# Talk:Monster (Lady Gaga song)

Why is this here? Its charted on a few small charts and poorly on the UK, its not a single or a promo. I think it should be deleted. CheezeDoodles (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes,  was thinking that. It's a little bare. It needs more information.--Morgan3136 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This single has been on sale as a promo single in NZ for one week only. It started a week ago today. The link is here: http://itunes.apple.com/nz/album/monster/97876755. Can this be added in the article at all. Hope it helps.--58.161.71.92 (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the cover art can be uploaded, however horrible the cover is. I'll upload and source that. So if it's for one week only though, I take it that we can't do much with the link except use it for the cover.--Morgan3136 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
OMG that cover is sickly lol. Well, according to the NZ iTunes homepage, that song is only up for a week. So, I'm not sure if it's much use to us. The cover is added, but I'm not sure that we can do anything more at this stage. The link is valid, but won't be for much longer. The cover should stay though. We have a link confirming it's existence. I'm surprised they used that picture for the cover, and not one of Gaga. Then again, it fits with the song as it illustrates sex without showing sex. lol. haha, they also don't have many cover shots of Gaga for the Fame monster era. The only ones left are the one too similar to DITD and the one to similar to Alejandro". But anyways, all we can get from that is the cover. The link itself doesn't add anything new about the song.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Just because the link doesn't have a purchasable validness, doesn't mean it's not valid. Look at Christina Aguilera's song "WooHoo". Although the single's iTunes link has expired and re-directs to the album, the link still proves that the song was released as an individual release. So if the link does expire to customers, it should still direct to the NZ store, and prove that it once had a release on the store. So the iTunes link is still valid. Although, iTunes links can't prove that it was released as an official single. But it can prove that it was available to buy at some stage.--Morgan3136 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This should'nt even be discussed. The cover is of men exchanging cum? And is it even a single? Whoever made this article must be delusional. Not worthy to make. Requires more information. And I don't know what drove you to make an article for it. This is really stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.116.139 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 

That's the official cover used for the NZ Digital Download. It doesn't have to be a single, Speechless isn't a single. It does require more information, but Speechless and DITD had the same amount of info when they were first up. A bit of time, and it will be big in no time. I agree, the cover is not what I could call appropriate. But it is what it is. And JMonster15 created the article. It is also notable as the song was released as a promo single with the cover mentioned above for a week on NZ iTunes for promotion and charted high on the NZ charts because of it. It has also had extra promotion through Live Performances.--Jackex56 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes but many artists songs that are not singles chart in some country and have no page. I think this article was made just because I fan liked the song... CheezeDoodles (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that the cover is real, I saw the iTunes link, that is not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned that maybe there are rules on Wikipedia that may be against such picture's. It's not nudity or anything, but it's very sexual. Should it be taken down? I know its the cover they used, and it's official. It's just that maybe there are rules? Idk.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No rules from what I know :S--Morgan3136 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. There are worse things on wikipedia than this single cover. Things more sexual and there is also Nudity. I don;t believe it should be taken down because it's considered to "sexual". The song is about sex, and fears of it. Who knows the reason why that cover was used.--Jackex56 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Cover is obviously fanmade. I went to the New Zealand iTunes store and, unsurprisingly, that single does not exist. Serves no place on Wikipedia. –Chase (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone knows where can i find that cover? –Jackoajl (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.174.193 (talk)  

it was only released as a single on the NZ store for one week.--110.175.56.28 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
But surely it's still out on the internet somewhere? Apparently I missed this whole debacle and I'm very curious as to what it looks like. The Mach Turtle (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You can download the iTunes rip here--Apeaboutsims (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't seem to access that link. Is there a way to just post the actual image here? 75.34.181.186 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I stand by the commments I made at the AfD. There's nothing really more I have to say. –Chase (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge, the main concern of people against the move was that songs like "Dance in the Dark" and "Speechless" had pages. But this is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Candyo32 17:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No, the main concern against the move is that this song meets notability guidelines and that including all the sourced information here within the album article would unbalance that article.  That has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFF. Rlendog (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - There is too much sourced material here that would either be lost, or if all were kept, the album article would place undue weight on this one song.  Given how much material there is to source the article, retaining the article is most appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per above. It sounds like someone's just a sore loser because they didn't get their way... that's the only reason to try and resurrect a closed discussion. The Mach Turtle (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
