Talk:Artpop: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:54, 22 February 2014 editRenamed user 2423tgiuowf (talk \| contribs)1,781 edits →Critical Reception ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:09, 23 February 2014 edit undoHomeostasis07 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users15,483 edits →Critical Reception: RENext edit →
Line 168:		Line 168:
	::: What? You are so hard to understand sometimes. You are the only one edit warring, you have made three reverts within 24-hours, most of which did not even contain an edit summary. Yes, it is their "blog", blog=/=unreliable, it is just a common word to describe opinion pieces, when they are not necessarily reviews. And again, keep being paranoid, it's not gonna help you any. '''] <small>]</small>''' 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)		::: What? You are so hard to understand sometimes. You are the only one edit warring, you have made three reverts within 24-hours, most of which did not even contain an edit summary. Yes, it is their "blog", blog=/=unreliable, it is just a common word to describe opinion pieces, when they are not necessarily reviews. And again, keep being paranoid, it's not gonna help you any. '''] <small>]</small>''' 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::: An edit war by definition would HAVE to involve two separate people. He's initiated the edit war by changing the article without any logical reason to do so. The section that you are now attempting to discredit was published on the entertainment section of Forbes Magazine's website. A piece of material published by a major journal in no way constitutes a blog. This argument is completely nonsensical and you repeatedly threatening to block me will not do you any good as you're the one breaking wikipedia's guidelines here. Homeostasis went through and removed multiple sourced and quoted sections purely because they were positive and he personally felt that the review section was too positive based on his own ], which violates the original research guideline as well as the bias guideline. You can't go through and pick out positive reviews and delete them just because you feel like it. Those are sourced reviews, and you defending his obviously vandalistic actions seriously calls your own neutrality into question here. ] (]) 08:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)		:::: An edit war by definition would HAVE to involve two separate people. He's initiated the edit war by changing the article without any logical reason to do so. The section that you are now attempting to discredit was published on the entertainment section of Forbes Magazine's website. A piece of material published by a major journal in no way constitutes a blog. This argument is completely nonsensical and you repeatedly threatening to block me will not do you any good as you're the one breaking wikipedia's guidelines here. Homeostasis went through and removed multiple sourced and quoted sections purely because they were positive and he personally felt that the review section was too positive based on his own ], which violates the original research guideline as well as the bias guideline. You can't go through and pick out positive reviews and delete them just because you feel like it. Those are sourced reviews, and you defending his obviously vandalistic actions seriously calls your own neutrality into question here. ] (]) 08:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
			::::: I'm getting pretty sick of being called a "hater" by Lady Gaga fans, TBH. I don't hate Lady Gaga. I don't particularly feel one or the other about Lady Gaga personally. But I'm '''very''' aware that Lady Gaga articles are prone to a hell of a lot of ] (read Critical section of ] - you'd swear it was the best thing The Simpsons ever did, and not the then-fourth lowest rated episode in the entire shows history). I've grown accustomed to the fact that you can't remove all fancruft from her articles. I'm simply here to try and create a balance between the fancruft and the facts. The last paragraph of the critical reception field reads fine as it is right now. The stuff I removed from that paragraph:
			* "in a three-part piece for"
			* "and music journalists in general"
			* " in addition to following a "herd mentality" influenced by the blogosphere that resulted in reviews that "border on the incoherent""
			::::: What's the big deal, Reece, in removing those three lines? Also, I'm sure you'd need a separate source to support Nick's claim that the negative reviews were "bordering" on the "incoherent". The mixed reviews seem fairly coherent to almost every one else. ] (]) 01:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

	== #1 in Taiwan ==		== #1 in Taiwan ==

Revision as of 01:09, 23 February 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Artpop article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Albums

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Electronic music Low‑importance

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Lady Gaga Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Lady Gaga.

Template:Hidden infoboxes

Gold certificate in Spain

The gold certification is a FRAUDE. It hasn't been sold 20.000 copies but less than 8.000. It's been filtered the real Spain sales http://www.abc.es/cultura/musica/20131228/abci-fraude-industria-discografica-espaola-201312272217.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.178.240 (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really agree that it's "fraud", because it's pretty standard practise for most major record labels. They tend to over-ship albums in certain territories. You can even see several instances of that with ARTPOP - it was certified platinum in Canada , when it had sold just 25,000 copies; it was certified platinum in Japan , when it had sold just over 110,000 copies (Gold). Anyway, I'll include the sales figure in the certifications field - because the source seems notable enough. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

