# Talk:The Remix (Lady Gaga album)

On the background info it stated that gaga had collaborated with a number of artists on her remix album. But she didn't, they were pre existing remixes of her songs, she didn't collaborate with them for the album at all. the only songs that dont apply to that are "Dance in the Dark" and "Alejandro". all the rest are already released.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It does say Gaga had collaborated. The source used is The Guardian an extremely reliable source. Hence I will go for it. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That passage isn't official enough, regardless of how reliable the said newspaper is, to 'prove' she actually physically collaborated with any of the remixers, or even just logistically speaking. However, she did physically collaborate with Marilyn Manson on the Love Game, which was later remixed I believe, as there's ample sourced coverage on that. Imperatore (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean official enough? The Guardian is considered reliable, and I don't see anything in it that cries of fancruft. It says that Gaga collaborated with said remixers. What is so not-trustworthy in it? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that for the journalist writing this article, it is very easy and makes perfect sense to use the term 'collaborate', and in good faith, to describe an album with multiple artist contributions on it. However, this does not mean it's an accurate depiction of reality, and sometime even the introduction of one word in a good article could alter the meaning of something and make it constitute original research. I'm no expert on remixes, but from what I've read remixers and other DJs often remix tracks independently. However, in the case of high-profile artists on major labels and especially when a remix release is intended, the label will commission high-profile remixers to produce remixes, paying them in advance just as they would do with any other producer on a record. I would assume this is what Interscope/other 3 labels did here. Let's face it, Gaga barely has time to do anything outside of her touring schedule and her other more obvious promo commitments, let alone 'collaborate' with several different people in a studio on a series of remixes. Obviously I'm rationalizing here, and because the Guardian is considered a reliable source, I'm totally fine with keeping the term, although I think it's very reasonable to take it with a grain of salt. Imperatore (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
OK now that you explain it, I understand your pont of view. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I Have the same problem with this, they way the article is written it definitely reads as if she got into the studio especially to do this album, when it is not true, they were all already released in the single releases. It is just a collection. So what if it's the Guardian who wrote it? Doesn't make the write of the article a person who knows what he's writing about. The article here IS WRONG. Moreover, it reads "has collaborated". It seems even more misleading. Dollvalley (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviving this discussion. I agree it misleads the reader enormously. I know it's The Guardian, but the statement just defies logic. I replaced the term 'collaboration' with 'contribution'. If someone wishes to put it back, more sources should be presented. Imperatore (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Imperatore, I agree with what you wrote. I refrained from adding more info. I just got the cd today and this is certainly not a project that carries the trademark art and design of Gaga, the inlay is a simple folded piece of paper with generic font, overall it looks like a budget release, proving even more that this was just a collection of remixes where nothing new was done for the music contained here, so it is ludicrous to allude that anyone collaborated musically (or even otherwise) with Lady Gaga for THIS album, not matter who reports it. And if that's the only quote available, then it should be left out as it is misleading and wrong. Dollvalley (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add to "Relase history" - Poland 30.04.2010
http://www.universalmusic.pl/?atype=item&view=1&id=6354
MecenasMuzyczny (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Remix's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hung":
From The Fame: "ultratop.be – Lady Gaga – The Fame". Ultratop (in French). Retrieved 2009-04-10. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
From The Fame Monster: "Lady Gaga - The Fame Monster (album)". Ultratop 50. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-12-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
From Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say): "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) on European charts". Ultratop. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-09-16. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
From Telephone (song): "Lady Gaga feat. Beyonce – "Telephone" World Charts". Ultratop. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2010-04-02. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
From Video Phone (song): "Beyonce - Video Phone (Chanson)". Ultratop 50. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2010-02-10. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
From Alejandro (song): "Lady Gaga – Alejandro (Don't Call My Name) – Song". Ultratop 50. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2010-04-30. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
From Bad Romance: "Lady Gaga – Bad Romance (song)". Ultratop 50. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-11-05. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A day and a half ago, I added the alternate, UK cover art to the article, but after checking again just now, it's disappeared and appears to have been deleted. No hard feelings, but I am wondering why this was... does anybody know? The Mach Turtle (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

