# Talk:Do What U Want

Just a reminder that chart placements from itunes are not allowed. Re policy Wikipedia:Record charts
As the policy states "charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used", and the policy applies "both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts".
Itunes is expressly blacklisted - Wikipedia:BADCHARTS.

Anyone wishing to challenge the policy should do at the policy's talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Itunes has been specifically discussed several times and ongoing consensus is that single retailer charts should not be used.
The general theory behind it is that although a retailer may be big in one country, it may not be in others -making for unequal comparisons.
The example that is repeatedly used in this article is the perfect example of this: it supposedly charted in however many countries, but if the retailer is not very popular in that country, a number one means very little. -it can be 100 sales vs. 100,000 sales. Single retailer charts also often have little correspondence to the country's official chart. Just to use the UK as an example - as we see in the article, this song would have charted at number 10 in the official UK chart; but on the itunes sales chart for the week (calculated by the Big Top 40 radio chart) the song only reached 27. -a considerable difference.
There is also a lack of archive and the sliding windows of time for the charts- songs may have only been number one for a day, or only for a few hours. But presenting it as a "number one" infers more than that.
Hence the consensus is to use only official national charts.

Someone raised "Born This Way" as a possible exception. There are no itunes chart placements on that article and thus no breach. It's only mention is that Born This Way broke the record for the fastest selling song in iTunes history- It's a notable piece of qualitative information -very different from offering chart placements. 
And regardless of whether someone said... chart placements are chart placements.
Best --Rushton2010 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The real problem is WP:SINGLEVENDOR (which is why iTunes is listed on WP:BADCHARTS). A song's performance through one individual sales channel shouldn't be mentioned: we should be using aggregated download and digital sales charts.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Hi Rushton, thanks for your concern. I appreciate your policy knowledge and trying to get the article straight. However, your edit in this case has been wrong. The article does not add any iTunes Store chart in the chart section, neither does it talk about it. The information given, like "Born This Way", is a qualitative information which says that it became the highest selling song from the  retailer iTunes. Reference here being third party media sources and no first party occurrences are being cited. I see Kww has undone it and I have requested him to comment here. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I explained my removal above. Rushton explained his removal. It's a single vendor chart. It doesn't matter whether it is in the chart section (note that WP:Record charts applies to all mentions of charts in articles, per This guideline provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts"). It doesn't matter whether you have third-party references to it, it's a single vendor chart. Positions and sales on single-vendor charts should not be included in articles.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Kww. Yes the policy is very clear -single vendors are not allowed anywhere within the article.
And my comment about misleading edit summaries are with regards to the highly disruptive blanket reversions. Instead of simply re-adding in the itunes section you talked of, you repeatedly blanket reverted, undoing a huge number of unassociated edits. --Rushton2010 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The article says the song sold 643,614 digital downloads in South Korea, which would be a bit ridiculous. When you go to the source that number is actually the "GAON Count" that the song achieved in the week, which is a number based on downloads, streams, and lots of other things which I can't translate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.53.10 (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 

Yes. Digital chart combines streaming, downloads, ringtones etc. So the amount given in the article is not solely based on downloads. The song was downloaded only 10,576 copies (Source: [1]) and debuted at #8 and an additional 7,184 copies the next week (Source: [2]). ごだい (会話) 14:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add Croatian chart position for Do What U Want (number 6); http://radio.hrt.hr/drugi-program/clanak/airplay-radio-chart-9-prosinca-2013/10534/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarloDupla (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1719881/lady-gaga-do-what-u-want-video-delay.jhtml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/lady-gaga-do-what-u-want-video-delayed-grave-mismanagement_n_4548169.html
--Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking about adding infoboxes for the DJWS/Aguilera remixes, but I'm worried that somehow it won't fit the article's prose. Simon (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Simon, why would you want that though? They weren't separately promoted as singles, just as accompanied remixes with the song. So adding an infobox would be completely WP:UNDUE. Checking all the gazillions of articles across Wikipedia, only the remixes which were promoted as singles have their infobox. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I got it, sorry. Simon (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we update the article with a new section regarding Gaga's statement about regretting doing the track and working with R. Kelly, and her intention of removing the track entirely from the album on iTunes? --Sricsi (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sricsi: Do you have specific articles in mind for updating the article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
No, a two liner is already included and thats more than enough. WP:BLP and WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY applies. —IB [ Poke ] 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Should the single cover for the Christina duet be added to the article? (example on amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/What-feat-Christina-Aguilera-Explicit/dp/B00HKRMB62) Squidoh (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No. "Do What U Want" featuring R. Kelly was released as the original single and that statusquo cannot be changed. Just because of a controversy 6 years later and the song being pulled from purchase and streaming does not negate this. The original cover art will continue to be reflected in the article. —IB [ Poke ] 18:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there anything hindering adding the remix artwork is what I meant, since many articles display alternate artworks. I never said it should replace the original. Squidoh (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
See WP:Non-free content criteria, which says that the use of non-free uploads should be kept to a minimum. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8493148/how-lady-gaga-removed-r-kelly-collaboration-streaming-services
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/8493189/lady-gaga-do-what-u-want-sales-surge-statement-r-kelly
—IB [ Poke ] 16:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)