#3 in South Korea

http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/album.php This can be added! Please! JLeemans1 (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

#1 in Japan

No.1 in Japan, selling over 58.000 copies in its first week.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20131111-00000326-oric-musi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.90 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been added now. —Indian:BIO · 07:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

White Shadow interview

Gaga Producer: She Was a 'Glittery Mermaid' on 'ARTPOP' Sessions —Indian:BIO · 04:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

UK Charts

Lady Gaga is heading for her third UK No 1 album source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patry B. (talk • contribs) 07:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not officially confirmed. —Indian:BIO · 07:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a531426/lady-gagas-artpop-predicted-to-sell-75-percent-less-than-born-this-way.html and http://www.lacapital.com.ar/escenario/Artpop-el-album-de-Lady-Gaga-que-llego-rodeado-de-obstaculos--20131114-0024.html from La Capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.165.231 (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Critical Reception

The source that has been cited for this section is Metacritic, which states that the album has received "generally favorable reviews". The argument has been made that there are more mixed than positive reviews listed on the site, but from what I can see from other album pages (Prism (Katy Perry album), etc.) who have received more mixed reviews than positive on Metacritic actually go by the overall weighted average in their listed critical consensus. "Generally positive reviews" is listed on the Katy Perry page and this standard should be reflected here as they are both listed as receiving "generally favorable reviews" on Metacritic. The standard is the weighted score, not the sheer number of articles. Reece Leonard 10:42 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments do not work and will not get you anywhere. See the Metacritic link, the album received twice as many mixed reviews then positive, and is only about one mixed review away from dipping to 59, which it would then change their summary to generally "mixed". You should be happy that we do not just label it as just mixed, as I am thinking that is what we should do. I mean it is not hard to find other multiple reliable sources saying it received mixed, negative, mixed, mixed, and mixed reviews. This looks like a pretty open and shut case to me, unless you are not editing with a neutral point of view, and just want it to be labeled with only having positive reviews, which is frankly factually incorrect. @Smarty9108:, @Sven Manguard: any additional comments? STATic message me! 06:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Um why are you mentioning me? I was just making sure they didn't change the reception to Positive, check your accusations at the door sir, and see this is things I GET. Smarty9108 talk 7:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, he is mentioning you because you are already involved in the dispute. If you also became involved by reverting a change while using Huggle (which is how I wound up involved in this), then I fail to see why you're getting angry, or indeed where you see an accusation at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You added the hidden note, so I assumed you had an opinion on the situation, all my comments were refering to the OP, so I do not understand where all the hostility is coming from. STATic message me! 07:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We gotta problem?, Okay, listen sorry for my cheap behavior or whatever, bye. User:Smarty9108 (talk) 7:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't view 60% as being generally positive. Metacritic splits ratings into three numerical groups for ease of color coding, but we don't have to follow those breaks ourselves. In the context of music, I equate 60% to something around three stars out of five, which is "decent, but not great" territory. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

not angry, it was more like "What did I do? :worried:", but I agree the album should be mixed, if you view the critics reviews and rating listed in the article of course. User:Smarty9108 (talk) 7:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

