User Talk: CHr0m4tiko0

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your recent work on "The Dead Dance ↗" and other Mother Monster songs lately! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you so much for the barnstar! I really appreciate it. It’s been great to contribute on The Dead Dance and other Gaga-related articles, and I’m glad to share these collaborations with fellow editors who also show the same enthusiasm. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
::Perhaps I am being too particular, but I'm looking for more editors to weigh in at Talk:Lady_Gaga_Enigma_%2B_Jazz_%26_Piano#Images ↗, if you're interested in how Gaga articles are illustrated. Either way, thanks again for collaborating on these entries! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi! If you’re interested, there’s currently a merge proposal at Talk:The_Mayhem_Ball#Merge_proposal ↗ — your input would be much appreciated! CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abracadabra (Lady Gaga song) ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GO Magazine ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lady Gaga - The Dead Dance (music video screenshot).png

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Lady Gaga - The Dead Dance (music video screenshot).png ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Die with a Smile

Hello!

I was looking at the top contributors of the aforementioned article and I noticed you were one of those. I was wondering if you want to make contributions to the article (alongside me) to make it GA? It would be a nomination with two co-contributors like Gaga and Mars did

Let me know something

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! That sounds great — I'd love to work with you on the GA nomination for "Die with a Smile". You can go ahead and make the nomination, and we'll work on the improvements together. Looking forward to it! CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
::Hi! First of all, I'm really sorry it took me almost a week to get back to you, but life and other stuff on wiki got in the way!
::Marvelous response, I believe we should divide the article in each section each will work so it don't overlap and lose track of edits. We should always to other person's section to see if its okay and double check not assuming bad faith but everyone does mistakes and a double pair of eyes is better than just one
::I have added a ton of sources on the talk page, plus I'm sure album reviews of Gaga's album also talk about the song. Moreover, because we have different styles of writing and POV's maybe submit the article to GOCE after we are done working on it. I'm just concerned about something is that the article doesn't seem stable at all, however this has happen before with Uptown Funk but once I started to work on it it kinda stabilized itself so fingers cross the same will happen here.
::But let me know your thoughts
::Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi! No problem at all. I agree that dividing the work by sections is a good idea to stay organized.
:::I recently expanded the Music video and Live performances sections, so I can review them again and check if any of the sources you added on the talk page could be incorporated. I could also take care of expanding the parts about the song's inclusion on ''Mayhem ''and the Commercial performance section, both the U.S. and international parts.
:::Let me know if that division works for you or if you had something different in mind. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
::::I can only start working on the article towards the end of the month. I'm extremely busy. Let me take a look at your proposition and then I will let you know something. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sure, sounds good. No rush at all, I might do some minor reviews in the meantime but we'll go with that plan and divide the work once you're available. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::Sure go ahead! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You can keep working on Live performances, Music video, Reactions towards the song's inclusion on Mayhem (You will have a better understanding that I do) and Composition. I will expand the Development, Commercial performance, Critical reception, Release and Lead (I only touch the latter after we are done on the others)
:::::::I don't think we need to worry about Personnel, Charts or Certifications or Release history or Accolades
:::::::Tell me what your thoughts and let me know something. I will put a "under construction" template once we start...maybe in a week or two this can be done?
:::::::Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
:Are you still up for this? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
::Hi! Sorry for the delay, I've been a bit short on time because of work and only managed to do a few minor edits. I haven't gone through the links on the talk page yet, but I'm still interested in expanding and nominating the article. I'll probably have more time in early December, so no rush at all. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Then in early December I will start to expand as well with template. Let me know if you are okay with the division of it MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi Mario, yes, I agree with that division. If you need any additional information (in addition to the links provided in the discussion), the Spanish-language article I worked on with another editor is quite comprehensive in most of its sections. Sorry I said I would start a few days ago; some work stuff came up. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::No problem take your time. Some stuff is more important than wiki. As long as the sources are in English should be fine...maybe we take it up a notch and go for FA after GOCE? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
:I kinda got excited with the article and created new sections and re-wrote entire things. Please tell me how you feel. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::I love the idea. This is my first year editing on enwiki and "Abracadabra ↗" is actually my first GA nomination, so I'm still getting used to the process, but aiming for a future FA sounds great to me.
::I checked the changes you made and they look really good. There's a lot of story behind the song and the new structure works perfectly. Keep going, and I'll work on my sections as soon as I can. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I feel like it has potential for FA with the amount of information we have and we are just getting started.
:::There is more than what I expected with the Watt and D'mile interviews. Ok, not worries take your time. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::::I didn't know about the D'Mile interview, though I had read Watt's. With all these different accounts of how the song came together — and considering Bruno also mentioned that Gaga was "kind enough to let him be on it" — I'm not sure the line "Gaga, who had a different version from the producers" still needs to be highlighted. Since everyone seems to describe the process slightly differently, we might want to revisit that part later so it doesn't feel singled out. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, everyone will have a different version of the same story. I always try to "mashup" them, but this is a case in which we can't and you removed it which is fine. I'm still missing the Critical reception

