (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank-You, i thought the same thing. the source was not correct, and the grey cover is the single cover whether people like it or not. Just becuase the Remix EP is going to be released in more area's, doesnt mean that has to be the cover. The single cover is the single cover. thats that. (apaboutsims) (cant login)--61.68.151.253 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
MTV has already reported that the colored one is the official cover, not the grey one. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Legolas, could you please post the link to the MTV article?
So? Just becuase MTV reported that as the single artwork, maybe they got it wrong. becuase on Itunes, Amazon and more, the grey cover is used as the single cover. so no matter what MTV say, the grey one was still used as the single cover! its like saying that "The Fame Monster" was going to have a red cover, even though "The Fame Monster" is a;ready being sold in a black cover.--61.68.151.253 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is the link to the article. And it doesnot matter what iTunes or Amazon say the coverart is, they pale in comarison of reliability with MTV. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Your Wrong. MTV report the remix cover. click the link that says "Web site". Any Amazon and Itunes are reliable as the record label are the people eho put the music up there in the first place:!--61.68.151.253 (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please change it back!!!!--61.68.151.253 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
MTV doesn't have that artwork on their site. They link to the remixes EP cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirillgdaily (talk • contribs) 10:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
MTV links to the Remix EP cover. The original cover that IS posted on Amazon and iTunes should be put back! --Sdoo493 (talk) 20:34, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Legolas - MTV LINKS TO THE REMIX EP! THE COVER IS FAKE!!!!!! STOP CHANGING IT! ITUNES AND AMAZON HOST THIS AS THE SINGLE COVER!!!! PLEASE STOP CHANGING IT!!!! :)(apeaboutsims) (cant login)--Apeaboutsims (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesnot matter what they posted. Wikipedia goes for verifiability by reliable sources rather than truth. If they say it is the cover, then it is. And see WP:NPA, if such attacks donot stop, administrative actions will be taken. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
BUT ITS NOT THE COVER!!!!!!!! The talk about the remix cover, as linked on thier site. Im going to simplify this down for you.
The MTV link = IS NOT LINKING THAT COVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol (and btw, i am not making a personal attack, you just keep putting false information up that everybody is against, its not your wikipedia, it the worlds. if majority rules, majority rules. You just wont listen)--Apeaboutsims (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Again, please stop shouting. That won't make your point come across me any further. If majority is against WP policies, then that's not my problem. As I explained before, WP goes for verifiability by reliable sources, in this case MTV is a million times more reliable source than iTunes, Amazon or any retail chain. There is no point in shouting in caps about it. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, sorry about the caps. But how is MTV more reliable. If you dont know, The record company put the music on Itunes. So if thats the artwork the comapany use, its what the record comapny chose the single cover to be. ok. lets make an example. if MTV said "Britey Spears made a performance at the Grammy's, but didnt, are you going to source what over MTV said, or what actually happened (The Truth). But MTV is much more reilable than whats really happened? thats what is coming accross here. And also, MTV didnt refer to the cover thats on there now. It would be more accurate to put the remix cover on there than a fan-made one (which the picture doesnt have an accurate source).--Apeaboutsims (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
MTV IS reliable (though I completely disagree with it, they take info from random blogs -- but if it's in Wiki rules -- okay then), but they never said it's the cover. Why do you keep citing at as the source of the single cover if it's not even there? Kirillgdaily (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
To Kirill, this link states the Beyonce/Gaga one as the cover. To Apsims, the basis of verification lies on the order of reliability of the sources. If MTV reports something which contradicts the one reported by Billboard, we go for the Billboard one as it is more reliable than MTV again. Hence, its basically a hierarchy of reliable sources. If MTV were to report something like they made a mistake, that it is not the single cover, I be happy to change it back. I can see a solution of it. If you really think that the grey one is the cover, post a message to MTV and see if they respond or rectify. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The cover is not there! They link to the REMIXES cover. Kirillgdaily (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
THank -You Kirillgdaily, your seeing it too! lol :)--Apeaboutsims (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I am too :) this nonsense that iTunes is not a true source. what are you on?. put the grey one back up! :)--Jackex56 (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
its funny how you are fighting over so petty, Legoals, please get it out of your head about the telephone cover. your wrong, apeaboutsims, Kirlldaily, Jackex56 is right. move on. change it back--Morgan3136 (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no fighting, however a discussion is going on, so I request you to please add your reasons or cite a reliable source else take your forum like comments somewhere else, not accepted in WP. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Legolas, MTV links to the Remix cover. And even on the page it links to it SAYS that it's the remix EP cover. Are you blind? The cover posted on here, is obviously fan made anyway! Stop adding that cover! MTV isn't a reliable source, because in that article they took things from other sources and posted them into their article. The Tyra Banks Show and LadyGaga.com are their sources. Nothing was told directly to them. --Sdoo493 (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from the MTV article: "Gaga recently revealed the cover art for the "Telephone" single, which is due out on March 2, on her Web site. It features a photo of Gaga wearing a hat made from a telephone and a picture of a Sasha Fierce-mode Beyoncé." However, I can't find the cover without the remix stuff on it on either MTV nor Lady Gaga's site. If someone can link to a reliable source utilizing the File:Telephone (Official).jpg cover, then that's the end of it. Otherwise, we stick with the gray cover. Why is this so difficult.  AcroX  22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
They are already using the Grey cover as the uk CD single. So yeah, there is no debate about it. but whats really bothering me, is that someone has completely moved the Grey cover and replaced it with the other cover. someone please change it back. oh and here is the source for the CD Single [1] (apaboutsims) (cant login)--61.68.180.221 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on the new Newsletter sent to UK fans, the Grey cover is the digital cover, and the one with both Beyoncé and Lady GaGa is the Physical CD, so I think the one with both should be used (78.149.49.149 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC).

