# Talk:Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song)

Guys I am having a bit difficulty in thinking where this particular source about the song's popularity. An impact section maybe? —IB [ Poke ] 14:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Or rename the Critical section to Critical response and impact? But it would be great to include some of the infos from this source. --Sricsi (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point. Let me work out something. —IB [ Poke ] 09:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is there an infobox for one of the covers? There are at least 10 other covers mentioned in that section. Putting an infobox for just one of them seems WP:UNDUE weight to the Keiino cover. Schazjmd (Talk) 21:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, But Keiino's cover seems to be only one recorded and released as a single. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer, the versions by Pentatonix and Andy Mineo are released for sale. (I can buy either on amazon) Schazjmd (Talk) 01:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd, I understand those tracks are available for digital download, but not necessarily released as a single. I don't feel strongly about keeping the inbox, but I'm trying to decide if single release is enough to justify inclusion. I'm also wondering if cover art should be added. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer, could you explain what you mean by "not necessarily released as a single"? Schazjmd (Talk) 01:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd, Singles are released to promote albums. Simply recording a song and making it available for digital download as part of a collection is not the same as releasing a single. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer I'm not seeing an album release by Keiino, only singles, same as the other two covers. When you look at this page on mobile and go to the covers, first thing you see is the large infobox for Keiino. It seems like promotion. Schazjmd (Talk) 01:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd, Ok, then I'm not sure and I'll let others decide. Not too concerned either way, TBH. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, Another Believer, I'll wait and see if anyone has any arguments for keeping it, thanks! Schazjmd (Talk) 01:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Was the alleged cover ever posted by a primary source? The chart website linked in the upload is not a reliable source for artworks. A reverse image search only reveals usage on fan pages and unreliable secondary sources. We need to remove it unless proof of it being official is provided.--NØ 12:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Recording Asociation of America (RIAA) lists the image as an official cover in their database. The official website of the German Charts also lists the image as the official cover
https://www.riaa.com/home/lady-gaga-shallow-album/
https://www.offiziellecharts.de/titel-details-1799181 --213.214.19.84 (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Chart and certification websites are not reliable sources for artwork though. A simple reverse image search reveals that this cover is of fanmade origin and has never been shared by Gaga, Cooper, or the record label. Those chart websites probably saw it as the cover on Wikipedia and just went with it.—NØ 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
That's quite an arrogant assumption to make about the hegemonic intellectual power of Wikipedia. The Recording Industry Association of America, which Universial Music/Interscope Records is a part of, listing the image as a cover should be enough of a source to verify its officiality. --213.214.19.84 (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
What exactly that I said was arrogant? Use any reverse image search engine, fan sites and fan twitter accounts were posting the "artwork" months before it was used on RIAA. It was never posted by any primary source (Cooper, Gaga, on a CD single, or by the label), so where exactly do you suppose it originated?—NØ 12:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The RIAA is about as close to an official source as you can get as they are the official certifier for US singles and albums. Adding the cover back and updating the file info to use that site as a source. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
No. And the RIAA has used a fanmade cover for their plaque for Taylor Swift's "Style" before. You need to produce a link to a primary source (which doesn’t exist because primary sources wouldn’t share a fake cover they know they didn’t create)—NØ 01:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have done more research on this topic, and found this GagaDaily thread, which attributes it to the Twitter account artfloozyyedits. This checks out with their watermark, which is clearly visible on the piano on the artwork. The twitter account itself has claimed to create the artwork: [1], [2]. With that in mind, I am formally disputing the copyright status of this image and nominating it for deletion.--NØ 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The new lawsuit. Here are a couple of sources for those who wish to add to the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, and 4

Shallow occupies the 3rd position in digital song sales decade-end chart shallow--179.56.154.81 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Shallow (2019) - '#40', source: https://www.promusicae.es/documents/viewfile/198-top-100-canciones-2019
A Star Is Born soundtrack (2019) - '#43', source: https://www.promusicae.es/documents/viewfile/197-listas-anuales-albumes-2019
X2franklop (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include so many obscure covers in the Cover versions section? It seems unreasonably overlong for me... I think it needs major cleanup. Sricsi (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, it might need but for me it is fine, I mean, the song is huge everywhere, there really are many covers. By the way, I have removed the link from Instagram, unnecessary. GagaNutellatalk 22:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There was a description of the song as being written in G major. This is at best debatable or just wrong. If the published music has one sharp in the 'key signature' it could indicate G major as the key but it could equally indicate e minor as the key. Equally a one sharp 'key signature' could refer to various other modal scales. The 'key signature' of the published piece does not define what the key is. Rather it defines a group of keys/modes. Only analysis of the piece will tell you what the key actually is, and this is slightly subjective. Sometimes it will seem clear whether a piece is in a particular key, but sometimes there may be room for debate, especially since a piece is not compelled to stay in the key of the 'key signature'. Since this piece starts and ends on an e minor chord, there is a strong case for suggesting e minor (natural) as the main key. You would have to do some serious analysis to be certain, which is probably beyond the scope of this article. I believe there is a problem because many of the online sheet music sources are not bothered about accuracy and if a piece has one sharp they just describe it as being in G major. The academic debate as to whether it is in G major or e minor or a mode is of no interest to them. It is simpler for them to ignore the issue. I think contributors are copying this erroneous source rather than analysing the piece to check the key. Alansrobinson (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the use of this image as cover art in the infobox. This image is fan-made and has never been released by Lady Gaga or her label as official cover art. While it may appear on the RIAA website, that does not establish it as the official artwork. RIAA is a reliable source for certifications and sales data, but not for determining what constitutes official promotional artwork. In this case, it is likely used by them only for illustrative purposes. 
Per the Non-free content policy (WP:NFCC):
NFCC#1 (No free equivalent) – This is not the actual cover, so a free alternative (or no image at all) would be preferable.
NFCC#8 (Contextual significance) – To meet this criterion, the image must be the subject's authentic published artwork. Since the artist and label never released this, it fails the requirement.
Cover artwork shold be used only when it is the genuine published cover that identifies the work. As this file is not official artwork, it should not appear in the infobox and should be deleted. I would like to note that the image has been uploaded to Wikipedia several times in the past, and it was always deleted in the end. Unfortunately, the last time I nominated it for deletion, the discussion was closed with no concensus. Sricsi (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@IndianBio, do you have any input? Sricsi (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely oppose this. —IB [ Poke ] 10:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)