Lead {{done}}

Commercial performance {{done}}

Critical reception {{done}}

Development {{done}}

Release {{done}}

Accolades {{done}}

Release history {{done}}

During the weekend I should have some time to finish one of the other sections. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

:The article is looking great with all the additions you've been making. I wanted to ask what you think about grouping all American countries under one America heading while keeping Asia and Oceania separate. I can reorganize it if you agree so the structure stays cleaner and more consistent. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, good idea! I just noticed something are you done with the M/V section? Because we completely missed the directors of the video. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Great, I'll take care of the reorganization then. About the M/V section, I think it's mostly done for now. I couldn't find much more to add, since the video doesn't really lend itself to deeper analysis. The only concrete info I found was about who designed the costumes, but I didn't see any statements from Mars or Ramos, and most reviews just mention the aesthetic and style. Since you know Bruno better, do you know if he said anything I might have missed? CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I overlooked that in my reply earlier; the directors are already mentioned at the start of the first paragraph. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::::No, he didn't comment anything on it neither did Ramos. I removed some top ten charts you added, there is no need for a supermarket list of those. People can read the song was successful on various charts MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Alright, then I think the section is finished for now. And no worries about the charts, the radio airplay ones aren't particularly essential anyway. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Indeed the section is already huge as it is. I have improved the lead but I still need to do the critical reception section and need you to start on the composition section so I can finish the lead. Use the links on the talk page for that I will also use them to improve the critical reception. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:I have started checking the critical reception. I will move the numbers on the talk page and don't remove anything since you will need those sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::Great! I started working on the composition section yesterday with the sources I found and the basics are already there, and I'll keep checking for more. Also, do you know how to fix the notes issue? The note about Gaga's jazz projects (note "a") is showing up inside the Accolades table and I'm not sure how to separate it. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::You can't take it out. How about we remove that and only leave the awards? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Maybe we could include the explanatory text inside the <ref> tag so we don't have to remove it entirely, and keep the actual reference details right after it. It doesn't really relate to the awards section anyway, so keeping it out of the Accolades table would make more sense. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::I saw you edited it and it looks good to me like that. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Great! Something else I want to mention was trying to see if the song appeared on more year-end lists, but I couldn't find any...do you think it missed the cut off date for some lists? So it would appear in this year end lists? Just a thought MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I checked for that too but couldn't find any additional ones, it seems it just wasn't included in many lists, which is funny considering how huge the song ended up being lol. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What do you think about merging the Composition and Production sections, since they are closely related, and keeping Release as its own section? CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The composotion section is rapidly developing, let's leave it where it is for now, once we you go though all the sources we think about it again, ok? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Would you be able to find a reliable source for Gaga's monthly listeners on spotify by late January 2025? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Perfect, I'll keep looking for more composition info but I don't think there's much else in reliable sources. I couldn't find anything from late January, but I added a mid-February ''Billboard'' source confirming she reached 123 million ↗. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That works as well, perfect. Take a look at the sources on the talk page. From LA Times to USA Today. I haven't looked any further than that. I added something from another source (NYT). Its in the composition and Reception MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Regarding the sources still on the talk page: LA Times - can be used on the composition; Exclaim as a review of the music video; Clash can be used in composition as well. The former two can also be used in the music video, not sure if some info is missing. USA Today has info on the music video and full description of their outfits "old belt buckle". Similar to Telegraph India. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
: My good friend, I'm all done. Please check what I did to the composition, you are still missing three sources. Let me know something. Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the update! I've been busy with work and won't be able to edit much over the weekend, but I'll review the remaining sources between today and tomorrow. There's also a new ''Variety'' interview with James Fauntleroy where he mentions that Bruno originally pitched the song for ''Joker: Folie á Deux'' / ''Harlequin'' before it ended up on ''Mayhem'', so I'll check how we can incorporate that as well.
::Kind regards, CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::https://variety.com/2025/music/news/lady-gaga-bruno-mars-die-with-a-smile-making-of-song-1236599489/ CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I tried my best to move stuff to the right sections, definitely needs re-writing. Please do yes! We are very close to the end! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Conception {{done}} CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::I tough most of the info fitted there better! I left with only one source. I have used the others sources, only left you with one. Should be fairly quick MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Hi Mario! I've now added the remaining source from the talk page, replacing the AOL link ↗ with the original USA Today version ↗ since both were the exact same article by the same author. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I meant to reply but got busy with other stuff. Good job and thank you! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The article turned out great! Thank you as well for all your work. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