But on this website we DO follow Metacritic's rating system, which in this case lists the album as receiving generally positive reviews. "You should be happy that we do not just label it as just mixed" - What on earth are you talking about? Your personal opinions have no place here. This is wikipedia, where we adhere to the sources listed, which, in this case, lists the album as having received generally positive reviews. Mentioning other articles that make it obvious that we adhere to Metacritic's weighted score for the sake of uniformity is relevant and for you to claim otherwise based purely on your personal opinions of what YOU think the album should be listed as reminds me of other issues you've caused in the past when it comes to Gaga articles, namely when multiple other users had to engage in a lengthy debate with you over whether or not the Venus (Lady Gaga song) article was to be listed as a single/promotional single, in which you likewise claimed that your personal opinion was superior to sourced fact. This is unprofessional and incorrect. The weighted score is based on the fact that some publications are larger and get more of a voice when it comes to reviews, something that we adhere to on wikipedia. The consensus is "generally favorable reviews" and this should be reflected here, end of story. If you'd like me to link you to the multiple other album pages where this is proven to be the standard, I will do so. Reece Leonard 12:49 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is this made up guideline that says to always follow Metacritic's color coding? There is none. I am implying that you are letting your personal opinion or the artist or album get in the way, I have no opinion of Gaga or her music, I am just making sure facts and common sense are followed in the article. Bringing up other articles and other situations do not change the discussion one bit, so you are kind of wasting your time arguing that. We do not blindly follow Metacritic's sometime inaccurate summary, I just provided more multiple reliable sources that say the album only received mixed reviews, nothing about being positive. Unless you can find more reliable sources saying the album received overwhelmingly positive reviews, I suggest we only label it with receiving mixed reviews. Metacritic clearly says that it received twice as much mixed reviews then positive reviews. STATic message me! 19:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We should not base a generalisation based solely on a single website. Commonsence (and the ability to read) shows that "mixed to positive" is correct. Yes, at the extremes there has been some calling it the end of her career but none calling it the best thing since sliced bread. Within the usual review sites - newspapers, music magazines etc. - even those who are praising the album or awarding a high star rating have also offered very harsh critique of the album and artist. The telegraph for example gave 4/5 stars but called the album unoriginal and criticized yet another fame based album. Digital spy also gave 4/5 but was even harsher calling the songs "half-finished plagues". When even the positive critics are that harsh.... with friends like that who needs enemies! Frankly "mixed to positive" could be on the polite side. But to declare it universally positive is just deluded. Writing it on wikipedia isn't going to make it true... --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are a list of pages that adhere to the style of generalization (It's spelled with a z, by the way. Don't make catty remarks about my reading comprehension and then proceed to misspell words and phrase sentences in a nonsensical manner like "could be polite side". What would be "delusional" would be your operating under the opinion that your synthesized narrative is more relevant here than a site that presents a weighted average of all major publications and assigns a consensus based on actual fact, not pure conjecture).

Prism

Take Me Home

MDNA

These are just a few of Gaga's pop contemporaries who's pages adhere to the style I've proposed we implement here. All have received a large number of mixed reviews on Metacritic but have "generally positive" listed as the consensus because that IS the consensus of the collective. This isn't some trivial website; it's the largest, most credible and successful site that compounds all major reviews from credible sources into a collective consensus, a site that is always listed on every major album page on wikipedia. Its consensus should be the basis of that that is listed here. The page should say "generally positive reviews" because it HAS received generally positive reviews; mixed reviews almost always compare her favorably to her contemporaries in terms of substance and innovation and the weighted score based on the idea that certain publications' opinions are more valid than others, contests to that. Your personal view of the critical trajectory is irrelevant. The consensus has been reached and refusing to acknowledge it is counterintuitive to the accuracy of this page.

No one is advocating for a "universally positive" label. It should read "generally positive", possibly with a disclaimer if you absolutely have to address the fact that there are detractors; "The album received generally positive reviews but saw less praise than Gaga's previous work" would work to adhere to the summation of the reviewing collective and address your complaints about the larger amount of mixed reviews for this album than her previous albums. A simple "mixed" listing would be nonsensical seeing as how the consensus is listed as "generally favorable". Reece Leonard 01:40 02 December 2013 (UTC)

"Generally positive" LOL. If we're using Metacritic as the key source, it should state it received "mostly mixed reviews", as on Metacritic it has 20 mixed and only 9 positive.
Also "Generalisation" is correct with a S OR a Z. Z is more commonly used in the US, but both are in the dictionary.... Perhaps when you crack open the dictionary, you also look up "consensus" ;-)

I'm going to ignore the unsigned and vandalistic message above and move on to more pressing matters: I've just been threatened with being blocked from making edits on the grounds that my efforts to change the consensus on this page don't align with user STATicVapor's, after bringing in another source to back up my claims. (x) This hypocrisy and blatant disregard for the facts in favor of this individual's synthesized narrative are unquestionable. You cannot deny the facts to buoy your own biased opinion. The consensus has been reached and it doesn't match your own perception and you're unhappy about that; get over it. Stop making baseless threats (you cannot block someone on the grounds of a conflict of interest, so you can just stop throwing that out there. This is not an example of disruptive editing), act like a professional, and adhere to the sources. Update: This user is also now going back and attempting to revert multiple of my other edits on projects unrelated to this page. Reece Leonard 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Five different editors disagreed with you, yet you continued to disruptively add it. Ignoring clear consensus to add the same contested content, is a blockable offense. Five different users are not an individual, so I do not even know how to respond to your complete lack of sense and literacy. Actually, if you would have added it again, and you were reported a block would have clearly came. You have been edit warring on a lot of pages recently, and immediately removing the warnings from your talk page does not make you look innocent at all. Also about your last sentence, go ahead and keep making up stuff. STATic message me! 01:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus on this page is unsourced and untrue; there are now multiple, factual sources that discredit this supposed consensus. I've made no attempts to make myself look "innocent", so I don't know what you're talking about there. As I've said repeatedly; the sources are not in your favor. Five people with internet access can't change the facts no matter how many times they state their disagreement on a wikipedia talk page. I'd also like to point out that no one had responded to my previous point on here with any kind of factual rebuttal in four months and I did come back and re-add my edit with more sources as you explicitly asked, so... Reece Leonard 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A source for consensus? What in the world are you talking about. Metacritic clearly proves that over twice as many reviews were mixed, the "overall score" means nothing when it clearly shows that more reviews were mixed. Also, I looked at the HPost source, and it only takes 10 early reviews of the album and in no way summarizes the overall reception of the album. Actually, you might want to read WP:CONSENSUS, four experienced editors disagreeing you is what matters, do not keep twisting the facts, reception was mixed. Not a single editor has agreed with you. Yes, you came back and ANOTHER editor reverted you, yet you again revert back violating WP:BRD. STATic message me! 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from a previous debate I've had with the above commentator who refused to respond other than to tell me to "stop bugging" and that he "wouldn't change mind", despite my repeatedly proving his above statements to be entirely without merit, proving that he is working in the interest of his own opinion and not in the pursuit of factual representation:

"I've stated, multiple times now, that a focus on the number of categorical reviews is an overly simplistic approach that Metacritic itself does not adhere to. The source that you claim to be citing undermines your argument; Metacritic presents a mathematically calculated weighted score based on the philosophy that large journals such as Entertainment Weekly, Billboard, etc. have accrued more integrity over their run and, in turn, have more bearing on the ultimate consensus, which is why the consensus reads "generally favorable reviews". According to your logic (again, that Metacritic does not adhere to), small blog-based start-up sites that have a history of false reporting (the Examiner, to give an example) would be given equal weight in deciding the consensus as an established and respected journal like Entertainment Weekly. I've spelled this issue out multiple times, but instead of responding to it with sources or even measured argument, you've resorted to repeating your original argument of "Numbers!!!!! More mixed reviews!!! That's all that matters!!!" and threatening to block me from editing for questioning your own viewpoint of the critical consensus that blatantly ignores the consensus listed on the only source you have. In regards to the other wikipedia users who have agreed with you; you have to admit that their arguments are rarely coherent and ultimately repeat the same talking-point of "there are more mixed reviews listed and that's all that matters" that I've already raised issue with. Rushton2010 spouted off his own personal narrative based on his research in reading the reviews (a practice you've accused me of in the past and pointed out was against the guidelines of wikipedia); the others acted on similar lines (Sven Manguard gave his own personal interpretation of a 60% Metacritic score, again, against the policies of wikipedia in your own words, as did Smarty9108). You keep redirecting me to various guideline pages in the hopes that that will make you out to seem like the educated veteran dealing with a persistent and ignorant nuisance, but the fact is the page on consensus states, and I quote: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." - You've discussed your own personal interpretation of one source (that the source doesn't concur with) and I've given you another valid one from a respectable journal that lists multiple different reviews and draws the conclusion that the consensus was positive and instead of responding to that in any way (other than calling it an "early" list of reviews when you've previously attempted to use smaller, lesser sources that not only didn't refer to other reviews, but that were published on dates on or very close to the date that my new source was published to support your factually inaccurate opinion of the consensus), you just repeated your original argument of "Numbers!!! More mixed reviews!! That's all that matters!!" again. I came back four months later (after being ignored in the talk page for that duration of time; how do you expect me to react if I can't engage in debate to make the truth available for your consumption?) and attempted to assert my factually sourced consensus with a new source and you responded with a threat. I've laid out the facts. The consensus is generally positive. Not unanimously positive, not simply "positive", but generally positive. That's not me saying that, it's the source you claim to be citing and The Huffington Post. End of story. (Sidenote: most of the "mixed" reviews on Metacritic are 60, AKA one point below positive, and have obvious positive leanings, but that's too obvious and lengthy to go into detail about. I won't go into detail on the numerous critics who have taken issue with the biased and unintelligible reviews that critics gave the album as that's not the issue here, but that is also something to take into account.)"

