Talk:Die with a Smile

Since there is currently an edit war going on, I wanted to bring it to the talk page. When "Die with a Smile" was released in August, representatives for Lady Gaga confirmed that it was a standalone single.^[1] In September, she posted that the first single from her upcoming eighth album would be released in October, referring to "Disease".^[2] However, Lady Gaga has just confirmed that "Die with a Smile" will be on her upcoming album.^[3] Some editors are using this as justification to call "Die with a Smile" the album's lead single and "Disease" its second. I believe that "Disease" should still be treated as the lead single since it was promoted exclusively that way. It should definitely be stated in the article that "Die with a Smile" is included on the album, but it should not be called a lead single. Flabshoe1 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Flabshoe1 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Die with a Smile is a bonus track. It's not a single from the album. It's not Gaga's song either, it's Bruno's song. GogoLion (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The song will be included in Gaga's album, not as the lead single. Its a bonus track. Its both's Gaga and Mars's song, they share credits on it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Where is the evidence it is a bonus track? 98.18.147.11 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

there is literary no evidence the song is a bonus track, it is just part of the album, Mayhem should be on the infobox 148.69.48.129 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox_song#album: If the song was originally released as a single well in advance of the album, |album= should not be used, since it is not from the album, but later added to one. Thedayandthetime (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The info box notes 16 months as its example of “well in advance.” Becks bolero and Back on the chain gang both adhere to the example. 6 months and 20 days is not “well in advance”, and is almost 1/3 of the time given in the example. Don’t need to report it as the first LG7 single (or should I say LG8 lol), but this is a weak justification (not to mention the song was released by interscope.) Not really expecting any changes, you guys seem very set! Just would be nice, and accurate. 2603:8001:6A00:B462:3D0C:A00E:5382:BB84 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It was not added to the album, the album was announced with it included on every edition. Mayhem was never promoted without Die With A Smile, therefore we cannot say it was added to the album. Gaga's word does not count when we refuse to call the album her seventh when she does - why does her calling Disease the lead hold more weight than that? 98.18.147.11 (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Please see Katy Perry's Smile article. She promoted singles that were released in the same window as the other singles from the album and still did not make the track list. Also, check "Never Really Over", a track originally marketed as standalone single and later announced to be on the album. Its infobox does not use "album" either for the same reason the article for "Die with a Smile" musn't. Thedayandthetime (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This refers to Camila Cabello and Shawn Mendes's collaborative single "Señorita". It is just included single, not a lead single of Cabello's second studio album Romance. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

There’s literally not a single version of the album where Die With A Smile is not included. You guys seem to hate Gaga and it shows 2A02:14F:F:D069:4871:5DA1:9851:194F (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The track was originally released a standalone single. Again: according to Template:Infobox song#album, "If the song was originally released as a [standalone] single [...] in advance of the album, |album= should not be used, since it is not from the album, but later added to one [...] [For the |album= parameter to be used], the song [had to be] originally released as a single during the marketing and promotion of an album." It is clear that "later added to one" refers to the song being released in promotion of the album, which was clearly not. Thedayandthetime (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

MAYHEM Producer Andrew Watt shares that “Die With A Smile” was always intended for Lady Gaga’s album. Source: https://x.com/grxndesenigma/status/1893693529660031433?s=46 79.177.144.103 (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Still not released in promotion of the album. Thedayandthetime (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

That statement is not “clear” it is up for interpretation, and you will always interpret it unfavorably to Gaga. The example is referring to a much longer timeframe, and you reduce it to a promotion cycle to fit your argument. You do not get to decide when the LG7 promotion cycle started, and at this point Gaga, Her team, Label, and now Producers are all saying it was meant for the album. You’re on a power trip, stop making it so obvious. 2603:8001:6A00:B462:79EC:4255:BCB5:F503 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Also If you want to declare "Die with a Smile" is a lead single, then please attach reliable sources of it. In Wikipedia, we don't regard primary sources as well. See WP:PSTS. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 11:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Gaga herself and her team stated it was not released in promotion of the album at the time of its release. Thedayandthetime (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Thedayandthetime. As I said, it is just a same case as Shawn Mendes and Camila Cabello's successful collaborative single "Señorita". This single wasn't promoted as lead single of Cabello's second studio album Romance. Thus, "Die with a Smile" is not a lead single from the album Mayhem, because it wasn't promoted as lead single. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 11:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Mayhem should not be included in the infobox, because "Die with a Smile" was not initially released a single in promotion of the album. It was originally promoted as a standalone single, while "Disease" was promoted as and confirmed to be the official lead single for Mayhem.