MoS

Hi CHr0m4tiko0,

I've noticed that each time you add an image to an article, I end up correcting the caption punctuation afterward — specifically removing the full stop at the end. I just wanted to clarify the reasoning so I don't have to keep fixing it each time.
Per MOS:CAPFRAG ↗, image captions that are sentence fragments should not end with a period, while complete sentences should. Most captions are written as short descriptive fragments, so they usually don't take one.
Examples for clarity:

✅ Lady Gaga performing "Alejandro" during The Mayhem Ball tour → fragment, no period.

✅ Gaga performing an acoustic set in Barcelona, 2025 → fragment, no period.

✅ Lady Gaga's acoustic set on the tour received praise from critics. → full sentence, period.

So if the caption just describes what's pictured (who/what/where), it shouldn't have a full stop. Only use one if it's a full sentence making a statement.
Just wanted to mention this so we can keep things consistent across the articles — it'll save me having to correct it after each edit. Please read the linked Manual of Style section if you need further clarification. Sricsi (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Sricsi, thanks for explaining that, really appreciate it! I'll read the MOS:CAPFRAG section since I'm still getting used to some of the style details around here.
:Also, just a small note: I'm not reverting your change on The Mayhem Ball ↗ ("Shallow" / "Bad Romance"), but honestly :File:Lady Gaga performing Shallow in Barcelona (edited).jpg ↗ looks way better — by far. The edited version I uploaded improves the lighting and contrast (and it could even be refined more in Photoshop if needed, no problem). On the other hand, :File:Lady Gaga Los Angeles - 54892836589.jpg ↗ has decent quality, but not as much as the other one, which was taken with a professional camera. And if you look closely at Gaga's and the dancers' feet, it looks super weird, almost like they were erased or edited out. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::To be honest, neither are good quality images. Hopefully we'll have access to more free licensed photos in the near future, and we don't need to use either of them. Sricsi (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Die with a Smile

I understand your point that the song being a standalone single is mentioned multiple times in the article, but chronologically, the ''Background and Development'' section comes first. If someone starts reading from the beginning (not counting the top summary), this information should appear upfront. The only other place it’s mentioned is in the ''Critical Reception'' section, which I wouldn’t call redundant—if it weren’t repeated there, it might be unclear why so many journalists felt the need to comment on this aspect. Sricsi (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