Obviously I took issue with every point he raised and disproved them as conjecture and he ultimately just refused to discuss the issue anymore because he knew he had no case. Again: The consensus has not been agreed upon. It has been proven to be generally positive a million different ways (here is the Entertainment Weekly source I listed early that further proves my claims: x. This page is flawed and needs correcting. Reece Leonard (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Metacritic and the overall reviews listed there, it seems like that this album barely passed the positive level of reception, so mixed to positive is a very good consensus I believe. Reece, you need to read what Static has written and I have to agree with him, though I usually disagree with him, lol. Experienced or not, there is simply no other way to call the overall reception as wholly positive, because its not. People who follow music related news can simply blurt it out for you. —Indian:BIO · 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As I've stated multiple times above, I'm not advocating for a "wholly positive" consensus. "Generally positive" implies that there are dissenting opinions and that the ultimate trend falls toward the positive even with these dissenters; this is what the sources say, and what you just admitted is the case. The album's score is in the "positive level of reception". That's indisputable. If there needs to be a disclaimer referencing the slightly ambivalent nature of the critical response, then fine. "The album received generally positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work" would further address these issues and dispel with the inaccurate and factually unfounded "mixed-to-positive" consensus currently stated. I can assure you I've read every word he's written and discredited it above in my response. I don't write that amount of text in response to someone if I'm don't read their statements first and find significant fault with them. Reece Leonard (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that they have not been generally positive, when twice as many have been mixed. And I can assure you you have not discredited any single point a single person has said here, yet alone mine. You just write a lot about the same bull, and run around in circles, saying not much of anything that has any weight. STATic message me! 06:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're projecting; you just described, point for point, what you're doing. I've raised numerous issues with the logic behind what you're ascribing to this page (the fact that Metacritic, the source you claim to be citing, doesn't base its consensus off of the number of reviews in each category but off of the weighted average of the reviews listed and has come up with a consensus of "generally favorable", and the fact that twelve of the reviews categorized as mixed are literally one percentage point from being labeled as entirely positive and are obviously not simply "mixed" reviews) and in response, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again about how many reviews are in the mixed category, as if that changes the fact that you're picking and choosing information from one source that ultimately states, point blank, the opposite of the consensus you're for arguing here. The Huffington Post also gave a round-up, sourcing multiple reviews, and stated that the consensus was positive. That would mean that two separate sources concur with my viewpoint, including the one you're attempting to cite. And then you tell me that I'm biased, an unproven and untrue fact, when I'm giving you sources as opposed to your giving me your own personal summation of the reviews, which violates the guidelines on the WP:OR page. Also, more attention needs to be given to the fact that this is an album page that doesn't have a genre listed (an obvious issue). I've brought this up in the proper section.Reece Leonard (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed because Third Opinions are only for disputes involving exactly two editors. If you still need dispute resolution, consider DRN, MEDCOM, or a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic indicates that the album received 21 mixed reviews and 9 positive reviews, now why in the world would we say it received generally positive reviews, when over twice as many were mixed. I never had a problem with listing it as mixed to positive, but listing it as generally positive is just ridiculous and not adhering to a WP:NPOV. The other source brang up by the Reece, was a cherry picked source that states only 10 of the album's reviews, some of which were positive. But the source did not say it received generally positive reviews, so more WP:OR on his/her part. As I said earlier in this thread; it is not hard to find multiple reliable sources saying it received mixed, negative, mixed, mixed, and mixed reviews that also summarize the album's critical reception. STATic message me! 22:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Static, what is your thought on the one liner present in the article at this moment? Do you support "mostly positive"? I was thinking another thing. The general consensus showed a decline in Metacritic for Gaga albums, can we include this as a means of representing the true facts? —Indian:BIO · 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

'The album received mostly positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work'? Reece Leonard (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a bitch doctor, but really, I think the entire Critical reception field is entirely too positive as it is. We're all here debating about the Metacritic line, when really the entire section should be up for consideration. For an album with the sort of critical reception ARTPOP has received, the Critical reception field should at least have 1 positive paragraph, 1 neutral/mixed paragraph, and one negative paragraph. But, as it is right now: it has 1 very positive paragraph, 1 neutral paragraph with many positive inclinations, and one more neutral/slightly-negative paragraph with some more positive one-liners thrown in at the end. Only 1 negative review is currently included. But then we have that whole fourth Forbes-paragraph at the end, claiming that all the negative reviews were just BS. It's all VERY one-sided, and needs to be re-written. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're operating on your own WP:OR and you've repeatedly committed acts of WP:Vandalism by removing sourced information without consulting this talk page. Everything in the critical reception section is sourced and factual and will not be tailored to your personal viewpoint of the album's reception. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