Who gave you the right to change the telephone cover from the grey one to the FANMADE ONE! There is no source online stating that one is the official cover, so why are you using it? http://www.ladygaga.com/photos/detail.aspx?fid=15448&phid=15828. This effectively shows her using the GREY COVER, NOW CHANGE IT BACK!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.80.60 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Music Covers

I know there were a debate about which cover should be on the article, but why both can't be on the article? Are copyrighted and are reliable (from Lady Gaga official site), like The Fame Monster. TbhotchTalk C. 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Under copyright laws we can only use more than one image if there is a significant difference and purpose. The black/white cover was the promo. lots of single's recieve this but when the song is officially released (i.e. on CD) it recieves a proper single-art. That is what has happened here. This the same case as songs such as "Battlefield (song)", "If We Ever Meet Again" and "Love Sex Magic". Note that all the examples ONLY have the actually CD/single art cover. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
To clarify my point the difference would have to entail different releases but its general practise that the CD cover provails over the iTunes cover for the reason that iTunes is one specific outlet whereas CDs are sold at many. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I get it, thanks. P.S. I removed "Delete F5" from the actual music cover. TbhotchTalk C. 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If it's any use, being in the UK I've seen the physical CD's in store with the colour cover. There doesn't seem to be online sources to back it up however. One thing that confuses me a little is that we cite 'Liner Notes' as a source, yet here we can hold a physical copy and not be able to source the cover art. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
HMV now have the new cover. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule against having more than one album cover on a music article if they are sufficiently different.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. Its called WP:NFCC. In light of the present cover, the former one badly fails it. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated File:Telephone Lady Gaga.png for FFD. It fails WP:NFCC grossly now that the other cover has been released in physical form. A strong rationale and discussion ala The Fame Monster is needed if the former needs to be included. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The Non Free Content Criteria are being met by the images and their use in the article. Multiple versions of album artwork are utilized across the project and are in no way expressly forbidden by any policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Really? Let me see how is it being met? "Lady Gaga wearing a bob haircut and admiral's cap, faces towards the camera, putting her left hand to her mouth." Seems a perfectly reasonable line to replace a non-free image and adding it to the article text. And please, I don't wanna listen to some WP:WAX argument regarding how many articles in WP are utlizing them. The Gaga articles are respected in high regards in Wikipedia, and I don't want it to turn into a paper encyclopedia page, just because you don't understand WP:NFCC. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I was an administrator for this website for two and a half years. I used to enforce WP:NFCC. I think I know how the policy works and I am tired of you talking down to me. The usage is inline with every word of that policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Calm down. You being an admin has no effect at all to me. The very fact that you say that I'm trying to talk you down shows that you are indeed flawed in your logic for the rationale. What usage? Inline? Point me out please. I can only see "This cover was used in so and so place". How does that justify the usage and the fact that it is replaceable by text. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Will anyone have a problem with the line "Lady Gaga in a bob cut, holding her left hand to her mouth"? No, my dear. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Then I'll write about the bloody covers in the text of the article itself, giving more context and rationale for its usage beyond what already exists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Still doesnot change the fact that the images themselves are replaceable by text. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That can be said for any image. Fair use images are used to accompany said descriptive text when descriptive text alone cannot convey knowledge about the image.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Bingo. This, my dear, is clearly the opposite for the file at hand as descriptive text alone conveys knowledge about the image. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a middle ground. You can have more than one cover, as long as the text adequately justifies the use. You are both right, so work together here. 173.6.2.235 (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's me. If I'm in Kansas, I'm Dorothy. 173.6.2.235 (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Now Firefox stabs me in the back for using Chrome. Keegan (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Kansas? No there isn't in this case. I sincerely believe that text should justify the image, which is not in this image. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So add the text, a couple sentences, to justify it. Or Ryulong do it. No offense intended, but in my list of pointless arguements for the day this doesn't even qualify after employment stress, working on wiki stuff, and a tragedy suffered by a friend. You two are arguing about nothing that is relevant other than to argue, there is an easy and practical solution. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you really are going through stuff. Anyways, the reason the file is nominated for deletion is simple. When text alone substitutes a description of the image, its not needed. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
And I disagree and have provided suitable accompanying text that shows that it's not so simple as such to dismiss for being replaced by text. There's no free alternative to the image. That's what replaceability concerns.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Being shot by Heidi Slimane has nothing to do with replaceable text. It is regarding the image. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Replaceability is not a function of whether or not the image could be replaced by descriptive text. Replaceability concerns whether or not there is a free equivalent of the image. Not a free alternative. The fact stands is that a sentence stating that it's a photo of Lady Gaga in a bob cut wig topless shot from behind and looking towards the camera is not a free equivalent of the image. The question is whether or not the article benefits from the image, which I believe it does and you believe it does not. So the onus is now upon other editors to agree with one of us as to whether they believe the article is better with the monochrome album art or without.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It is the same case with previous Gaga song articles, all of those other remix cover, EP cover etc had been deleted as none of them failed to provide a proper rationale for their inclusion. Same with this image, you still haven't provided any proper rationale as to why its inclusion is increasing reader's understanding of the article, when the actual CD single cover art is present. Anyways, let's not discuss this further and let the FFD decide. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I've given you multiple rationales for the inclusion, but here's another: it's the original official album artwork. You bring up how the other articles don't have alternate artwork like for those used on the remix EPs or whatever is that this image has been exclusively used to represent the song for the past month and a half until this week. Removing the monochrome one which has been used exclusively for the digital releases of the song in favor of the version that appeared earlier this week that is being used on the physical CD releases of the single is not necessary. The monochrome one should at least be used because it has the same visual asthetic as the rest of the album and its singles. Everywhere online the monochrome cover is described as the official artwork and it is used as the official artwork when it comes to buying the song off of iTunes in the UK and France.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For want of of a better term, both of you shut up, go to bed, and revisit this later. What a silly waste of emotion. Keegan (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, sadly Gaga's website doesnot list this at all. Lol Keegan. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to outline one thing in this whole argument which people have forgotten and was highlighted in the examples i gave.... If a single has a CD release billed and that release has actually happened that is the MOST significant peice of information. the CD cover is nearly always billed as the official single cover. the previous covers are referred to as promo covers. EPs etc. are not relevant mainly because they refer 99% of the time to iTunes which is not the only music outlet. Its about impartiality as well as copyright. More covers will NOT be added to the article unless a consensus is reached here. End of. Sorry if it sounds harsh but that's how wikipedia works... by consensus and by abiding local and national law. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The copyright aspect is fine. The only issue is that the editors of this article have to decide whether or not the monochrome cover should stay given that the colored cover exists. It's not entirely a promo single cover but the cover for the digital sales, which are certainly not "promo" sales. I've reverted your removal of this, as well as the removal of the captions for the images.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, reverting me back is against the spirit of WP:BRD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And i've reverted back because in the past i argued what you did for the song "Love Sex Magic" and it got me banned. Whilst this discussion is open it would be irresponsible to edit the page (like you did) in a way that inflames the situation. There was been quite a bit of editing/removing/reverting of the covers. Might i suggest that we wait before making any further changes and allow other users to comment including other admin. Once again i'd point out that the colour version was referred to as an official cover art. We need clarity on this not constant fighting. Especially not since im not the first editor to change your addition of the other cover. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Actually correcting another user removed the black and white cover but you added it back so you yourself are in breach of WP:BRD. I did the opposite and tried to engage in discussion. Which by the way simply doesn't mean leave your opinion and make whatever changes you want. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Keegan is an administrator who clearly states that having two versions of the cover art is perfectly fine. It is not in violation of WP:NFCC#3a and the image does not violate any of those other criteria. There's very obvious reliable sources that show that the monochrome cover and the colored cover are both official versions of the album art. One appears in iTunes and in other digital music stores, the other one is on the physical CD that can be purchased in the EU. Also, there is no reason why there cannot be captions for these images.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we need more than one opinion on this matter because in previous Gaga articles people like yourself have made this argument and content has been deleted because it failed copyright regs. the saying of one administrator is not enough especially not when there is a track record and common use of just one single art. i personally believe that two covers infringes upon WP:NFCC#3a(criteria 3a) I think until further clarity is sought like i suggested above the sensible thing is to just use one cover. Agreed? Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Several other articles have more than one version of the album art uploaded. It's not forbidden at all. It's not an issue with Criteria 3a. For example: Quicksand (La Roux song), Virgin Killer, Plastic Beach, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
But to my knowledge all gaga articles (or nearly all of them) have had the black and white images removed. And like user Legolas says the alternative cover could be replaced with a simple sentence. Any image should significantly add to a user's understanding. the second cover does not add something significant which a sentance explaining the cover cannot. Well i disagree that the second cover does cause issues with criteria 3a for the reasons i've just given. lets see what other users have to say regarding the matter. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There are only three Gaga articles with the monochrome covers. Alejandro, The Fame Monster, and Telephone. Bad Romance's cover is the only cover. The Fame Monster has two covers which are discussed in the text. And it is not the "alternative" cover. It is the original cover. Articles on singles and albums can have more than one cover and a single sentence cannot be used as an equivalent to the image.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Pointless comments. TFM images are vividly discussed in the article, hence their rationale for usage in it. BR cover is the only official cover. "Alejandro" cover is used only at iTunes Sweden, hardly reliable for covers and stuffs. The three egs you provided, blatantly violates WP:NFCC. The monochromoe cover should not be used. Case closed. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
By your rationale, no album art should be used on Wikipedia unless it is subject to critical discussion in its article. That's not how things work.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Legolas, on the Poker Face discussion you said the Red hooded cover needed to be put up rather than the one where she was coming out of the pool. because a) it was not the first single cover, the red hooded one was. and b) her official site states that the red hooded one was the cover, even though the pool one was used for physical releases and c)it failed WP:NFCC#8. Pocker Face Discussion:[2]. Right? well, how come this time its different? Im confused lol (aboutaboutsims) (cant login)--58.161.68.159 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you edited his comment to add something he didn't wrote, but anyway, the pool cover is not only cover for the physical release, there is another one for France, and another one (the one with the red hood) for Australia and New Zealand and the vinyl releases in the UK. Australia and New Zealand were the first countries were the single was released, so the red hood cover should be in the infobox, plus the other pool cover could easy be explained with text, as it is a still from the music video. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
However, the monochrome cover (which has two "threats" of being deleted currently) is not as cut and dry. The colored CD release cover is in fact the one using stills from the music video and the monochrome one is the official one for the single and not the maxi single.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
yeah sorry, there im on a network, and some stupid people look up at what im doing an interfere. i cant login when im on it, but anyways, sorry, i shall undo that edit. but also, if you look in the discussion on eh eh, legoals also mentioned that one of the rules of Wikipedia is that the cover used must be the cover that used as the main cover. right? but the cd cover used is only released in UK and Germany. its the grey cover for the rest of the world, also in the UK. wouldnt it be more logical to put the grey cover as the main cover becuase it would be recognized by readers from other countries? plus, on the pockerface article it was stated that lady gaga's site confirms the red hooded cover, thats why it was used. lady gaga's site sonly confirm the grey cover, and no lady gaga site i have seen mentions anything about the other cover (apeeaboutsims) (cant login)--58.161.68.159 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
i agree with the last two comments, plus, the grey cover was for the single, the colored cover was for the maxi single. It should be the grey cover and/or the coulred cover as an alternate cover.--Morgan3136 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Think of it this way
1) The grey cover was used for the Promo Single, Single, Digital Maxi Single, And Remix Singles. The grey theme was also used for the vinyl. The colored theme was only used for the physical maxi single.
2) The grey cover is sourced by her official german site, the colored one isnt by any of her sites. (and as you said earlier legoals, we can only place what we can find with official sources. not online shops and discogs).
3) the grey cover was released as the first single cover
4) the official single on uses the grey cover (as sourced by her german site), however, the maxi-single (which isnt the main single) wasnt sourced by any of her sites
5) the grey cover was used worldwide, the colored cover was only used in the uk (although the digital single still uses the grey cover), and germany. --Jackex56 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break