Same situation as "Never Really Over" from Smile, "Radar" from Circus, and "Miracle" from 96 Months. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

If a consensus is formed to include Mayhem in the infobox, then "Die with a Smile" NEEDS to be included in the Singles section of Mayhem's infobox for consistency. It does not make sense to exclude "Die with a Smile" from the album's infobox, while Mayhem is included in the single's infobox. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Same situation as "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" from Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran. I think it's clear that some non-album singles can be released as standalone singles and later be added to an album, which does not make those singles singles in promotion of the album. Thedayandthetime (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay but those songs were released well in advance before mentioned albums were out - more than a year before. Expect for "Radar" but it has infobox with Circus."Die with a Smile" came out only 7 months before "Mayhem", which is still a usual frame for singles from album to be released. 188.33.24.39 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I think a consensus simply needs to be formed to decide whether "Die with a Smile" should be considered a single for Mayhem. If yes, then the article for Mayhem needs to be edited to refer to "Disease" as the second single (the prose currently refers to it as lead single). TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Gaga herself said "Disease" is first single of the album in the ASMR video of W Magazine. So stop. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 15:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

watch from 12:36. She said "I choose "Disease" as first single" Camilasdandelions (talk!) 15:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Just make sure that both articles are consistent with each other, because they currently aren't. The "DWAS" article currently implies that it was a single for Mayhem (which would result in it being lead single), but the Mayhem article does not list "DWAS" as a single. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Including Mayhem in {{Infobox song}} is inappropriate; the song may be included on the album, but it definitely was not released as a single from the album — there is a difference. Per the press release by Universal Music Canada, it states: True artists dedicated to their craft, the musical titans came together to create this standalone collaboration as a treat for their fans. Its intention was to be a standalone single, and was promoted as such. Therefore, it is a standalone single, which just happens to be later included on the album. It was not an intended single from the album. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

In this article by Mastercard from February 3, 2025 it is stated that Abracadabra is a third single from the album which indicates that Die with a Smile was a single from album:

Mastercard and Gaga kicked off the campaign by premiering the video for “Abracadabra,” the third single from the album, MAYHEM..

That's the most recent official statement for album's singles numbering. 188.33.234.74 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact that "Die with a Smile" was not a single released in promotion of the album. Thedayandthetime (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Is Mastercard reliable source? No sources are reliable then Gaga herself. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 22:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

There were a collaboration between Lady Gaga and Mastercard during "Abracadabra" promotion so I would name them a reliable source for this. This article is from the press release. If we keep "Mayhem" out of "Die with a Smile" infobox then mentioned before Señorita should not have Romance as an album in infobox as well, because it wasn't released during album's promotion. 188.33.240.213 (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @CHr0m4tiko0 and @Sricsi!

First of all a big thank you to both. First, CHr0m4tiko0 for splinting the article with me, so we don't overlap, and expanding the composition section as well as going to my sections to correct or add stuff. Last but not least, to Srics for arise reasonable doubt, dinging sources, correcting our grammar and spelling and even adding information. The article is almost ready for the next step, but ofc I want to hear from you since this was a team effort.

I have proposed to CHr0m4tiko0, and as far as I can remember, he wasn't oppose to submit the article to GOCE so they can prepare the article for FA nomination (they can also prepare for GA if you think its better to start there. This is a team effort). The three of us are among the top 10 editors, last time I checked one of us has to be in the top three for nominations regarding GA's. So one would be the nominator and the other two co-nominators, but we would have the same responsibility regarding this article for GA/FA. Plus this was mostly written by three people that have different writing styles and the GOCE can make it tight and with the same writing style over and over.

If no one is oppose I can nominate it for the GOCE? (after CHr0m4tiko0 finishes using the last source, I went over the last two because of his scarcity of time). The article is humongous, mostly because of our edits, and the GOCE has finished their month long drive (November). It might take sometime until they get around to "Die With a Smile", which is okay since there are probably a hundred year end charts and maybe some year end lists to add. I'm quite sure it will top the "Billboard'' Hot 100 YEC. On top of that, the article has time to become stable since GA's and FA's have that as a requirement along with no edit wars going on.

Like I said, this is some food for your thoughts and I need your opinions.

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Mario, and thanks to @Sricsi as well. I really appreciate all the work both of you have put into this. I also want to acknowledge that before we agreed to expand the article together, a good portion of my early edits were translations of material originally written by @Biagio2103, whose thorough research and writing deserve credit. Once Mario and I decided to expand the page, most of what followed was developed directly through our collaboration.

It has been a very intense few days of editing, so I agree that sending the article to GOCE is an excellent idea. It will give us a bit of breathing room while also helping ensure the prose is fully polished and consistent, especially with the upcoming year-end charts still to be added.