:I see what you mean. My only concern is that for a potential FA, we should avoid stating the same factual point twice in different sections. Right now, the standalone single detail appears both in Background and development and again in Reactions towards the song's inclusion on ''Mayhem''. If we keep it in one place, the other can simply refer back to it without restating the same information. That keeps the article tighter and avoids redundancy. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::I agree, should only appear in one place. Make it clear of course, ", the other can simply refer back to it without restating the same information". Nevertheless, this is bond to happen since there are two people working on this article, actually three since Sricsi have been very helpful. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I expanded the introduction of the "Reactions towards...." subsection to give more context, so ideally the mention stays there and we avoid repeating it earlier. The "Background and development" section doesn't really discuss the release itself, especially since we already have a dedicated "Production and release" section. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::@Sricsi see if you are okay with that? Fine by me. To be frank it would be suitable for the Production and release section, however those sections never mention if it was first, second or third single...unless they have a reliable source saying such MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::So, like I said earlier, I think we can keep the Top section out of this discussion, since it's only a summary and not part of the main article text. When looking strictly at the main text, the first place where the release is mentioned is this sentence in Background and development:
:::::"In a December 2024 interview with the ''Los Angeles Times'', she confirmed that the song would form part of ''Mayhem'' (2025), declaring: 'It's a huge part of my album, it was like a missing piece.'"
:::::But if we remove the previous statement that explained the song was first announced as a standalone single, this suddenly becomes much less clear. Without that context, the "missing piece" comment feels confusing — why would Gaga say that unless readers already know the song was originally presented as something separate from the album?
:::::That's why I think at least a brief mention in ''Background and development'' is necessary for the narrative flow. Otherwise readers won't understand the significance of that quote. The fuller discussion can stay in the "Reactions towards…" subsection, but the basic context should appear where the album connection is first introduced. Sricsi (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Repeating the same detail in two sections feels unnecessary. We can keep the full context in Reactions towards… and slightly adjust the line in Background and development so it reads clearly without restating it, simply noting that the song was later included on the album. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::But that's exactly my point — the sentence in Background and development no longer reads clearly without that context. We, as editors, know the explanation comes later, but a reader encountering the article for the first time won’t have that information yet. The "missing piece" quote only makes sense if the reader already understands that the song was originally presented as a standalone single. Without at least a brief mention there, the narrative becomes confusing.
:::::::We can avoid full duplication, of course, but some minimal context in the Background section feels necessary so that the quote doesn't seem abrupt or inexplicable. Sricsi (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Further sections like "Reactions towards the song’s inclusion on Mayhem" only work properly if that detail has already been established earlier, not introduced for the first time later. Repeating it in those sections isn't redundant, because in those cases it's mentioned only in relation to critical commentary.
::::::::So placing it upfront in Background and Development isn’t duplication; it’s establishing key context at the right point in the article’s structure. Sricsi (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The "missing piece" quote could be removed from Background and development without harming the clarity of the section. We can simply mention that in December 2024 she confirmed the song would be part of ''Mayhem'', and keep the fuller context in the Reactions subsection. That part already explains her reasons for adding the track, includes her own comments about closing the album with a sense of peace, and provides additional analysis, so the narrative remains clear without restating the same point twice. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::One possible compromise would be to remove the entire sentence from Background and development, since that section is mainly about how the collaboration came together. The fact that the track ended up on ''Mayhem'' is more of a release-related detail than part of the song’s background.
::::::::::Instead, we could place the full context in the Production and release section — for example:
::::::::::→ that the song was initially announced as a standalone single,
::::::::::→ and that Gaga later confirmed its inclusion on the album, describing it as the “missing piece”.
::::::::::That keeps all the release-specific information grouped in the section that already deals with those matters.
::::::::::The Reactions toward the song's inclusion on ''Mayhem'' subsection should still open with a clear lead-in such as: "Several journalists commented on the song’s inclusion on ''Mayhem'', since it was originally presented as a standalone single."
::::::::::I wouldn't consider that repetition, because in Reactions the detail is mentioned specifically in relation to critical commentary — not as part of the factual narrative of the release. The Release section would establish the fact; the Reactions section would explain how critics interpreted it. Those serve different purposes. Sricsi (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The mention in the lead stays, completely out of discussion its removal.
::::::::::You make a good point, removing it from the reactions portion and open with that sentence.
::::::::::Add to the Release section: "Die With a Smile" was originally promoted as a standalone single. It was later chosen by the singer to close ''Mayhem,'' as she wanted the album to end with a "sense of peace", noting it was the last song she wrote for the record. ...then we continue The song was first released, etc etc... MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with that approach. Moving the context to the Release section works much better and lets us keep everything without removing content, while avoiding repetition in the other sections. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I would leave her quote on the previous section, it helps with context in case the reader forgot MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I've slightly adjusted the wording in the ''Release'' section, otherwise it should work now (hopefully for everyone). Sricsi (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::One question. Earlier there was a sentence in the article ("Additionally, Andrew Watt revealed in an interview with ''Rolling Stone'' that the song had always been intended for ''Mayhem''".), which I've removed because it was not relevant to the section it was in, and because it was only sourced with a Spotify link and we should generally refrain from using Spotify as source, unless there is really no other alternative. My question, should we reinstate this statement, but add it to the ''Release ''section of the article? And if this was a ''Rolling Stone'' interview, can we find the statement in an article by ''RS''? I have so far not been able to locate it on their pages. Sricsi (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::We should can you give me the spotify link? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Link: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0MpHlrhz9DsRrFj7ENDcUt?si=-oG7pksvTLqixhI1eUe7vw ↗ . Sricsi (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::This is the source, but that its only available on the audio...we should have a minute for that and if so it can be used MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@Sricsi I saw the source you added [https://journals.ristek.or.id/index.php/jiph/article/view/202/144 ↗].It says on their about page "high-quality specialist journal that publishes articles from the broad spectrum of ''Curriculum Development, Teaching and Learning Innovation''. Its primary aim is to communicate clearly, to an international readership, the results of original auditing research conducted in research institutions and/or in practice." Anyone can submit as long as it follow their essay format, I have some doubts regarding the editor team. Their Principal is in Timor-Leste but this place is in Idonesia and the other person doesn't have an address in Indonesia or something else? Plus the editorial team are usually college teachers
:::::::::::::::::This is not an Ivy League collage, doesn't need to be but I'm not sure about their teaching and other skills, I know that when those students/professionals try to come to Europe its not easy due to differences in the subjects contents and sometimes they need to do a different class to get the same credits
:::::::::::::::::@CHr0m4tiko0 Thoughts as well? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I don't think this journal article is appropriate. It's a primary academic analysis of the lyrics, not a secondary source about the song itself, so I'd suggest not using it. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Ok. I wasn’t sure, just thought it might be useful. Thanks for checking. Sricsi (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Thanks for finding that. I have now removed it MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
I checked the Spotify audio: at 14:22, Watt says the song was always intended for ''Mayhem''. I couldn't find a written ''Rolling Stone'' source, so adding the Spotify link should be fine since it's relevant to the Release section. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