All good points. The monochrome cover is the official cover, just like the red hooded cover is the official cover for Poker Face and the mug shot cover is the official cover for Paparazzi. Shall we put the monochrome Telephone cover back onto this article and move the colored maxi single cover into the "extra" album cover spot?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand something, I only see that are two physical versions of the single(one for the UK/Australia and one for the rest of Europe), plus the remixes cd(for the US). All of them uses the colored version, the vinyl uses a still from the music video. Even the digital cover from itunes, as well as her official website have the colored version, it dosen't matter if the grey cover was used for the promotional release, it's always the physical cover available for purchase that should be in the article. The grey one is not used in any physical release, there are not other parts of the world were cd singles are released. Here are the scans for that cd with the grey cover [3] as you can see in the part that go on the side of the cd, it says: Promo Use Only-Not for Sale. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that certainly shows that it was photographed by Slimane. And the digital cover on all iTunes Stores except the US use the monochrome cover, just as they do the other covers. This still does not mean that both covers can be used, as the promo single's cover is used throughout the single's digital use. You can also see that the red hooded cover is not the primary cover for Poker Face. The one of her coming out of the pool is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes the pool cover is the one that was used for most of the world, but the red hooded version was released in Australia months before it was released in Europe or Northamerica [4], that version is practically unavailable for purchase now because it was released only there and in 2008. If we go with the first promotional cover like we are doing with "Telephone" this will be the one for "Poker Face" [5]. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
But that's not a cover. That's just a CD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Under the colored cover it should be also mentioned that its UK Single Cover.Bottleofjag (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the little blurb above the cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Two covers cannot remain in the infobox per WP:NFCC, as having both does not increase the knowledge a reader would gain; we cannot use more than one non-free images when one would suffice. I think the grayscale one should stay, as it was released first and appears to be the cover used in most of the world. –Chase (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Two covers can remain in the infobox per WP:NFCC as both covers do increase the knowledge a reader would gain as they represent the subject. This is why the {{extra album cover}} template exists. Because some albums and singles have more than one cover to identify the subject of the article. This is the case for this article. The only reason there is a question is because the two physical releases in Europe use a different cover. As this is an American artist, we should at least use the cover in circulation in the US. There is a general majority that the monochrome cover should be on the article, alongside the other one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but having an extra cover does not help me learn anything more about the song. We can't include every cover art just because it was released, you clearly do not understand that we cannot use multiple non-free images when only one is necessary, please read WP:NFCC very closely. –Chase (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm excuse me user: Ryulong but i was involved in this discussion before but you must have forgotten becuase so many other users have called you out and pointed out that your insistance on using more than one cover is wrong. I suggested that you wait till more users have commented and a consensus is reached. You breached that request. All i did was another user decided to remove the coloured cover and leave just the black and white one so i replaced that with the coloured one because the latter is the latest cover. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should "latest cover" dictate whether or not it is used over the original cover? And an article on an album/single having more than one variation of its cover is not wrong or violating WP:NFCC. The two covers here are unique enough from each other that they give the reader more information. There is a minority of users here who are suggesting that one should only be used. Those who are saying that only one should be used are claiming aspects of WP:NFCC apply when an administrator (Keegan) and a former administrator (myself) both believe that both covers can be used. There has not been one good reason as to why one cover should be used over the other or why both covers cannot be used if there is sufficient context in the article to describe both that using both improves the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not care if you are a former admin, I do not care if you've been banned 18 times, I don't care who you are here or what you've done. The fact of the matter is is that you are wrong. WP:NFCC#3a clearly states, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Just because the covers look different. Say a song were to have 61 cover arts, just assume that, and they all looked significantly different. Would you opt to include them all? Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia and we can only use non-free content sparingly and if the use of such content adds encyclopedic value. Looking different does not provide encyclopedic value; only one cover art is needed to identify this song. If the cover arts become independently notable (see The Fame Monster), that would be a different story. Neither are really notable and only one should be used simply to identify the single. Having more is against our policies and I do not get how you do not see that, when policy says it explicitly. –Chase (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact still stands that you cannot remove one image and merely describe what it looks like in the article. And having more than album artwork per article is not against policy no matter how many times you people quote WP:NFCC#3a. There is a reason why there is a template to put the alternate versions of the album art onto articles on music. It does not matter if one version of the album art came before the other or if they are only slightly different, it is completely allowable to use multiple versions of album artwork because all album artwork pretty much falls under violations of WP:NFCC#8 as there is very rarely cultural significance to having one version of the album artwork because all it does is identify the subject. There are very rarely cases such as The Fame Monster or Virgin Killer or Sticky Fingers or whatever other albums exist where the cover has cited significance separate from the album itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
'Ryulong' has still failed to explain why you think it is acceptable to ignore an open discussion and go ahead with further edits to the article. Do you consider yourself above the wikipedia community? Or perhaps you feel like you have ownership of the article? The whole point of conflict resolution and discussion to discuss the matter. All you have done is listen to other people's comments then blatanly ignore them and rebuke every single argument. Then you went ahead and carried editing the article resulting in the massive edit war and history bulge that we now have. Is that really a community approach to editing? thats not how WP:Consensus works. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Also can i suggest that both Chase and Ryulong stop editing the article from now on and leave the article as it is until a consensus is reached. Ryulong is now in breach of WP:3R and you are starting to display WP:IDHT. If your not careful Chase you could be too. Please STOP edit warring. WAIT until a consensus is reached. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not technically 3RR as I have reverted to a version I have not made. It is merely a version you do not prefer because it does not have the colored cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is a 3RR because you have made more than three edits which bring the article back to the status you last left it at within 24 hours. 3RR states that the edits do not necessarily have to involve a user clicking undo. they can also involve manual reversion. Also notice how this is the second time i've asked you to refrain from editing and also the second time i've intervened for conflict resolution something which you seem to have completely ignore. in the discussion above there are plenty of other users who agree with me that this is a breach of copyright. im not the only one in this discussion. so please before making assumptions and speaking on my behalf get the facts straight. If you don't want my advice don't take it. I'll happily take this administrators and point out that you were twice asked to refrain from editing until a consensus was sought. Im sure they would uphold claims that your actions have resulted in an edit war. Note also that i am critical of your edits not yourself as an editor whereas you have got personal. Please remember we're discussing the facts of the case in terms of copyright law not personal preference. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is actually more stringent than copyright law. And anyway, the article is at a state where there is currently only one version of the album artwork, not the version where there is two. The last edit I made involved going back to Chase's initial removal of one album art. It may be considered a self revert, as the reverts are not to identical content and the 1 or 2 cover issue has been contested on this talk page for some time. I thought that at least Legolas and I came to an agreement, considering the last issue he and I discussed was sourcing the photographer of the album artwork.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is not between two editors when it takes place on a single page. Not only did i give my opinion but other users did too at which point you should have stopped editing/reverting/changing (whatever you want to call it). If you want to discuss the technical aspects of your edits and whether they constitute edit warring/3RR we can report it and let the relevant admin decide. I'm much more interested in getting a resolution to this issue and getting some clarity on the legality of including more than one cover. Claiming the issue resolved just because you've left the black and white (first) cover in does not help the situation because there was debate over whether that cover should prevail over the colour one too. And as i've pointed out previously in every prior case of this i can remember it is always the latter/CD Release/Latest cover which prevails as the over-riding CD cover. It happens with "Battlefield", "Love Sex Magic", "Morning After Dark" and countless other articles. Artists often release a quick cover whilst the song is being downloaded/airplayed and then once a CD release comes out (and often when the video is shot as screencaps are used) a proper cover is produced.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have never encountered an instance where the most recent version of album art is used in place of older ones. Other cases at least in this artist's discography have forced the first version of the artwork over latter versions. There has been no decision in either case. Should the digital cover be used or should the EU CD cover be used or should both be used? You seem to prefer having just the colored one, Chase prefers the black and white one (or did because it was used first in the box), and I prefer both. There have been other editors here who say both are fine just as there have been where they say only one should be used. I doubt that this will ever result in any sort of consensus unless both are removed and no one gets their way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Well in the spirit of consensus we should wait and see. Assume WP:Good Faith and you might be surprised. There might just be a resolution yet. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have never seen an article that uses the digital or promotional cover over the physical one, and you clearly don't read the comments, I have already stated that the cover is for every country, not just the UK, Germany or Europe.—Frcm1988 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Ok following the lengthy discussion above it is difficult to engage the general consensus. According to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a case it would be wise to call a survey. So thats exactly what i'm doing. Please vote on whether you agree or disagree that having a second cover (the black and white one) is a breach of WP:NFCC copyright law. This will give us an idea of the general consensus though the final decision will not be exclusively limited to the outcome of the survey. See below for the survey and how to vote.