While I don't agree with merging, it is only fair to note that the Afd close did suggest that it may be appropriate to continue a merge discussion on this page. Rlendog (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Rlendog: Most of the content here is already present in The Fame Monster. All that's left to mention is the use of the song and "Bad Romance" in Rock Band and maybe the song's chart performance. Composition, reception, the Oprah performance... all already in the main article. Mach Turtle: Was that rude commentary really necessary? –Chase (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is that simple.  This song's chart performance is certainly relevant and indeed notable and would need to be included in the merge.  But also, the composition section in the album article refers to some of the material in this article, but not all of it (e.g., the Hubbard quote).  And unless I am missing it, the album article does not include any of the reception information for this song included in this article.  Nor does the album article seem to include the live performance information.  Incorporating the missing composition items from this song alone would not necessarily unbalance the album article.  But I think incorporating the reception, chart and live performance information, in addition to the Rock Band would do so.  And if more information about this song becomes available in the future (as I suspect it will, given Lady Gaga's prominence), that would exacerbate the issue (not that I am suggesting that the possible future issues are the reason not to merge, I think the issue is significant enough right now).  And since I see this song as meeting the criteria of WP:NSONG, I don't see any reason to incur these issues via a merge, rather than just keeping this article as is. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The Oprah performance, composition info, and the info about Rock Band are all discussed in the The Fame Monster article, though not in great detail (per WP:UNDUE). Critic reviews in this article are taken from album reviews which are already present in that article as well. WP:NSONGS only says charting may provide notability, it does not always. Almost every Lady Gaga song has charted, does that mean every Lady Gaga song needs to have an article? There is a Gaga fan wikia for that. Until I see extensive coverage that shows how this is notable aside from being on a notable album, I don't see why this can't be merged. –Chase (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Every Lady Gaga song doesn't "need" to have an article.  But if every Lady Gaga song has charted, then there is no inherent reason why they all can't have an article. Rlendog (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The critic reviews in this article are from the album reviews, but the album article does not include the portions of the reviews specific to this song.  So those items would need to be retained in a merge. The proof of its notability aside from being on a notable album is demonstrated by the fact that it charted independently of the album and that there is enough coverage of the song (including portions of album reviews specific to the song - not all album reviews highlight every song on the album) to have a reasonably detailed article of the song. Rlendog (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Chase: You can call it rude, you can call it whatever you want, but it's true. You didn't get your way the first time around, so you're trying again via a back door; I call that being a sore loser. What makes you think you'll have any more success this time around? Furthermore, why wage such a vendetta? Trying once is fine, but failing and trying again on the same article, for the same reasons, hoping for the same outcome (merge or delete, either way this article ceases to exist)... it's a little silly, and one has to question your true motives here. If you want to purge the encyclopedia of articles you perceive to be not notable, then more power to you, go out and do so; but when you're handed a loss, deal with it and move on. I stand by the assertions made by those opposing the merge of this article, there's enough notable content here to warrant the article. The Mach Turtle (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You can stand against merging all you wish. However, the closing note at the AfD said it would be appropriate to continue a merge discussion since there was no consensus to do anything, which is what I am doing. (Furthermore, no side "won" the AfD, hence the "no consensus" close.) –Chase (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That's my point, though. There was no consensus the first time, why should the second time be any different? It seems like a futile endeavor to keep going on and on like this, and the only reason for you to do so is that you really have something against this article. Why not just let it go and find some other articles out there that are more worthy of deletion/merging than this? The Mach Turtle (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Because I can choose what articles I would like to suggest for merging/deletion. Frankly, it's not your business where I choose to edit and what I choose to do on wiki. And consensus can change. "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding." –Chase (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but perhaps it would be better strategy to wait a bit before launching a second strike. Consensus, or lack thereof, isn't that likely to change so immediately. It may not be my business, true, but you're acting like you're applying all of your righteous fury to to this one questionable cause, rather than trying to do some housecleaning elsewhere. And frankly, you're coming across as a dick.The Mach Turtle (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Arguing for a merge is being a dick? LOL. If you're going to issue personal attacks like that at me, at least have real reason to. Please stop replying to me here unless you would like to argue either for or against the merge. You're going off topic. –Chase (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
How about your super condescending tone and getting all uppity when I called you out? That a good enough reason for you? Besides, I thought we weren't telling each other what to do now? As long as that doesn't seem to be the case anymore, I will reiterate my point that you fighting for the death of this article one way or another twice in two weeks after already being handed a loss is indeed being a sore loser, and to hear you talk, this article continuing to exist is some major atrocity; there are other articles out there that deserve to be on wiki less than this one, just go try and get rid of one of those instead! I think you have some personal motive here that you're hiding behind weak claims of non-notability. You can accuse me of mudslinging, but you're not entirely not guilty of that yourself.