All non-free images need to pass our non-free policies, especially minimal use and significance.  In general, on such articles unless the alternate cover is particularly notable it should not be used. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, but I thought the other cover met the criteria; it's quite obviously a completely different artistic direction than the Japanese cover, and since the UK-exclusive art was mentioned in the article, I thought it would be helpful to have it in the infobox. Sorry if I made a bad call... The Mach Turtle (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The artile says that only UK had a different cover. Unlike The Fame Monster, where both covers are being widely discussed in the article, this one fails WP:NFCC, simply because of usage as a descriptive purpose only. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Now that cover is being used for the U.S, so I think it should be included in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpenguin23 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, single market covers are not acceptable. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

how come this has an article it is only a remix album! for instance, rihanna's good girl gone bad the remixes didn't get a whole article dedicated to the album did it? no, it was just included in the good girl gone bad page! i dont get why lady gaga's so special that she deserves a whole article about a remix album! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. Good Girl Gone Bad: The Remixes did not have any third party notability, no critical analysis, no commercial reception from third party etc. which is present in The Remix. Hence it deserves a separate article space. Wikipedia does not endorse speciality in artists to have their own page. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning is the differences in the nature of these albums; they aren't comparable. The Rihanna album is a remix edition of the studio album of the same. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to accommodate it into its corresponding studio album's page. On the other hand, Gaga's The Remix is not a remix edition of a previous album, rather it is a compilation album (composed entirely of remixes). A Compilation album is a distinct entity, and most often, notable compilation albums have their own pages. Imperatore (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How long the U.S. Version? --Trivia harrypotter (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There obviously is consensus among users to include the alternate cover in the infobox, so I shall add it back. However, I will also leave a message at WT:Non-free content and see what other editors think, since there have been concerns raised that the alternate cover does not meet NFCC. If editors there find that it does not qualify as fair use, it will be removed. But for now, it should be left, as most users here seem to agree that it should be included. –Chase (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience if an alternative cover helps users to identify an album release in their territory and if it is significantly different from the original with a different release track listing then it is feasible to use multiple album covers. However as Gaga is a US artist/of US nationality and the US/UK cover covers a larger proportion of the market perhaps it should be used as the main album cover? Correct me if I'm wrong but the cover with lines/strips is only used in Japan right? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The cover with the naked Gaga is the one used worldwide, except US and the UK, which has teh feather head one. Hence majority of the markets use the one that is featured in teh article now. Although I am against using the alternate US/UK cover, lets see what the people at WT:NFCC has to say about it. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
But the share of music sales by the UK and US outshadow the rest of the world and Gaga is a US artist. Therefore if the cover helps users to identify a release in their own country with a specifically different version of release then other covers are permissable. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I am fine with any one of the covers. You and Chase fight it out. Lol  — Legolas (talk2me) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we're all advocating for the same thing. But perhaps Chase is concerned that someone might delete one of them citing WP:NFCC. I'm not that fussed personally. Just I saw the comment so I htought I'd respond. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Me too, if an admin comes and tags the image, I won't disagree with him/her. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to throw in an observation (seeing as how I tried in vain to add the alt. cover months ago), the "feather head" cover has been used in other territories aside from the US and UK, such as Taiwan. That's the only one I know of, though. Besides, since they are so drastically different, including both seems reasonable.The Mach Turtle (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com./music/reviews/album/17385/190732  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.151.55.38 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riaj.or.jp%2Fdata%2Fothers%2Fgold%2F201103.html%23list4
Near the last line. Let's add it in!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.137.52 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 

Already done. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


### Discussion
Posting this here to explain a potentially controversial edit since there won't be enough room in an edit summary. There are several problems with the track listing and credits in this version of the article. After looking at liner notes for American, British, and Japanese pressings of the album, it is apparent that songwriting and original production credits are not present in any booklet, constituting a WP:SYNTH violation. (Songwriting and production credits are present at The Fame, The Fame Monster, and respective song articles for anyone who is interested.) Additionally, some of the remix production credits appear to have been added in by someone who didn't look at the liner notes. For instance, the "Robots to Mars" remix of "LoveGame" was produced by Martin Kierszenbaum, not an act named Robots to Mars.
Because the album packaging does not provide songwriting credits in any country, I am instead opting for a standard numbered track listing (i.e. not use of the {{Track listing}} template) and extensive production/remix credits will be moved to the "credits and personnel" section. MOS:ALBUM#Track listing has deemed the use of a non-templated track listing acceptable for less complicated listings; in this case, the new track listing section will just include song titles, remix titles, and track lengths – not too complicated.
Additionally, the US track listing will be removed for brevity, instead including a note that it uses only tracks 1–11 of the international album, with track 6 omitted. 
In case this edit ends up being reverted, collapsed above is what the two sections will look like, for discussion purposes. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that Colby O'Donis is not credited as a featured artist on any "Just Dance" remix on any pressing, so his name has been removed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)