First up, don't accuse me of vandalism. I don't particularly care about the over-all internet reception of this album. I care about the source-able reception of this album, which this article doesn't currently adhere to. If you want to make some massive deal about me removing some GRAMMATICALLY-incorrect material from this article, then so be it. People who investigate the edits can see: I was removing some nonsense about "reliance on the noise" from some blog that shouldn't have been included on this article in the first place. The original point of my above post still stands. The entire Critical reception field needs to be re-done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Forbes Magazine is not "some blog". If you care about what's source-able, why are you removing direct quotes from established journals that are exclusively positive? That's bias, plain and simple, and removing sourced information without reason is WP:Vandalism. And seeing as how this debate has been going on for over five months and no one else has raised these issues, I'll ask that you leave your personal opinions out of this page. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

blog.forbes.com/sites/nickmessitte/ is certainly a blog. And I've provided more than ample reason why the entire thing should be removed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The url is actually "http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmessitte/" . Sticking "blog." in front of it obviously doesn't make sense. That url is of the specific contributor who wrote the piece that was published in Forbes Magazine. Please stop wasting my time and taking up room on this page trying to justify your obvious WP:Bias and WP:OR. You're not listing any sources to claim that the critical reception section needs to be re-written and you removing exclusively positive sourced information is WP:Vandalism. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your previous edit disrupted a much lengthier reply I was attempting to make: the jist of it was - stop trying to recreate entire WP policy on Metacritic to suit your own needs. Either accept Metacritic for what it is (accepting the album for what it's been reviewed for), or leave it alone. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You've now completely changed what you were originally saying! I don't believe you've read every past argument I've made on this page as my responses are lengthy and have addressed this issue multiple times. Forgive me if I don't take advice from someone who has repeatedly vandalized the page at hand to suit his own negative biases. Adhere to the sources listed (including Metacritic, which states that the album has received generally favorable reviews) and stop vandalizing this page. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So, back to important matters. Is "mostly positive" acceptable for you STATic, as IndianBio has suggested? Reece Leonard (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No it is very much not acceptable. Reviews were not "mostly positive" or generally positive, they were "mixed" or "mixed to positive", without a mention of it being mixed which is clear by Metacritic, is not editing with a WP:NPOV. For the record Homeostasis07's removals made sense, it was just unnecessary blabber used to make the reviews seem more positive. STATic message me! 03:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they did not make sense and you reverting them in favor of him is the exact opposite of what you did in the past when you reverted the article back to your original standing when I attempted to change the consensus to generally positive. You can't claim that the one inciting an edit war is at fault one time and then claim that the one who is responding to the one inciting the edit war is at fault whenever it benefits your opinion. His edits were nonsensical as he accused Forbes Magazine of being a blog and deleted sourced quotes from reliable articles. Your edits are becoming increasingly nonsensical in pursuit of opposing me. Reece Leonard (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What? You are so hard to understand sometimes. You are the only one edit warring, you have made three reverts within 24-hours, most of which did not even contain an edit summary. Yes, it is their "blog", blog=/=unreliable, it is just a common word to describe opinion pieces, when they are not necessarily reviews. And again, keep being paranoid, it's not gonna help you any. STATic message me! 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

An edit war by definition would HAVE to involve two separate people. He's initiated the edit war by changing the article without any logical reason to do so. The section that you are now attempting to discredit was published on the entertainment section of Forbes Magazine's website. A piece of material published by a major journal in no way constitutes a blog. This argument is completely nonsensical and you repeatedly threatening to block me will not do you any good as you're the one breaking wikipedia's guidelines here. Homeostasis went through and removed multiple sourced and quoted sections purely because they were positive and he personally felt that the review section was too positive based on his own WP:OR, which violates the original research guideline as well as the bias guideline. You can't go through and pick out positive reviews and delete them just because you feel like it. Those are sourced reviews, and you defending his obviously vandalistic actions seriously calls your own neutrality into question here. Reece Leonard (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty sick of being called a "hater" by Lady Gaga fans, TBH. I don't hate Lady Gaga. I don't particularly feel one or the other about Lady Gaga personally. But I'm very aware that Lady Gaga articles are prone to a hell of a lot of WP:Fancruft (read Critical section of Lisa Goes Gaga - you'd swear it was the best thing The Simpsons ever did, and not the then-fourth lowest rated episode in the entire shows history). I've grown accustomed to the fact that you can't remove all fancruft from her articles. I'm simply here to try and create a balance between the fancruft and the facts. The last paragraph of the critical reception field reads fine as it is right now. The stuff I removed from that paragraph:

"in a three-part piece for"
"and music journalists in general"
" in addition to following a "herd mentality" influenced by the blogosphere that resulted in reviews that "border on the incoherent""