PLEASE ONLY VOTE ONCE AND DO NOT MAKE COMMENTS IN THIS SURVEY SECTION.

Official Lady Gaga Telephone Single Cover Debate Survey
If you feel that having both the 'black and white' and 'color' covers in this article is a violation of WP:NFCC, then vote for 'agree', else vote for 'disagree'.
Vote Signature
Agree Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agree –Chase (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree —Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Weak disagree —Candyo32 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree —Frcm1988 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree --Apeaboutsims (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Stronly Agree --Morgan3136 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree --Jackex56 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree --Legolas (talk2me) 03:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree --PeterGriffin Talk • Cont. 04:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong Agree Jayy008 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Tend toward Agree see discussion below Kww —Kww(talk) 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the wording of this should be clarified, because Jackex56 seemed to agree that both covers were good and now he/she is agreeing that both covers are bad. The wording of the statement should be "Using both covers is against WP:NFCC" or something similar. Also, I'm not sure that going out and contacting anyone who made a statement in this conversation to add to this survey is really allowed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes I was a bit surprised, I think some users may have misunderstood the question. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I rephrased it a little. Users will be clear now. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think perhaps "breach" is the problem word here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break #2

Okay, I have a problem with LilUnique-1's method of getting people's attention. Petergriffin9901 never edited this page before.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the user is canvassing. He/She is just asking for the comments of someone else and asking them to vote. He/She is not telling them to vote for "Agree" or "Disagree" specifically. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why can't an admin just block multiple non-free images being uploaded to the page? Jayy008 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Because some articles, like this one, need multiple non-free images (video screenshot and one of the covers) for encyclopedic value. –Chase (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Because it has never been forbidden to have more than one fair use image on a page. If it has encyclopedic merit, then it can be used, which is the case in album covers and the like.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do explain to me why removing one of the covers will take away from the knowledge one will gain of the song. It won't. As much will be learned of the song with or without one of the extra covers, and therefore it is against copyright law to use both of the non-free covers. You cannot use multiple covers to identify the song when one can suffice, and for this particular song, there is nothing particularly notable about the covers. Therefore, we can only use one.
It certainly would be nice to use many alternate covers. But we simply cannot, and I don't know how I can make you realize this if you choose to ignore what is clearly written out in Wikipedia policy/copyright law. Your persistence in going against policy is extremely disruptive; there are laws set up like this for a reason. There is no encyclopedic purpose for having both covers here. –Chase (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no issue of "we cannot" that is being thrown around. It is not against policy or copyright law to use more than one version of the album art on an article so long as it is used in an encyclopedic and educational fashion that does not impinge on the visual rights of the original copyright holder. That is fair use law and Wikipedia's non-free content criteria in a nutshell. If it improves the article, then it could be used. How many times do I have to explain this?
There is nothing illegal or against policy when there is more than one album cover in an article on an album or single. There merely has to be significant context in the article to where both can be used (not needed) in order to improve the article. In this case, we have multiple different releases of this one song. We have the promotional and digital singles which all use the original monochrome cover, and the physical CD single which has so far only been used in the UK, and is apparently set to be used in Germany. Due to the fact that these two images are completely different, using the just the former or just the latter improves the article, but using both improves it further.
There is certainly not as much "significance" to the use of the different covers as there is for the album this song comes from, or perhaps other albums, but we have context for both images. The monochrome cover is currently stated to be a photograph by the same photographer as the album, cited in the image caption currently. The colored cover has no context in the article and is only being used because it is the cover used for the pressing for the CDs in the European market as well as the US Remix EP. We could say that it uses scenes from the music video but we don't. We don't say anything else about the covers in this article. We don't say anything about the cover in the LoveGame album. Nothing is said about the cover of The Fame, and especially not how the later American release has slightly different artwork. But we do on several other articles. Clearly, all someone has to do for this article is write a short blurb about the different releases and then the album artwork has enough context that by omitting either version would be detrimental to the article.
To repeat myself so the bored and people who clearly think I'm wrong can pick it apart, there is nothing against the guideline of WP:NFC, the policy of WP:NFCC, or United States copyright law that forbids the use of File:Telephone Lady Gaga.png and File:Telephone (Official).jpg on the page titled Telephone (song) so long as there is contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8) and using both images provides significant information (WP:NFCC#3a). As the content of this page currently stands, neither image should be removed in favor of just making a WP:OR description of the image that is obviously not preferred by the majority of people who edit this page and other related pages on a regular basis. More context could be put into the article, thereby allowing both images to be used, but this will probably be removed claiming WP:UNDUE or some other policy/guideline that barely has any weight in this discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice essay, still doesnot change the fact that consensus dictates this to be unnecessary and a failure of WP:NFCC, when one image is sufficing the need. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Have fun with your articles then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)None of them are my articles, so please keep the track towards the discussion please. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is that all covers fail WP:NFCC#8. Period. They don't convey information that is necessary to understand the album or single pictured. They are included to fulfill a concept of "identification", which people invented to try to feel better about violating WP:NFCC#8 in every album and single article in Wikipedia. That said, normally having multiple images is tolerated if the images are substantially different, and not tolerated if they are essentially the same. Keeping this pair of covers would be far from the worst problem we have.—Kww(talk) 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Kevin, you are also forgetting another aspect of WP:NFCC#3a for multiple images of same instance, that where an image is better describable with written prose and conveys the idea, should not be used in a NFC area. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Kww. This is what I have been trying to explain, but it seems that these people do not care. Or keep referring to NFCC 3a. And Legolas, an image should never be described with written prose as that is original research, which is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. Why go out of the way to describe an image just for the sole purpose of not utilizing it in the article? As Kww says, a violation of WP:NFCC#3a is tolerated if the images are substantially different, which is the case with these two images.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not telling to add the original r in the text, I'm merely saying that the image doesnot increase the reader's understanding of the article. Hell, it doesn't add anything, just simply remaining as a means of descriptive and ethical reasons which is not the point of WP:NFCC. The image is replaceable in context of a physical CD cover being released. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
In case you did not read what Kww said, no album art on any article on Wikipedia increases the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. I will quote exactly what he said for your comprehension:

The real problem is that all covers fail WP:NFCC#8. Period. They don't convey information that is necessary to understand the album or single pictured. They are included to fulfill a concept of "identification", which people invented to try to feel better about violating WP:NFCC#8 in every album and single article in Wikipedia.

