# Talk:Venus (Lady Gaga song)

Do all of the "singles" categories still apply now that the song is considered a promotional single and not an official single?--Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It all really depends on what type of release will occur on October 28. If it pops up as an independent release and/or a wide release, then it should be called a single no matter what, just as if Interscope hadn't gone for "Do What U Want" as a full-fledged single release, it would've been listed as a single on Wikipedia anyway. However, if it's iTunes-exclusive like "Hair" was, then we keep it as such. If it just ends up being available through Artpop on iTunes, then it shouldn't even be considered a promo; merely just a song. We shouldn't be talking about what kind of single it is until the song itself is actually released. Hell, there shouldn't even be an article on this before the thing is released! :P
RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Should it not count as a promotional single seeing as how Do What U Want is now the official second single? As of now, there are numerous inconsistencies with the "Artpop" page and the "Venus (Lady Gaga song)" page, as one has it listed as a promotional single and the other is saying that it's an official single. This page also contains multiple inconsistencies as it lists the song as both a single and a promotional single in different areas.
Reece Leonard 09:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically, whether she announced it as a "single" or not, the song was released for retail sale as the album's third single on Amazon.com on October 28, 2013, and according to Wikipedia's own definition a promotional single they are released for free online, or to a select radio for a limit time. While this song was not and actually released for retail sale by itself as a single on Amazon, so it cannot be a promotional single. Me and REE, have been attempting to make this fact known on the pages, but disruptive editors that think we have to go by what the artist calls it, rather than what the facts point to keep changing it. Good thing is the most disruptive one has been blocked indefinitely, so hopefully we can actually discuss this without disruption. STATic message me! 02:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
We cannot go by Wikipedia's definition of a promotional single, as the article for Promotional recordings is almost completely unsourced. While the song has been released to amazon as a stand-alone sale, it is not enough evidence to call the song in question a full fledged single. If we go by the conditions expressed in WP:PROMOSINGLE, "Venus" does not meet all the criteria to be considered a single, and should instead be listed as a promotional recording, as its purpose is merely to promote the release of "Artpop". --StephenG (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Esteban97: WP:PROMOSINGLE is an opinionated essay written by one unexperienced Wikipedia user, not any sort of guideline or policy in the slightest. Frankly if they had not move warred to get to the WP: namespace it would not be there. Unless there are any reliable sources at all that expicitly state a song is only a single if it is sent to radio, then this song is a single. The belief that a song must be sent to radio to be a single is just a made up rule, that some editors liked to make up a while ago, but all the well-experienced ones know better. STATic message me! 04:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiments posted above by Esteban97 and Reece Leonard that it is indeed a promotional single as evidenced by the countless third party sources listing it as such. While UserSTatic has been insistent on not providing any reliable source listing it as single, rather pointing to an extremenly unreliable Wikipedia page itself, promotional recording. The below are some of the sources listing it as such which I pointed in the Artpop talk page. Oh and @STATicVapor:, do not think for one second that consensus has been achieved on this just because you and Razor Eye think so. I will raise RFC if needed because the way it is going now, and your lack of understanding makes the situations not only in the Gaga pages, but in all the pages I have seen you editing, as ridiculous.
Third party sources calling Venus as promotional single:
And though "Venus" is now just a promotional single, Gaga assured fans... MTV News
Mother Monster takes listeners on a journey through "space and time" in "Venus," the new promotional single from her forthcoming third studio album "ARTPOP." .... HitFix
A snippet of "Venus," the latest promotional single from the singer's new album, Artpop, hadn't even been released yet ... Slant Magazine
The singer shocked clubbers at the famous London venue by taking to the stage to perform promotional single 'Venus' from her upcoming album ARTPOP... Digital Spy
while she strummed the opening chords of promotional single Venus on an acoustic guitar... Daily Mail
the second single from new album 'ARTPOP', but will now act as a promo track .. Capital FM
Venus was intended to be the second single from Gaga's upcoming album ARTPOP, but will now be used as a promotional track instead... MTV UK
... and the list goes on and on. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all leave the personal attacks for your diary because they have no place here. Third party sources from THIS week calling "Venus" a single not a promotional single include multiple publications such as, [1] NME, [2] Huffington Post, [3] The Source, and [4] MTV. I provided these at the Artpop page, but you can keep making false accusations, it just makes yourself look even more foolish. Funny that half of the sources you provided are not considered reliable sources, see WP:IRS for more information on how to identify reliable sources and WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES for more information on what are reliable sources for musical recordings. The song was released for retail sale as a single to Amazon.com on October 28, 2013, that is a fact. STATic message me! 04:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all, read WP:NPA for the personal attack definition, minor suggestion. The sources provided do not call "Venus" an official single from Artpop neither they call it a third single released from the album. Oh and the sources listed do pass WP:RS, do not lecture me on that. You have not only failed to provide valid justification for the "single" release status, you have time and again given weird, unreliable sources like the encyclopedia itself, talk of non-existing consensus (although I see that's between you and Razor), but you have gone against what third party media is saying, basing on a release to a retailer, and ignoring the first party commentary from the artist itself. You might wanna read WP:V. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I have and you have broken NPA many times, but since you want to deny it, I do not feel like wasting my time indulging into it, just remember "comment on content not contributors". Outside of Wikipedia where do you ever see the term "official single" used? Also we do not need them to call it the "____(#) single", unless you do not know how to count. Daily Mail, DigitalSpy, CapitalFM and HitFix are no where to be found at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, and are all blogs or other forms of unreliable sources. Daily Mail is especially considered an unreliable source, its a tabloid for gods sake, if you actually think it is reliable you need to again take a long look at WP:RS and WP:IRS, since you still do not know what they are. Your response again makes no sense, the link to the official single release via Amazon has been provided over and over again. See WP:SILENCE, until this discussion there was consensus, it seems there still is at this moment, since you have yet to make one single logical point. It is not Wikipedia's job to follow what the artist wants to call their releases, the song was released for retail sale in the format of music download as a single with its own download page. Again, you ignore NME, The Source, Huffington Post and MTV all major publications, all calling it a single, obviously all having enough editorial oversight to not follow the incorrect "promotional single" label some artists like to give their songs. If it was only released with the pre-order this would be a entire different case, but the second it received its own retail sale release as a single with its own download page on Amazon On October 28, all bets were off. STATic message me! 05:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Lol, I just noticed you are pointing to WP:PROMOSINGLE essay by Cprice1000, an essay so in contradiction with itself on what constitues a promo single that I don't even know what to say. Lemme quote Gaga, "One second I'm a promo single, suddenly the single is me"! —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Lol, I am glad you agree, if you actually read my responses for once you would know that I was putting down the essay as faculty incorrect. Esteban97 saw it and took it as a guideline. You really need to fully read these responses instead of skimming through them, maybe you would then see how truly wrong you are. STATic message me! 05:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As entertaining as this back and forth has been to watch, the fact remains that the issue hasn't been resolved. A promotional single is described as "a single that is made available to radio stations, digital download retailers, nightclubs, music publications, and other media outlets by a record label for the express purpose of promoting a forthcoming commercial single or an entirely new album." on the promotional single page, which details exactly what "Venus" is. End of story. Reece Leonard 10:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Rather than read that unsourced paragraph, read the top of the page that says promotional singles are released for FREE, that is the key. "Venus" was released for retail sale as a single. Either way a "single that is made available to radio stations, digital download retailers, nightclubs, music publications, and other media outlets by a record label for the express purpose of promoting a forthcoming commercial single or an entirely new album", basically describes any single, so that makes that portion of the article even contradict itself. STATic message me! 05:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph that says promotional singles are released for free is unsourced too. None of the four sources in the promotional recording article state that a promotional recording, in order to be considered as such, needs to be distributed for free. Unless there is a reliable source (or more) that specifically state the difference between a full-fledged single and a promotional single, then this debate remains open. --StephenG (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should refrain from referencing that Wikipedia article (or any of them) for coming to a consensus at all. Sources still say this as a promotional single (which is again a single, StaticVapor) so I don't know how we can go against them. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Also the outcome from here will impact the upcoming "Promotional single" "Dope" from Artpop. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
So I provided more reliable sources that refer to the album as a single then you did for calling it a promotional single. The fact of the madder is that it was released for retail sale as a single digital download, with its own page on Amazon.com prior to its release. That makes it a single, no madder what the artist or the record label, wants to label it as, that does not effect how we label it. Where are the sources that say a song must be released to radio to be a single? What are your reliable sources that say release as a single download is not enough to be considered a single? Actually it would not affect "Dope", unless it receives a release as a single download with its own download page.STATic message me! 15:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Please, I provided equal number of sources calling this release as promotional, including some of the sources that you listed like MTV UK. Fact this I see now that publications are reporting it both as a single and promotional single (which, if I go into Semantics, is again a single nevertheless). So this debate continues. And no, a radio release does not make it a single, and neither does a separate retail release. Fact is the first party source calls this a promotional single and we go by that. Not made up rules by you or any Wikipedian, neither some dumb unsourced page. PS, you wanna see more reliable sources? Here you go. Slant Magazine, Digital Spy, Digital Spy2, MTV, The Edge, The Independent. Hell there is a para about why this single is chart ineligible in the UK and Billboard strictly says this to be a promotional. Don't reach. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
So there are multiple third-party sources that call this song either a single or a promotional single. If there is no consensus between all the outside sources, then shouldn't we go by the what the record label considers the song to be? Do we even have a reliable source that states the differences between a single and a promotional single? If not, then this debate would be purely based on each editor's opinion of what a single is and isn't. --StephenG (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
(→) Record label calls this a promotional release only, without the backbone of active promotion like a single, radio etc. Also we do have a precedence of the artist's own words in this case and we have gone before on that also I see. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The editor of this page is blatantly disregarding facts and will be reported. Several credible sources I added to prove that Venus was a promotional single were simply discarded because the author, who is likely just an upset fan wanting the song to be a single, wanted to ignore facts. Twist it whatever way you want, but LADY GAGA and INTERSCOPE have released VENUS as a PROMOTIONAL SINGLE ALONE. The song will NOT impact radio and is simply available digitally. If the author cannot stick to facts, then I WILL report this page and have it shut down.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.75 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 