If you want reasons from me that this article should be kept, I'll try to accommodate you, but as I said, most have already brought up the valid points. The song has charted separately from the album on four different charts, including the top ten of one country, which in my mind is reason enough to keep the article. It would be out of place to try and consolidate those numbers into the Fame Monster article, and irresponsible to purge them completely. The Reception section is well-rounded and shows more critical analysis of the song than would be possible in TFM article. The Live Performances section is somewhat small at the moment, but with a little research could easily be expanded to include more details of her performance of the song on both legs of the Monster Ball, as most of her other song articles seem to have. Composition is informative, although I admit would be a little better if it mentioned which of the metaphorical "monsters" Gaga wrote it about, as do the other TFM-era songs. Finally, everything is well-sourced, and really, if it wasn't, I'd be on your side of this debate, but since it is, what's the huge problem here? The Mach Turtle (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Continuing to call me a dick just because I think an article you like should be merged is really pathetic... I have no personal vendetta, I just don't wish to argue for WP:OTHERCRAP at this time. Is there a problem?  Anyway. If necessary, it's really not my preference, but I suppose the charts - along with the charting info for other non-singles - could be added in a section to Lady Gaga discography if needed. Reception here may have a bit more info regarding this specific song, but I'm not suggesting we merge all of it. Summarization is fine, no? Performance section really isn't going to end up with more than what's already at The Monster Ball Tour. –Chase (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
A) I only called you a dick once, and B) it was because of your (seemingly awful) attitude. Whatever, we're all entitled to our opinions, so for both our sakes I'll just shut up now. I'd say it's been fun, but, you know... The Mach Turtle (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong support the merge proposal. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose too much information would be lost. 74.105.208.27 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
May I ask what information would be lost? Most of it is already in The Fame Monster. –Chase (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, see WP:LOSE. –Chase (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
100% Merge - I dont know how this article wasnt deleted. Wikipedia is not Gaga-pedia and the information here can easily be merged. The reviews are from the album, which means the album is notable, not the song and this article does not pass WP:NSONG, simply charting does not always establish notability. The composition is present in The Fame Monster, and it charted for a total of three weeks. Theres nothing here that cannot be merged or simply deleted - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Merge The article holds no significance in my opinion. Anything worth mentioning is in the main article.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The song has charted, has been reviewed and is notable in itself. Pretty much what the other users have also said. SashaJohn (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
100% Merge No need for this article to exist. Most information is in The Fame Monster article, we don't need this. Most of the songs off TFM charted, why should this be any more special?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaAljawder (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If most of the songs off TFM charted, and there is adequate sourced material, they can have articles too. There is no guideline preventing all the songs from a single album from having a separate article and there is plenty of precedent of albums with every song being notable enough to have an article, and having one.  Without suggesting that the artists are remotely comparable, for a quick example see pretty much any Beatles album. Rlendog (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
However, there's no reason to have this separate article if the album article does a fine job of covering everything here. Composition and reception? In The Fame Monster. Rock Band? In The Fame Monster. Performance? The Fame Monster and The Monster Ball Tour. Chart positions? If necessary, can be added to The Fame Monster. Thus this serves no purpose. I don't consider the Beatles a fair comparison. They are arguably the most notable figures in popular music. Their work has had many years to be critically dissected and discussed. "Monster" is simply a song that appeared on a few charts and was on a notable album, with very little critical commentary. –Chase (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