:That's perfect! Thank you both! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Abracadabra (Lady Gaga song) ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Abracadabra (Lady Gaga song) ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Abracadabra (Lady Gaga song)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Abracadabra (Lady Gaga song) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Abracadabra (Lady Gaga song) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Abracadabra (Lady Gaga song)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

:Congrats! Sricsi (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you! Much appreciated, and thanks as well for your contributions to the article. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. I have noticed that you {{usertalk other|often ↗|often}} edit without using an edit summary ↗. Please do your best to {{strong|always fill in the summary field}}. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences ↗. Thanks!  SNUGGUMS (talk / edits ↗) 15:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Die with a Smile

I'm going to nominated "Die with a Smile ↗" for FAC. You alongside me and Sricsi will be a co-nominator.

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

:Sounds great, Mario!! Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on the nomination and help as needed. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
::First batch of comments is already there. I have address the lead so far MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
::Do you mind coming to my talk page and take a look at the bottom? Me and Sricsi are thinking about removing something on the article, but we would love your feedback. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Possible Edit War on Lady Gaga article

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ '''You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗''' on the Lady Gaga ↗ article. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, avoid editing disruptively ↗, and try to reach a consensus ↗ – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:
# {{strong|Edit warring is disruptive behavior ↗ – regardless of how many reverts you have made;}}
# {{strong|Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.}}
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page ↗ and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. {{strong|If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked ↗ from editing.}}  Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

:I want to clarify that I did not initiate an edit war here. The genre content in the infobox had been stable for a long time on a Featured Article, and the recent dispute arose after another editor repeatedly removed long-established genres (previously electronic, now jazz).
:In the past, multiple editors explained why removing electronic was incorrect. A similar situation is now occurring with jazz. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
::Per Wikipedia:Edit warring ↗, '''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.''' It does not matter ''who'' initiated the edit war. Both editors are in the wrong. Take it to the article's talk page and try to reach consensus there. I started a discussion section for you there. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The Mayhem Ball

I think there is a misunderstaing here.

Per ''Variety'', "Gaga may not do concept albums, per se, but she does concept tours, so this one — subtitled “The Art of Personal Chaos” — invites you to ponder exactly what’s on her narrative mind,". (https://variety.com/2025/music/columns/lady-gaga-mayhem-ball-tour-why-it-matters-1236476862/)

This subtitle refers to both the early promotional shows and the tour performances. So it's not correct to imply that only the pre-tour shows carried this title, or that the tour itself didn't incorporate it conceptually.

I also noticed that you incorrectly titled the Spanish Wikipedia article on the pre-tour shows ''The Art of Personal Chaos''. This is very misleading, because this subtitle refers to both the early promo shows and the tour's shows, as well. There is a good reason we are naming that article ''Mayhem promotional shows'' in the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure where this confusion is coming from — maybe you haven't seen the opening title cards at the tour shows?