What's the big deal, Reece, in removing those three lines? Also, I'm sure you'd need a separate source to support Nick's claim that the negative reviews were "bordering" on the "incoherent". The mixed reviews seem fairly coherent to almost every one else. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

#1 in Taiwan

http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard2.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.90 (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Charts

Greece: http://www.ifpi.gr/charts_en.html JLeemans1 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ARTPOP Certified Gold in Argentina

Well, I added the Argentinian Gold Certification for ARTPOP but someone just revert it for no reasons, so someone add it please: SOURCES: Universal Music - Lady Gaga's discography/distributor on its official web page (http://www.universalmusic-conosur.com/), Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152021151427208&set=a.446186627207.248357.95746867207&type=1) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/UMArgentina/status/406077012365680640) TN - TV Channel news, part of Clarin (the best-selling newspaper in the country) http://tn.com.ar/musica/hoy/lady-gaga-con-todo-ya-es-un-exito-artpop-en-la-argentina_423978 TKM Magazine - One of the best-selling teens magazine http://www.mundotkm.com/hot-news-162024-artpop-es-disco-de-oro-en-argentina — Preceding unsigned comment added by HC 5555 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert it for no reason, I reverted it because you haven't provided a source from the certification agency.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

ARTPOP reach #6 position in Greece

Review that..!!! http://www.cyta.gr/el/IFPI — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlitosFabri (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Aura is the next single

http://artpopnews.wikispaces.com/home

This link shows an interview with Gaga confirming Aura as the next single, blah blah blah, and all that stuff! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDBiggestFan (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This does not seem like a reliable source to me. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's not up for you to decide! It's right there! TDBiggestFan (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What's right there is that the interview is behind a registration-wall. That doesn't inherently make it unreliable, but the hosting on wikispaces does. I agree with Another Believer that the source is not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaga Gold in Argentina.

Here is the link http://tn.com.ar/musica/hoy/lady-gaga-con-todo-ya-es-un-exito-artpop-en-la-argentina_423978

TN is one of the most important news channel in Argentina. (Is in spanish) Gold: 20000 Units.

Plus. She's 8 in the monthly charts of CAPIF Argentina. You can see it here:

http://www.capif.org.ar/rankings.aspx

THank YOu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.187.249 (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

missing producer

madeon is not listed as producer on:

"Mary Jane Holland" and "Gypsy"

as well as co-producer on "Venus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.179.81 (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Genre

Please don't change the genre to opinions. The current citation in the infobox has a quote to support the genre. We can't call genres what we want as genre is subjective. Per WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:SUBJECTIVE, don't change this unless you have sources discussing what the album as a whole sounds like. Not just individual songs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several things wrong in what you have posted. All these talks about OR and RS, you have I believe, understood and abided by the Billboard link so vehemently that you have missed out on important points.

Firstly, the link does not say that the album is pop, it talks about how the release of an album is thought off as an entity, rather than a single product. She's a pop artist, who releases pop album, ergo the misconception of genre. See how the line is open to interpretation?

Secondly, it clearly talks about synthpop being an overall genre with the line .." the sexuality and synth-pop pleasures of "ARTPOP" fully bloom". Now this is a much more direct line that talks about the over all genre, rather than some vague line above. Remember, no review generally writes, "Album X is in the genre A,B,C". You can call it ass false interpretation all you want, however, with the "Pop" genre added, you just did that as well.

Lastly, EDM is said as an overall sound of the album in more than one source, and Idolator is a reliable source, whether some users like it or not. Prove it its unreliable, else desist.

Another thing I found out, there are other genres also as pointed out by Toronto Sun, ...It flits between genres - the EDM wubba-wubba of Aura, the space-sex disco of Venus, the handclap R&B of Manicure, the hip-hop menace of Jewels n' Drugs, the industrial grind of Swine, the Broadway balladry of Dope, the dance-rock of Mary Jane Holland, the new wave of Applause, even a dash of Born This Way's heartland rock in Gypsy. All of them point me to AllMsic, which calls the overall genre as Pop-rock. I don't know how reliable we consider AllMusic for over all genre though. —Indian:BIO · 16:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