As discussed above, we have differing opinions as to whether this article serves a purpose and whether the information contained here can be included in the album article without violating WP:UNDUE there.  But to address the Beatles point, the comparison against the Beatles would certainly be unfair if anyone was saying "Every Beatles song has an article so every Lady Gaga song should too."  But that is not what anyone is saying, certainly not me.  The Beatles exqample was just to respond to the argument that every song on an album can't have an article.  Many (I think all) Beatles album have an article for every song, as do many non-Beatles albums, for that matter. Rlendog (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall anybody saying that we couldn't have articles for all of the songs. I think that IsaAljawder's point was that it's silly to keep creating articles for non-singles from this album, since most of them really don't have much notability aside from charting. Which I agree with. –Chase (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Support Agree with Chase's statements--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Hmmmm, this should be kept. It is actually the fifth single from TFM according to the worldwide (except US) Music Chart Network. Dance in The Dark was released as the fourth single in Australia. And now Monster was released as the fourth single in NZ and the 5th overall. That should make the song notable enough.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That source does not indicate that "Monster" was released as a single. It only indicates that it charted in New Zealand. In most countries, songs can chart off of high airplay or digital downloads without being released. For example, Gaga's "Telephone" debuted on the US Hot 100 in early December 2009, almost two months before its official release. That is not the same as "Dance in the Dark". The Music Network is a reliable source and it explicitly stated that Universal (Gaga's record label) has released the song as a single. –Chase (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the official French website of Universal Records confirmed it as a single as well. –Chase (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No, your looking at it wrong. You see, it has a list of singles in NZ and it lists Monster as the 4th. In Aus, it lists Dance In The Dark as the fourth. Look at the list below, not the actual info. Plus, in other countries neither DITD or Monster are listed at all. The Official World Charts Network is 100% reliable.--59.101.181.134 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking at anything wrong. Songs chart because of high downloads and/or airplay all the time. On charts.org.nz, Monster is listed because it charted in New Zealand, not because it's a single. –Chase (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure who is correct here, but I am not sure it matters, since being released as a single is not a requirement for notability.  Charting on the other hand is part of the notability guidelines for songs, whether released as single or not. Rlendog (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Rlendog, charting does not provide notability in all cases. See WP:NSONGS. It only says charting makes it "probably notable". –Chase (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree.  But that is the case whether or not it was a single. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you are chase. if it was just because it charted, it would be under songs, not singles.--59.101.181.134 (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It's under singles because it charted. Songs that chart are generally singles, but not always. For example, here, Speechless is listed because it charted. It has not been released. –Chase (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well actually, Speechless is not listed here, despite the fact that it's part of her Hot 100 history. Not sure why that is. Anyway, disregard the final part of that message. My point is that Monster is listed with those other songs because it charted on the New Zealand charts. If Gaga had released a single and it did not chart in NZ, it would not be listed there. –Chase (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Billboard screwed their websites as usual. Anyways, Chase is correct. "Monster" is still not a single as per sources. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm right. But I won't push this further. The sources say it under the "Singles" list that "Monster" is a single. If it were a song, it would be displayed under "Songs" with a charting reference listed.--59.101.193.143 (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
(←) Ape, frankly, even if this song was released as a single, that is irrelevant to the discussion. There are some singles by notable artists that do not have articles because the songs lack individual notability. Many non-single songs, such as Monster, also lack individual notability and thus their information should be contained in the main album or artist article per WP:NSONG.