As he states, this breach/violation of WP:NFCC#8 is tolerated. There are very rarely ever instances where an image has significance beyond being the cover of that album or single. So these arguments of violating WP:NFCC#8 are invalid. He also states that the issue of violating WP:NFCC#3a are also tolerated if the versions of the album art are substantially different.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither Kevin, nor you are rulers of Wikipedia, so cut quoting others opinions. If I believe this breaches wP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a, then it breaches. You cannot change my opinion. And for the record, consensus is dictating the contrary to what you are saying. Case closed. And also, I find Kevin's comments as dubious, seeing that he weakly agreed the removal. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter if it breaches or not. The fact is that such breaches are tolerated if they improve the encyclopedia. Read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:IAR doesnot apply here since consensus is dictating the opposite, or are you implying you are above it? --Legolas (talk2me) 07:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus here. It is just a vote to gauge what people are thinking. The "survey" alone is not going to decide whether or not one image is to be removed from the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
As for my comments being "dubious", it's because, left to myself, I would remove every album and single cover image from every article. Such an action would obviously be in opposition to consensus on the issue, so I don't plan on actually doing it, but I can't bring myself to disagree with the concept that the cover images violated NFCC#8. Of course they do. They all do.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Look, Admit it, this is going nowhere. I cannot believe that it has gone this far. With debates and other stuff, what is all the fuss about?? I mean, you talk about official sources, why dont you research some? ok, so we go yo Lady Gaga's official sites. and the confirm both. [6] [7]. so why cant we use both? but I understand that we can only use one. so , the alternate cover is used n germany and UK right? but they also use the grey cover as the digital release. so lets find out what cover is the main single cover. ok. i went to a reliable source (the UK charts site) and what did I find? that the Remixes cover is the right cover. but they main single cover IS the grey one. The remix cover is the colored one, the grey one is the main single cover for the UK and the rest of the world [8]. Dont even start that its not a reliable source. its the music charts for most of the world. they wouldnt be there if they weren't accurate and reliable. so it comes down to, have both, or they grey cover. the colored one IS NOT the main cover, however is an official cover. (apaboutsims | cant login)--58.161.68.159 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Official conclusion & consensus findings

On the contrary to what Ryulong has said... i set the survey up as a visual opinion to help gage the direction of the consensus. It is clear that there is one user 'Ryulong' who feels that this page is special and different to others. He feels that the article deserves more than one cover despite their being substantial opposition to this (indicated by the survey). Several different users have pointed out many reasons as to why a second cover should not be used in the article. What the discussion shows is that under wP:NFCC more than one non-free image can be used but that doesnt mean it SHOULD be used. In this case the use of the black and white cover is of non-encylopedic importance. It does not add significantly to user understanding and refers to a prior release format. The single was scheduled for CD release with an alternative cover. This cover is the overiding cover art for the single. As with all previous Gaga singles the black & white/promo covers were removed and replaced with the proper single cover. The whole point is to engage community opinion and whilst under certain circumstances e.g. where there is significant different more than one cover can be used but there simply isn't the public opinion or consensus that doing so in this article is correct. The majority of users feel that the two covers fails wp:NFCC in this particular instance. Remember that all cases have to be judged on an individual basis. As the initiator of the the survey and consesus discussions taking into consideration all opinions i am going to declare the discussion closed. I'm sorry but with the overwhelming support for the removal of one of the covers there really isn't any further discussion to be had.

Decision To remove the black and white image as its use along with the colour image is a breach of wp:NFCC because it simply isn't require. The colour image will be promoted to the main single cover. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the decision that was made here. The "decision" is that one image should be used. You do not get to interpret the consensus as you see fit. Now the question is which of the two images should be used. I say we go for the monochrome one because:
  1. It was used first
  2. It is used as the digital release cover which is available in more markets than the colored cover
  3. The colored cover is only used for the European retail CD releases, and only two so far.
Being WP:BOLD, I've put the monochrome one up as the only album cover. And threatening me with a "WP:ANI is not the way to enforce a consensus, the only one here being that one album cover should be used and not two. Especially when I am talked down to as if I registered in January 2010 instead of February 2006.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, as the initiator of this discussion and one of its proponents, deciding what is the consensus and then enforcing it is really against the spirit of the Wikipedia community. And as another thing, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Arguably, there has been no consensus here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
"He who shouts loudest or the most is not automatically correct". Ryulong you have argued against every other point/user in the discussion. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people disagree with you and therefore a consensus does exist. Just because you have a counter-argument (often the same argument re-worded) and response for every opposition comment does not mean we can forever keep the discussion open. And the poll/survey is not substituting the discussion. It actually compliments it. In the summary paragraph i wrote i clearly pointed out and took information from the discussion its self. In particular i made references to arguments that two covers can sometimes be warranted but in this article's case it cannot be justified. Also no one was threatened i just made you aware that chosing to ignore a consensus can result and would result in an ANI report against you. There's nothing personal i'm just trying to uphold a consensus to which you appear to have completely ignored. Just the two cover debate if you feel that only te black and white cover should be used please start a new discussion about it. Until then the colour will be used as general practise on wikipedia and gaga articles. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New debate: which cover?