It's so stupid, I mean she and her label said several times it's just a promotional single. Why can't people understand it? Fans actually laugh at wikipedia by how it credits the song as an official single. Fix this as soon as possible and stop being delusional. Kirtap92 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotional_single#Countdown_to_album_release_programs Does the whole 'some call countdown singles promo singles' stand here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeFiFo (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga just tweeted this:

The 'Applause' cover art was shot by @inezandvinoodh, 'Do What U Want' Feat. R KELLY by @Terry_World, and [...] 'Venus' is a sequence of multiple covers shot by 'Alejandro' and 'Fame' director @SKstudly Steven Klein
Because of this, none of the artworks should be used until a single cover is selected for use by digital retailers (e.g. iTunes, Amazon). Scarce2 (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

How does this justify using only one of the covers on the single page? The "Applause" single had one cover. "Do What U Want" only had one cover. And "Venus" has a sequence of MULTIPLE covers. So I think it would be inappropriate to only display one of them on the Wikipedia page. And digital retailers will probably just use the ARTPOP cover like they did for "Do What U Want." Wikipedia allows multiple covers to be displayed FOR THIS VERY REASON.--CityMorgue (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC comes into the picture here. We have to come to a consensus as to which cover is receiving most media coverage and third party sources are reporting. Also, Gaga's statement for Venus' release is accompanied by the Bat cover, my intuition says that might be the official one they are going. Since iTunes do not have it as a separate release, we have to base this on sources. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess I just don't understand it. I think using all the official covers is minimal use because together they fully represent a single work. Yes, it doesn't make a huge difference to only use one but it does make the article inaccurate. And I don't think the bat cover should be used as the main image of the article because the only reason retailers select that image is because it's the only one not showing her nipple. All the covers are official, but if I had to pic one I would select the one with the scorpion because it was the first one she released via her Twitter account. This article is just a mess and Wikipedia "rules" are being taken out of context. I think it should be fine to use the extra covers section of the infobox WHEN and ONLY WHEN the subject of the article is represented by multiple covers. Anyway, it's nobody's fault. It's just annoying. --CityMorgue (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm absolutely in agreement with your points, its just that NFCC is bothering me. I think you are right that the nipple slip might prevent retailers from using the other images sans the bat one and the scorpion is the first she released on FACEBOOK> So fine, we will keep that one for the timebeing. Although serious upgradation of the article is needed don't you think? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the article does need serious improvement, but the song was just released last night and the album is coming in a few weeks so this will happen naturally as more information pops up. I'll try to contribute when I have time. There has to be a way to allow the multiple covers though. I see it on so many other articles of big name artists. Anyway I'll leave that alone... For now :) --CityMorgue (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The work is referenced by the album cover and her X Factor performance, but has Gaga actually mentioned this work as an inspiration? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2477437/Lady-Gaga-strips-completely-nude-takes-inspiration-Botticellis-Birth-Of-Venus-new-singles-artwork.html
--Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this edit (see for content), but I am including a note here in case any of the details prove to be helpful (and verifiable) in the future. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To be incorporated later. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Did the wrong guy get linked or something?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.77.87 (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC) 

This happens many times when samples of an artist's song is incorporated, the artist, although dead, is credited for royalty purposes. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)