Furthermore, to show you what I mean, take a look at Gaga's discography at swedishcharts.com, another Hung Medien archive. So Happy I Could Die is listed because it charted in Sweden, not because it was released as a single. –Chase (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support This article is completly useless and, honnestly, don't have very much information about this track. By the way, it's not a single but only a song. This is radio stations of New Zealand who personally choose to broadcast this song.--Raphael99 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
"Completely useless" is a rather strong term for an article that includes reliably sourced information about the song's lyrics, music, critical reception, chart history, appearance on Oprah and inclusion in Rock Band.  Can you elaborate on how that makes the article "completely" useless? Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's useless because all of that info is currently in The Fame Monster. Not as detailed, but still. –Chase (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. As stated above, the article is reasonably well sourced and has an adequate amount of information on reception and composition, and it even charted. Arguing over whether it is a single or not is irrelevant as either way it seems notability has already been established through the written information and its sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There's hardly any info on composition - most of what is there is in the main album article - and there's only three reviews - which, again, are included in the main article. –Chase (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:NSONGS, if a song charted on a major chart it is probably notable. Adding to that, there is detailed information about the song as additionally required for notability. Finally, there is definitely potential for growth as the song becomes more popular. It seems to pass all of the criteria for a notable song. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The little information here is not that detailed and is already in the main album article. And frankly, there probably won't be much more to expand this with as most of the information for this came out when the album did, in terms of reviews and composition. Unless the song is released as a single, which we have no way to determine, it likely won't grow further. –Chase (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I just sorted through the article, and there turned out to be a lot of information in here that was not even in the sources it cited. All such content has been removed, and I recommend that editors who contributed to this discussion take a look at the article now to possibly reconsider. –Chase (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose There is about as much meat as "Speechless", it just needs thorough research. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Merge--PeterGriffin  • Talk2Me  00:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Support: I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said. Conalae (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong support for merge, per WP:NSONGS where there is nothing especially notable or where there is no specific independent coverage independent articles are not created. There is not enough information for a detailed article and NSONGS clearly explains that songs charting don't automatically recieve their own article. "Speechless" was performed live several times thats why it is more notable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1  | talk2me 22:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
There are independent sources already cited in the article.  And the article is already "reasonably" detailed. Rlendog (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong support for merge. Xwomanizerx (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: There have been many singles articles with much less information. This article has enough verifiable sources, and can be built upon with even more information easily. And since it has been ranked on national and/or significant music charts, it meets notability guidelines per WP:NSONGS.Greekboy (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
per WP:Other stuff exists a view based on There have been many singles articles with much less information. has no basis and might as well be discredited. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1  | talk2me 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge Crystal Clear x3 04:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose the merge, that is. 01lander (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This article has been charted and deserves its own article. Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 11:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Charting does not make a song deserve anything. Lots of charted songs (note, not singles) do not have articles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1  | talk2me 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Well this discussion has gone on for a month now and still no consensus to either keep or merge this, so I guess it stays again. I will note that I am pleased with the additional information and sources that have been added, and I might get around to helping expand it sooner or later. I think it's safe to close this discussion. –Chase (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1627010/20091124/lady_gaga.jhtml. I have made some improvements, but have to finish for now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Would File:Lady Gaga performing Monster.jpg or File:Lady Gaga performing Monster2 cropped.jpg be a better picture of a live performance than the current one? Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cropped. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

According to this article, Monster will be on Born This Way, and is going to be released as a single... Can anyone confirm this? 86.21.126.216 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Source? –Chase (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the part of song starting at 0:48 and ending at 1:03 (see here) resemble Prince's "Little Red Corvette" from 0:38 to 0:51 on the album version? (see here)
Am I hearing things, or did Lady Gaga copy that beat?
I googled and there seems to be no media coverage on this like there was for "Born This Way" and "Express Yourself".--Mauri96 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Monster (Lady Gaga song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622011311/http://music.ign.com/articles/104/1049183p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/104/1049183p1.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100916020027/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Gaga-s-bloody-stage-show-sparks-fury/Article1-552890.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Gaga-s-bloody-stage-show-sparks-fury/Article1-552890.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)