Thanks! Sricsi (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

:I'm replying here to your comment on my Talk page, to keep the convo in one place.
:"a similar approach appears in other Gaga articles: Chromatica ("Tour" – Main articles: The Chromatica Ball and Gaga Chromatica Ball), Artpop ("Residency and tour" – Main articles: Lady Gaga Live at Roseland Ballroom and ArtRave: The Artpop Ball), and Joanne ("Tour" – Main articles: Dive Bar Tour and Joanne World Tour)."
:The problem with your comparison is that the Roseland Ballroom shows have absolutely nothing to do with the Artpop Ball, and the Dive Bar Tour has absolutely nothing to do with the Joanne World Tour. This is not the case here. Both the pre-tour concerts and the tour's shows have the exact same in-concert title, core narrative, and the majority of the setlist. Sricsi (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::The Spanish Wikipedia operates under a different editorial framework than the English Wikipedia. For example, we consider "Die with a Smile" and "The Dead Dance" to be singles from ''Mayhem'', and this is reflected in both the single and album infoboxes.
::The decision to use "The Art of Personal Chaos" instead of "Conciertos promocionales de ''Mayhem''" aims to provide consistency and clarity, especially given that each event had its own official name ("Mayhem on the Beach", "Mayhem on the Desert", "Viva la Mayhem", "Mayhem Singapura"). This approach creates a clear distinction between the promotional concerts and the tour ("The Mayhem Ball").
::While both formats share certain elements, the tour expands on them and introduces new material, including additional songs (such as piano performances), new costumes, a different lighting production, and new interludes. For these reasons, this discussion does not translate directly to the Spanish Wikipedia, which follows its own set of guidelines and conventions. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
:::''The Art of Personal Chaos'' is the subtitle of both the pre-tour and the tour shows. Calling only the early shows by that name is totally incorrect. I was merely pointing out that issue. I don't speak Spanish, so I have no intentions of editing the Spanish Wikipedia :D Luckily, on the English version there is no confusion. Sricsi (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I understand your point, but I think this is precisely where the distinction lies. You are referring to the in-concert title and the conceptual framing of the shows, whereas in the ''Mayhem ''article the focus should be on the official names and structural classification of the events, particularly the tour itself. "The Mayhem Ball" is the official name of the tour and should be reflected as such in the article. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::And it is still reflected in the article. But the earlier phrasing of that whole section was misleading, as it implied that the pre-tour shows and the Mayhem Ball concerts have basically nothing to with each other, and only the early shows had this subtitle. Now it should be clear to readers. Sricsi (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::I can assure you that there is no confusion on the Spanish Wikipedia. In fact, the topic is developed in much greater detail there, and the structure is fully consistent with the tour. Overall, the ''Mayhem'' era is more thoroughly covered on the Spanish Wikipedia than on the English one, not as a form of boasting but simply because it currently includes a larger number of well-developed articles that meet good article or featured article criteria. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think changing the wording to "Concert series" ↗ is appropriate here. "The Mayhem Ball" is formally and reliably described as a tour, and it is structured, promoted, and reported as such across multiple sources. Using "tour" is not a matter of interpretation but of accurately reflecting how the events are classified.
:::::::"Concert series" would unnecessarily downplay that status and introduce ambiguity, whereas "Concerts and tour" works well as an umbrella term and remains consistent with how similar sections are handled in other Gaga album articles. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::Nice to hear. Still, calling the pre-tour show's article ''The Art of Personal Chaos'' is misleading. It implies that the tour's shows are something totally different, while in reality it's just a longer, and adjusted version of those shows. But like I said I have no intention of editing in Spanish, I'm happy if the English Wikipedia can be accurately phrased. Sricsi (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Concert series is plural. It refers to both the promo shows and the tour. It's a good umbrella term for any concerts that are not one-off presentations (like the LA concert tomorrow.). Sricsi (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Alright, we can keep it this way for now and see if any comments come up when a reviewer assesses the article. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 50px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Half Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For being a productive cooperator on "Die with a Smile ↗" and easy to talk to, we will always have opposed point of views, but we can still find a balance. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you, Mario, I really appreciate it. Even when we had different points of view, the discussion was always productive and respectful. Glad we could work through it together, and I'm very happy with how the article turned out!! CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Mayhem (Lady Gaga album)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AskeeaeWiki -- AskeeaeWiki (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Mayhem (Lady Gaga album)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AskeeaeWiki -- AskeeaeWiki (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Mayhem (Lady Gaga album)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AskeeaeWiki -- AskeeaeWiki (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

