This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bad Romance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 40 days
![]() |
![]() | Bad Romance is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Bad Romance is part of the The Fame Monster series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Armadillo shoe was copied or moved into Bad Romance with this edit on August 2, 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
— Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 19:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
FrB.TG Hey! I see that you're working on this article, which is very cool - good work! But I see also that you removed various things from "Release history" section. And when I'd agree of removal of eBay, then I don't get why you removed French and Italian radio impact dates - they were sourced by sites agreed to be reliable (Pure Charts, EarOne). From what I see, Fnac is not user-generated, but I might be wrong about it. infsai ( talkie? UwU) 01:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I have removed File:Lady Gaga BR GMA.jpg from the "Critical reception" section. I had discussed this in the article's FAC and my rationale is an image of a live performance is not relevant to a section about reviews. An image used in this section should be related to the actual prose, and I do not see the connection. The image seems more decorative than informative in my opinion. I am pinging the editor who removed the image (@ Sricsi: with this edit) as well as the FAC nominator (@ FrB.TG:).
I do not see a clear rationale for Sricsi's edit, but I want to hear from them and give them the space to discuss this further. To answer their edit summary, there are plenty of song FAs from the past two or three decades that only use a single performance image. See articles like " Blank Space", " Shake It Off", " Dance in the Dark", etc. I am posting this on the talk page as I want to open a dialogue about this point rather than just remove and potentially cause further issues. Open communication and discussion is vital for Wikipedia and I want to make sure I do my part in keeping that up. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Aoba47: You cannot compare this article to " Dance in the Dark", which could not present more performance images even if we wanted to. It's a rather short article, and we don't even have any other good quality photos of Gaga singing that song. Of course there is one picture in use in an article, when there is no more than that available. "Bad Romance" is the singer's signature song, and therefore we have an abundance of images where the song is being performed. Obviously, I'm not suggesting to put all of them in the article, I was not even against to the reasoning to remove the other photo from the Live performances section, because one photo can be enough for that section. But we cannot put aside the aesthetics of the article. It's simply better to look at and easiser to read if we are not scrolling through long blocks of text without any visual supplements.
You mentioned some featured articles that only include one performance images, but what does that prove? I can mention featured articles that have more than one: Halo (Beyoncé song) has one in the Critical reception section, as well. Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) has three performance images in various sections.
And by this logic, should we start removing pictures of performances from other articles, and leaving only one? Do you find it equally preposterous that there is an image in the critical reception section of ArtRave: The Artpop Ball; that there is one in the Commercial performance section of Ray of Light; that someone put images in the critical and commercial responce sections of Like a Prayer (song)?
I would get your point if I had an agenda of overfoowing the article with an abundance of pictures where Gaga is performing "Bad Romance" (we have a crazy amount of images available from Wikimedia), but that's not my goal at all. Also: the article looked a certain way for over 10 years, went through so many edits, and everybody was okay with it. Then it was abruptly changed during the Featured article nomination process due to your suggestion, without bringing it to the Talk page then, and now it concerns you that we should have an open discussion? I am open for replacing the image to any other one that you think better fits the article, or rephrasing the caption that it better fits the section/article. But I can't accept that an article's featured status means that it has to be plain blocks of text. -- Sricsi ( talk) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
If we had a good quality image of Gaga singing BR at the Super Bowl I would agree with that, but you do know all we have is one subpar image: [1]
Frankly, an article with featured status should not include a photo with such poor quality. I would then suggest we add a second image to the Live performances section. The previous photo was removed due to WP:SANDWICH, but we have a wide array of photos to choose from that would better fit the outlook of the text. -- Sricsi ( talk) 13:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That seems amazing, I agree with IB. By the way, the image from the Chromatica Ball is beautiful and has good quality. GagaNutella talk 11:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bad Romance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 40 days
![]() |
![]() | Bad Romance is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Bad Romance is part of the The Fame Monster series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Armadillo shoe was copied or moved into Bad Romance with this edit on August 2, 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
— Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 19:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
FrB.TG Hey! I see that you're working on this article, which is very cool - good work! But I see also that you removed various things from "Release history" section. And when I'd agree of removal of eBay, then I don't get why you removed French and Italian radio impact dates - they were sourced by sites agreed to be reliable (Pure Charts, EarOne). From what I see, Fnac is not user-generated, but I might be wrong about it. infsai ( talkie? UwU) 01:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I have removed File:Lady Gaga BR GMA.jpg from the "Critical reception" section. I had discussed this in the article's FAC and my rationale is an image of a live performance is not relevant to a section about reviews. An image used in this section should be related to the actual prose, and I do not see the connection. The image seems more decorative than informative in my opinion. I am pinging the editor who removed the image (@ Sricsi: with this edit) as well as the FAC nominator (@ FrB.TG:).
I do not see a clear rationale for Sricsi's edit, but I want to hear from them and give them the space to discuss this further. To answer their edit summary, there are plenty of song FAs from the past two or three decades that only use a single performance image. See articles like " Blank Space", " Shake It Off", " Dance in the Dark", etc. I am posting this on the talk page as I want to open a dialogue about this point rather than just remove and potentially cause further issues. Open communication and discussion is vital for Wikipedia and I want to make sure I do my part in keeping that up. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Aoba47: You cannot compare this article to " Dance in the Dark", which could not present more performance images even if we wanted to. It's a rather short article, and we don't even have any other good quality photos of Gaga singing that song. Of course there is one picture in use in an article, when there is no more than that available. "Bad Romance" is the singer's signature song, and therefore we have an abundance of images where the song is being performed. Obviously, I'm not suggesting to put all of them in the article, I was not even against to the reasoning to remove the other photo from the Live performances section, because one photo can be enough for that section. But we cannot put aside the aesthetics of the article. It's simply better to look at and easiser to read if we are not scrolling through long blocks of text without any visual supplements.
You mentioned some featured articles that only include one performance images, but what does that prove? I can mention featured articles that have more than one: Halo (Beyoncé song) has one in the Critical reception section, as well. Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) has three performance images in various sections.
And by this logic, should we start removing pictures of performances from other articles, and leaving only one? Do you find it equally preposterous that there is an image in the critical reception section of ArtRave: The Artpop Ball; that there is one in the Commercial performance section of Ray of Light; that someone put images in the critical and commercial responce sections of Like a Prayer (song)?
I would get your point if I had an agenda of overfoowing the article with an abundance of pictures where Gaga is performing "Bad Romance" (we have a crazy amount of images available from Wikimedia), but that's not my goal at all. Also: the article looked a certain way for over 10 years, went through so many edits, and everybody was okay with it. Then it was abruptly changed during the Featured article nomination process due to your suggestion, without bringing it to the Talk page then, and now it concerns you that we should have an open discussion? I am open for replacing the image to any other one that you think better fits the article, or rephrasing the caption that it better fits the section/article. But I can't accept that an article's featured status means that it has to be plain blocks of text. -- Sricsi ( talk) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
If we had a good quality image of Gaga singing BR at the Super Bowl I would agree with that, but you do know all we have is one subpar image: [1]
Frankly, an article with featured status should not include a photo with such poor quality. I would then suggest we add a second image to the Live performances section. The previous photo was removed due to WP:SANDWICH, but we have a wide array of photos to choose from that would better fit the outlook of the text. -- Sricsi ( talk) 13:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That seems amazing, I agree with IB. By the way, the image from the Chromatica Ball is beautiful and has good quality. GagaNutella talk 11:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)