True, it goes about different genres per song, but the infobox is for the genre of the album, not individual songs. So just naming random genres that represent individual songs doesn't help the reader. I suggest either leaving it as vague (you'd find Lady Gaga in a pop music section of a store). Either that or leave the infobox empty and explain it in prose. If it were up to me, I'd remove the genre section away from the infobox everywhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Andrzejbanas:, thanks for your reply. I'm afraid you might have misunderstood me. The source, which you are using for the "pop" genre, I had explained that it is not calling the album as being in the "pop" genre. It is instead describing the release process and the roar surrounding all pop releases. Hence, using that source to call the album pop is not correct IMO. However, the one below, where the synthpop is mentioned, if you read carefully, it is not describing the song "Sexxx Dreams". Instead it is saying that it is in the song where the synthpop ambitions of the album comes full circle, meaning it is at its strongest there. So we have to discuss that and other reliable sources directly saying it as genre. —Indian:BIO · 03:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough about the pop comment, but having "synth pop" ambitions and apparently only having them accomplished one one song isn't strong either. So I don't think it's strong enough there either. Personally, I think the article itself gives enough description of each song to give the user an idea of what sound the album has. We've done this before with some other Katy Perry article. What do you think about that? Also, thanks for actually going to the talk page and not making this into a mass edit war. Much appreciated! :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this issue hasn't been resolved; the article has no genre listed. This is a problem. In the production section, the album is described as adhering to an electronic landscape and would suggest that the genre would fit into the electronic and pop categories. If nothing else, SOME genre should be decided on as a placeholder until a consensus can be reached. An album page cannot lack a genre.Reece Leonard (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

|- !scope="row"|Illegal chart entered Switzerland (Romandie)||1

http://lescharts.ch/weekchart.asp?cat=a&year=2013&date=20131124

80.218.212.110 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done The request is unclear as to what needs to be done. —Indian:BIO · 06:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lyrically, the album references Greek and Roman mythology, English novelist George Orwell, and classic jazz and electronic musician Sun Ra

Hello, Here's Gaga team, Haus of Gaga, we love Misplaced Pages page, please, to our concepts, Lady Gaga never read George Orwell books, and she does not have any consent about the reference, Criminal of Though is something about being convicted with a love one, so please remove it, there's no references to the great Orwell, though her team admires him. 179.236.73.59 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a specific reference to Orwell or his works in either of the sources cited for that sentence in the intro. Does anybody else see them? Otherwise, I'll strike Orwell. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I just removed it. Cannot have WP:OR in the lead. —Indian:BIO · 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, IB. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Taiwanese Albums

ARTPOP is number one again on the Taiwanese Albums Chart again. Biagio2103 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Source? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

http://lescharts.ch/weekchart.asp?cat=a&year=2013&date=20131124 77.58.120.172 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the Romandie chart as opposed to the main chart? For that week, the album was #2 on the Schweizer Hitparade. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done Please explain more clearly what it is that you want to be edited. —Indian:BIO · 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Cyprus Album Charts

Please can you add on the charts the Cyprus album charts, were Artpop peaked at number 2? This is the link: http://cyprusmusiccharts.com/charts/official-cyprus-charts/ These charts are new, and are the official album charts based on retail sales of the major record shops in Cyprus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyprus2014 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If they are new, who has recognized them as official? WP:BADCHARTS lists a radio chart as deprecated but doesn't address a sales chart. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

China

ARTPOP is number four on China Albums Charts . Biagio2103 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: GLAAD

I think I saw that Lady Gaga and the album received a GLAAD nomination for quality music. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Homeostasis07

@Homeostasis07: Repeatedly removing positive quotes from critical reception page that are sourced and verified? Obvious bias and vandalism? Reece Leonard (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Explained in Critical Reception topic. And, BTW, two reverts doesn't equate a separate topic on a talk page. Because you're losing the debate in the Critical reception topic, doesn't mean you should drag up any other issues here for sympathy. I'm not a "hater" - I want this article to reflect truth. Removing some nonsensical quotes about "reliance on the noise" doesn't make a vandal. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? You're not advocating for anything other than your own biased viewpoint of what the reviews have been while removing sourced information? You don't get to come in and rewrite an entire section just because you feel like it, especially when you're removing quotes from reliable sources. And I'm not "losing a debate". Leave your personal attacks and personal bias aside or you will be recommended for blocking. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 01:09, 23 February 2014

Gold certificate in Spain

#3 in South Korea

#1 in Japan

White Shadow interview

More links for future

UK Charts

Critical Reception

#1 in Taiwan

Charts

ARTPOP Certified Gold in Argentina

ARTPOP reach #6 position in Greece

Aura is the next single

Gaga Gold in Argentina.

missing producer

Genre

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Taiwanese Albums

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

Cyprus Album Charts

China

Reminder: GLAAD

Homeostasis07