:Congrats! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you!! CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Vanish into You ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Vanish into You ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Vanish into You/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Vanish into You ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Vanish into You ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Vanish into You/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:Congrats again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for your contributions, and thanks to @Sricsi too! Hopefully, we can collaborate on bringing all the ''Mayhem ''content to GA level. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{like}} --Another Believer (Talk) 20:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Vanish into You ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Vanish into You ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Vanish into You/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Garden of Eden (Lady Gaga song) ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Garden of Eden (Lady Gaga song) ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Garden of Eden (Lady Gaga song)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Garden of Eden (Lady Gaga song) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Garden of Eden (Lady Gaga song) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Garden of Eden (Lady Gaga song)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Archive.today

There is a new consensus ↗ that forbids the use of Archive.today as an archiving method for future cases, so probably that's why you could not add archive links to a source. Going forward, use the ''web.archive.org'' site. Sricsi (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know! CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Dead dance

Hi CHr0m4tiko0; Your GAN is listed and for full disclosure then I've done about a dozen small edits on the article when the Wednesday series came out last year. If you would like me to do the review for this song then let me know; if you want to wait for someone who has not edited it at all, then you might need to wait. Let me know what you think. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hi ErnestKrause, thanks for the disclosure! I don't mind at all, feel free to go ahead with the review. I appreciate your help! CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Dead Dance ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article The Dead Dance ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:The Dead Dance/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on The Dead Dance ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :The Dead Dance ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A dates ↗ error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates ↗. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dead_Dance&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1349389837%7CThe%20Dead%20Dance%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20CHr0m4tiko0&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:The Dead Dance}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1349389837 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Dead Dance ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article The Dead Dance ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:The Dead Dance/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

:Congrats again! Always nice to see Gaga entries promoted ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :Mayhem promotional concerts ↗ for merging to The Mayhem Ball ↗

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Mayhem promotional concerts ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be merged ↗ into The Mayhem Ball ↗.

The article is being discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayhem promotional concerts (2nd nomination) ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.</div> ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

<div class="user-block uw-pblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing from certain pages (:List of most-attended concerts ↗) for a period of '''24 hours''' for edit warring ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes ↗ and seek consensus ↗. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution ↗, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)</div></div>

Lady Gaga

Let's try this a second time. We have received various feed back that was included for quite some time. See below. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Die with a Smile/archive2 ↗ MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hey Mario! Sure, that sounds great. We should keep in mind that we'll need to gradually replace the "archive.today" links, since we should be using the Wayback Machine or a similar service instead. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::I was not aware of that? I will leave that up to one of you guys, since I had to re-write two entire sections. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Mayhem concerts