That is not the point now. The point is now which of the two covers makes this article better and I have stated my points for the promotional and digital cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
And that is fine. But unless there is a consensus to include the black and white cover the current discussion above indicates a preference and consensus for the colour cover. If you wish to debate which cover to use then please start a brand new discussion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No it does not. The "discussion" above was to determine whether or not two covers should be used, and it was decided that one shoul be used. No where in this massive thread is there any discussion as to whether or not one cover should be used over the other.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually i think you'll find a lot of people made comments such as I've never seen the digital cover over the physical cover etc. If you wish to discuss the covers do so in a seperate discussion because you will be seeking a different consensus. You see this consensus is over. You wish to find out whether "the majority of the community agrees that the 'digital' (black and white) cover should prevail over the colour one. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No. That was never stated. This thread only discussed one image over the other. Deciding which of the two images should be used can still use this thread to determine that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You fail to understand a consensus yet again. I posed the question of whether having two covers in the article is a breach of copyright or not. The result/answer to the question was yes/i agree. In the process people have pointed out that the physical cover is of more importance. Were comments by Legolas and FMRC1988 completely ignored by you? Especially comments by the latter even quote "i've never seen a case where the digital cover prevails over the physical one". We're dealing with two seperate issues. The first: two covers has been resolved. You wish to now discuss a seperate issue: which cover is of greater importance and should therefore be used in the article. that is a seperate issue because it will not change the outcome of the disucssion in the above section. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not failing to understand what a consensus is. What you are doing is assuming that the consensus that was determined was that the colored cover should be used and not the monochrome one. That's not what was decided at all. It was decided that only one album cover should be on the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

which i accept. And so in following with other gaga articles i automatically placed the colour version of the cover also taking into account all of the relevant comments made about each of the single covers. If you are unhappy say so ONCE then allow other's to speak on the matter. There is no need to keep writing responses to everysingle response. You've said why you think the black and white cover should be used fair enough. This section is an open discussion about it so let the discussion take place. In the mean time no more changes to the covers should take place.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There's obviously consensus to use the physical cover, per several points in this discussion. The monochrome one was simply temporary packaging only for radio/promo release. –Chase (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the grey color cover better.. the colorful one should be an alternate RainBell (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, Chase, there is no consensus for any cover. Just one of them and not two.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Look, Admit it, this is going nowhere. I cannot believe that it has gone this far. With debates and other stuff, what is all the fuss about?? I mean, you talk about official sources, why dont you research some? ok, so we go yo Lady Gaga's official sites. and the confirm both. [9] [10]. so why cant we use both? but I understand that we can only use one. so , the alternate cover is used n germany and UK right? but they also use the grey cover as the digital release. so lets find out what cover is the main single cover. ok. i went to a reliable source (the UK charts site) and what did I find? that the Remixes cover is the right cover. but they main single cover IS the grey one. The remix cover is the colored one, the grey one is the main single cover for the UK and the rest of the world [11]. Dont even start that its not a reliable source. its the music charts for most of the world. they wouldnt be there if they weren't accurate and reliable. so it comes down to, have both, or they grey cover. the colored one IS NOT the main cover, however is an official cover. (apaboutsims | cant login)--58.161.68.159 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

THAT IS NOT THE SINGLE COVER!!!!!

Stop posting that as the single cover! They gray one IS the current single cover. The source of that cover is just ladygaga.com, the only cover for Telephone on ladygaga.com IS the Remixes cover! That cover posted is FAKE! Put it back to what it was! --Sdoo493 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The cover currently here is on Amazon as an international CD single cover. –Chase (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's the page on Amazon. –Chase (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a big "[IMPORT]" on that page, seeing as its not the American release cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is on-going so please wait until an outcome for the consensus before changing the single cover. As per all gaga singles the coloured version is being used for consistancy and because in the past for gaga articles it was deemed that these are the true single covers. if a consensus decides otherwise i will gladly add the black and white one. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This "colored version" argument of yours makes no sense. This is the only instance where there has been a greyscale cover and a colored cover. All other articles have had colored artwork, but in this case the monochrome artwork is the one used for the promotional and digital singles which came out long before the colored cover which is used for the British and German CDs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok i will actually apologise for my wording. What i meant was that the promo sleeve/digital cover was replaced by the physical one in all other gaga singles. Does that now make more sense? Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, how many articles on Lady Gaga's music was this ever the case other than this one?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Poker face, Just Dance and LoveGame all had promo covers. LoveGame for example did not have a proper cover until the video was shot because the cover was actually taken from outakes/photoshoot on the video set. Also i previously gave examples of other singles where this happened e.g. Doesn't Mean Anything. Love Sex Magic, Battlefield, I Look to You, Morning After Dark, If We Ever Meet Again etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I say that a physical RELEASED item trumps a PROMO placeholder img every time.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Ryulong above: a digital cover for "Telephone" has not been released in the United States and the only physical single as of now will be the remix EP. So the fact that it is an international version is irrelevant; regardless, we are not America-biased. –Chase (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To try and help the situation this is what i've found in terms of covers and releases.

Monochrome Cover vs Coloured Cover

Ok in the above section there is a debate over whether the colour cover featuring both Beyoncé and Gaga is the true single cover or whether the monochrome cover featuring just Gaga is the proper single cover. Previous discussion found that the use of both covers could not be justified but obviously the article needs one cover for the infobox. Please comment on the debate above and to make it clear on what you think please voice your opinion in the survey below. This survey is non-consensus binding i.e. it will not be used to solely base the decision on but it will help inform the decision.