Hey,
Just wanted to ask if you are planning to work on merging the two ''Mayhem ''concert series articles as the proposal was closed as ''merge''. Asking you, as you are the main contributor of those articles. There's quite a bit overlap that should be cut down (e.g. synopsis), and the reception section should definitely be cleaned up because it's already unnecessarily overlong even without the merge (instead of quoting every single outlet, the paragraphs should be built around regular remarks the journalists have made). If you need help, let me know. After the merge, we still need to initiate a separate renaming proposal. Sricsi (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi Sricsi, yes, I do plan to work on it. Since the proposal was closed yesterday, I want to reread both articles carefully first and see what information is worth keeping, trimming, or rewriting. From what I remember, sections such as "Concert synopsis" and "Production" are already much better developed in the Mayhem Ball article, so I agree there is overlap to cut down. I also agree about "Critical reception"; it should be summarized more broadly around common points made by critics, especially since we would mainly need to incorporate Coachella and Copacabana. "Commercial performance" would also need to be expanded, and "Impact" could probably be integrated into the tour article as well. We could also merge parts of "Background and development" with "Background and development"/"Announcements", since they cover similar timelines.
:There is quite a lot of material, so yes, I'd appreciate the help. We could divide the sections and incorporate the content gradually if that works for you. For now, I just want to reread everything properly and think through the best way to move the relevant material over. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
::I also forgot to mention that I'll probably check similar tour articles as a guide for how to integrate the material in a more coherent way. I was thinking of using articles such as the Eras Tour ↗ and the Monster Ball ↗ Tour, among others, just to see how similar content is organized and how we can make the merged article flow better. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I didn't see your message earlier. I actually started working on merging the synopsis section already. But I've reverted the changes. The Monster Ball is a good starting point, because that's the most similar situation. Its 2010-2011 shows are a revamped version of what was presented in 2009. However, the Mayhem Ball is much more similar to the pre-tour shows, so there's much more we should cut.
:::One thing I noticed is there isn't much information on the outfits from the pre-tour shows. I don't know if there are sources that covers this a bit better, to avoid only focusing on the tour's outfits. Sricsi (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
::::And I would note that the critical reception should include in a last paragraph the small issues/nitpicks some journalists noted. There weren't much of those, as the tour was generally acclaimed. But I do remember some minor remarks (e.g. one journalist criticizing her guitar play during "The Beast") that should be included for the sake of neutrality. Anyway, these are small issues, it can also be fixed after the merging is done. Sricsi (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::And unfortunately, much of the text cannot simply be copied over to the other article, because the ''archive.today ''links are flagged when moved there. Sricsi (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::As a side note… I was reviewing the merge discussion and noticed that there were more users who opposed it, but the outcome was still merge. What's up with that? CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::This can happen because AfD is not (always) closed by a headcount. The closer is supposed to assess the strength of the arguments, not simply count the number of ''merge'' and ''not merge'' votes. The merge argument was based on WP:PAGEDECIDE: whether readers are better served by having the subject covered separately or within a broader related article. The closer seems to have found that argument stronger than the oppose arguments.
:::::::Well, interesting result, but I think it's for the better. There are way too many overlapping elements in the two articles; it can become a much stronger solo article. Sricsi (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.

Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Die with a Smile

Hi CHr0m4tiko0 and <nowiki>{{ping|Sricsi}}</nowiki>! I hope you both doing well. As you might seem the article of "Die with a Smile" has suffered major reconstruction work and I'm sure we will get more reviews in the future before anything else. I hope all the changes I have made to the article are fine with you guys, if not please let me know and the reviewers know!

Nevertheless, the last two editors have pointed out an issue regarding the archive-today links, the support of one is depending on it. I want give my congrats to CHr0m4tiko0 because his work on it has been relentless and I would like to ask Sricsi to help him out to make this faster. Live Performances is halfway done just needs everything else below that and I think this could help move the article in the right direction.

I would help, but my hands are full with the GA backlog drive, a Mars GA article on review, next single (which I haven't found the time to even start) and the review and re-written of the prose on "Die With a Smile" has been non-stop.

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi Mario, how are you? Thank you for all your work on the article. It looks excellent to me, so I have no issues with any of the changes you have made.
:I apologize for not replacing any archive links over the past few days, but I am still working on them. At the moment, there are 77 links left in total. I am also busy with a GA nomination on another Wikipedia, but I am committed to replacing all of them. The Wayback Machine has rate limits and usually does not allow me to archive more than around 8–10 links per day, so I estimate that I should be able to finish everything within approximately one week. Of course, if {{ping|Sricsi}} can help, the process would be much faster.
:Kind regards, CHr0m4tiko0 CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hi both,
::I’m currently on holiday and unfortunately don’t have my laptop with me. So the earliest I can do this is Friday. If my help is still needed, then of course I can support with updating the archived links. I’ve been doing exactly that lately on other Gaga-related articles. Sricsi (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::No worries, I'll take care of it. I’ve already made good progress, and I believe there are now fewer than 60 links remaining. Enjoy your holiday! CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::First, enjoy your holiday! Then, if you can help when you return it would be great! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks I really appreciate it! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
{{ping|MarioSoulTruthFan|Sricsi}} Regarding Gog the Mild's comment, I have already standardized the song title as "Die with a Smile". However, the titles of the 423 references still need to be consistently formatted in either sentence case or title case. Which style would you prefer? The three of us could divide the work into three batches: references 1–141, 142–282 and 283–423.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'm good either way., but perhaps sentence case would be easier? I won't be much of a help this week, since I will be crazy busy but I'll do my best. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
::Great, sentence case it is then. No worries if you are busy this week; I'll start working on the references and will try to indicate in each edit summary which reference ranges I have corrected, to make the work easier for all three of us. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I fixed what I could for now. I believe only the references in the ''Charts'' section remain. Sricsi (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I just used a script to do so. See if you guys are ok with it, if not the script has other alternatives. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)