Survey removed Lilunique1 (i created it) because i accept its probably not the best way to resolve the current issue. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Not one of these stupid things again. A vote is not a substitute for consensus forming.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has taken place (though not as extensively as the discussion on how many covers to use, it still has been discussed), this survey is a visual representation of consensus. Please assume good faith and stop referring to things as "stupid". –Chase (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
And its outcome is going to determine the "consensus" again. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Consensus is determined solely by discussion and not by counting hands.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The relevant policy states that polling is not a substitution for discussion. Discussion has taken place and the poll serves as a visual representation of where the editors of this article stand on the issue. Please stop disrupting the discussion process. –Chase (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It's still a bloody vote. And LilUnique1 is going to use it again to decide THIS IS THE CONSENSUS. That is directly in violation of WP:VOTE. I'll follow with this farce, but I do not want it to be the sole deciding factor behind how this article is treated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not there was a poll in the last discussion, consensus was that multiple covers violates NFCC and discussion took place on that. Just because you didn't like the outcome did not mean that there was no consensus. And no, neither of these surveys are in violation of VOTE: the policy states that consensus cannot be determined by polling only (it cannot substitute for discussion). Discussion has taken place and this is a visual representation of the consensus. –Chase (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
VOTES ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF OR MAKE A CONSENSUS.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can sympathize with Ryulong's irritation. What on earth is an "official consensus" anyway? And why another table-driven vote? How about some discussion of the different uses of the images, and an effort to sway opinion one way or another using logic and persuasion?—Kww(talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The survey is just a visual interpretation of the results. It is recommended form of mediation. In the previous discussion due to its length it was difficult to work out the outcome. The survey is part of the discussion. It is means of stating whether people agree or not and then the discussion provides a justification of opinion/reasoning. the idea is that together it helps us make a fair decision. Ryulong keeps adding a counter-opinion to every response in the debate and even though there was a consensus to remove the additional cover he feels that he's been over-rided and now he's doing the same thing again. I believe this gives ample opinion and visusal representation to the debate.Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you truly at the point of mediation here? A point where normal discussion has proven fruitless? Ryulong is not a generally unreasonable editor. I've agreed with him on points before, and disagreed with him on points before, but he has always discussed things. He probably feels a bit steam-rollered on the "1 vs. 2 image" debate, and I can understand that, too: there wasn't an editor willing to engage the question of why this article is different from the numerous other articles with multiple covers. I don't have a problem with people concluding that the case was different, or maybe even that the article was being chosen as a test-case for a stricter interpretation of NFCC than normally prevails, but I don't see that anyone talked about what made this article different. The time for a vote is after deadlock has occurred, not in anticipation of one.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've edited articles with you before and i'm sure you know that i'm not an unreasonable editor either. I am going to remove the vote/table and allow the discussion to take place instead. But i would request that Ryulong refrains from making further changes to the cover in the article until the issue is resolved. i dont want this to become a war of opinion. it should be a discussion so in the interest of discussion and WP:good faith i want to make things more informal and less tense. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
In my defence i looked at the mediation page on wikipedia and took the survey idea from there to resolve the previous discussion but it's probably not appropriate in this discussion just yet. That much i do accept. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't have two covers.. I prefer the grey one, since it comes from the hedi slimane session and fits in a streak of TFM-era singles, and it is the digital cover. And the colored one is released physically in UK, well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RainBell (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
See the previous discussion – we can't use two non-free covers because having both won't increase readers' knowledge of the song (see WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a). The grayscale cover was the digital/promo cover, and later came the CD single cover (the colored cover with music video images). As consensus has dictated on other articles, promo covers are to be trumped by physical releases, as promos are generally considered "stand-ins" until a proper cover can be released. In this case, it would seem that Gaga's team wanted a cover with her and Knowles together but did not have one until the video was filmed. –Chase (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As Kww says, there's nothing that makes this article special such that it can't have two covers like nearly every other article on an album or single that has more than one cover. And we don't know which cover is "official". All we know is that one is used for the digital releases, and one is used for the European physical releases.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop dragging this on. Consensus was that we won't use two covers per WP:NFCC; NFCC violations other articles include are irrelevant. –Chase (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That was not a consensus. It was a vote. But I will abide by it, as you four have decided that this article should be different for whatever reason. I was going to say that you cannot speak forthe record label, but as that IP pointed out, the British recording industry seems to be using the greyscale cover to refer to the song in its charting and not the colored cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a circular argument Ryulong. The British recording industry are using that cover because it charted as a single an individual album download early last year and the promo cover was made available immediately when the song was released. After the video was made it was updated. I'm gonna try and put it in context. Sometimes when singles are announced they are first available to download on iTunes by themselves with a promo cover (e.g. telephone with monochrome cover). Then once a video is shot and remixes are made then a full single is released with a proper single cover. That clearly defines there being a difference between a download track (e.g. availble from tesco UK, and amazon inidividual downloads) against actual download singles (e.g. Amazon two-track CD etc., the remixes. all of which use the colour cover.) Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
And the Australian, Sweden, German, and the rest of charting industry? And no, that is not the case. Look at Eh Eh on that site [12]. they use both single covers because both are used equally. They are both used as the single cover for the digital download and cd single, and one is like the grey cover (the white and pink text one), and one thats just like the telephone cd single cover (the photo from the music video). However, because they are both used equally, they are both up there. The telephone cd singles are not used equally and are both not up there because, the colored one is an alternate cover art not a main one. If it were a main one it would share the single cover position like on eh eh. Also, you theory that after the video shoot and major release of the single being the one with the video screens as the cover is wrong. They may get additional images, but in the end its just an alternate cover. PLUS: i found this secret little find: [13]. should add that :) (apeaboutsims) (cant login)--61.68.185.98 (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

i wish we could change a pic for the telephone video section..

that three-part screenshot seriously distorted their faces and doesn't look too complimenting.. RainBell (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it not being complimenting -- Gaga looks fine and it's hard to take a bad photo of Beyoncé -- but I do agree that a different picture would suit the article better. Perhaps a screenshot from either the "Cook 'n Kill" or "Honey Bun" scenes would be more appropriate? The Mach Turtle (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Single Cover

Someone changed again the single cover. I tried to revert it, but I failed again badly (Paparazzi Déjà Vu...). Am I too stupid, or does Wikipedia really suck at that? Could someone please fix it? --It's Flo (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone's been uploading a new version at File:Telephone-LadyGaga.png.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The actual cover is the official. Check it here [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.54.227 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the single cover with a low quality one again as with all non-free media Low Quality images suffice and are within WP:NFCC rules. High quality breaches the policy of non-free media. It should correct itself in due course. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Size

Please can we be aware that the article currently stands at 54Kb which is 24kb above the recommended size at WP:Size and it is likely that the article will only get bigger. Please can you be mindful of this when adding new things to the article and where possible remove excess waste e.g. repeated sources, repeated words, duplicated quotes and information etc. This is not a trigger to open up the debate about having a seperate video page this is not required. Simply be mindful about only quoting the necessary part of the quotation. Don't forget not every user will have the latest computer system/internet connection. A page which is nearly 60kb is slow to load.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Official clean version: edited version?

There was an Official Clean version released. On that version there were blurs were added on some scenes and beeps were used to cover some of the dialogue in the the music video. I think that it should be mentioned in the article. We should mention that on the TV version the music video was censored and some scenes were cut off due to broadcasting standards but then again we might need to provide some article as reference right? Blueknightex (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

video

One of my friends told me that gaga's sister appears in the video, is this true? Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It has beeen reported online. If we find a credible source we can add it into the article.Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
New York Post and E! Online both report that Gaga's sister Natali has a cameo in the video. –Chase (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Then mention it 61.154.106.208 (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


the song is number one in brazil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hejhejdutch (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

however there is not a valid brazilian singles chart according to WP:record charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

number one UK download

Lady Gaga has topped the UK download chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number-one_music_downloads_(UK) AriandaGAGA (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Telephone_(song)/Archive_2&oldid=1142446377"