I have no objections to the nomination, so feel free to go ahead whenever you think the timing is right. We will keep an eye on the process and make any adjustments if the copyeditors suggest something. The article is in great shape compared to where it started — excellent work! CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

So were some of my edits, so ofc he also deserves the praise, wouldn't be possible without @Biagio2103. I agree, it has been quite some intense edit days, I was going to work on "Apt" next, but I will give it a break (plus I will need a buddy on that as well ahah). It's now in the hands of the very capable GOCE, it will take sometime maybe in 2026 it will ready to be submitted to FAR. We will keep in touch since we need a nominator and I asked GOCE to prepare it for FA. I have some experience with FL, not articles. Most of my experience has to do with GA articles, nominations and reviewer, but I think this is the perfect article to start with FA. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you both for all the effort that went into this article.

I also support sending it to GOCE for a copyedit. Having their input will help ensure consistency in style, grammar, and formatting across our different writing styles, and give the article the polish it needs before any nomination. I don’t have any objections to proceeding with the nomination whenever you feel the timing is right. Sricsi (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Given the new information from the Variety interview (Fauntleroy) and the clarified timeline of the song's early development — along with the details provided by Watt and Gaga about the recording sessions — I think we may want to reconsider whether the section "Comments on the song's inclusion on Mayhem" is still warranted.

That section was originally created at a time when the critical narrative suggested that the track had been added late to the album or that it was somewhat external to the Mayhem creative process. However, the latest sources point to a far more integrated creative trajectory: the song was developed during the album sessions, and it is now clear that Mars considered Gaga for the track from the outset, whether for Joker: Folie à Deux, Harlequin, or ultimately for Mayhem. This makes the premise of the section less relevant.

Since most of the commentary there is repetitive and narrowly focused on a single point (the track's placement as the closer), it might be more appropriate to summarize the relevant viewpoints in a short paragraph within "Critical reception" instead of maintaining a dedicated subsection. This would avoid undue weight and align more closely with GA/FA expectations regarding article balance. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan what do you think? If you agree with this proposal, I can go ahead and make the changes. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think so. Regardless of how we now interpret those comments—or whether some reviewers formed their opinions without knowing the full context of the song’s development—we can’t overlook the fact that a significant number of critics expressed very clear views specifically about the track’s inclusion on Mayhem. Omitting those perspectives altogether would risk downplaying coverage that did occur, which wouldn’t be neutral.

There are also reviewers whose album reviews focused only on the question of the song’s placement or its presence on the album, without offering a broader critique of the track itself. Those viewpoints would be difficult to integrate cleanly into general “Critical reception” without losing their specificity.

Could the section be trimmed for conciseness? Possibly. But as it stands, it’s well-written, accurately sourced, and reflects a distinct strand of commentary that was prominent at the time. I would keep it for now, and revisit the structure later—especially once it gets nominated and we see whether the reviewer has any request for adjustments. Sricsi (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting removing the perspectives entirely, but I do think the subsection may no longer be necessary in its current form, especially now that we have detailed context from Fauntleroy, D'Mile, Watt, and Gaga showing that the song was developed during the Mayhem sessions, and that Mars had even considered it for Joker Gaga's Harlequin project before it ultimately became part of the album — meaning it was never a late or external addition.

Most album reviews don't actually focus on DWAS as a standalone topic — they mention its placement briefly within broader assessments of the record. Since many artists include pre-release singles on their albums without requiring a dedicated subsection about that, this one feels a bit disproportionate.

My idea would be to trim it and integrate the key points into Critical reception, so the viewpoints remain represented without giving undue weight to a single aspect of the commentary. If we keep it as-is, a GA/FA reviewer may request this adjustment later anyway. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The subsection isn’t about how the song was created, but about how critics responded to its inclusion based on what they understood at the time. Even with the updated information, the fact remains that many reviewers treated the song’s placement on the album as a distinct point of commentary—sometimes as the main point of their review of the track. Several outlets framed the inclusion as “tacked on,” an “afterthought,” “odd,” “anticlimactic,” or conversely, as a strong thematic closer. That range of perspectives was substantial enough that summarizing everything into a single paragraph in “Critical reception” risks flattening or losing the context behind those reactions.

We could certainly trim any repetition, if needed, but the section is well-sourced, balanced, and reflects a genuine critical narrative that emerged regardless of later clarifications. The fact that most of these opinions were formed before the Fauntleroy timeline became known doesn’t negate their relevance—they still represent the contemporary reception of the album. Sricsi (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Several of the remarks you mention ("tacked on", "afterthought", "odd", "anticlimactic", etc.) come from album reviews and are evaluating Mayhem as a whole rather than the song itself. As you noted, they "represent the contemporary reception of the album", which raises the question of whether a standalone subsection in the song article gives this angle more weight than appropriate under WP:WEIGHT. Most of those reviews are commenting on how the track functions within the album's sequencing rather than offering a critique of the song as an individual work. That's why I suggested trimming the subsection and integrating the key points into general Critical reception: the perspectives remain represented, but without giving disproportionate emphasis to a single aspect of the commentary.

We can keep the most representative comments while reducing length and avoiding undue weight. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The whole sections feels a bit elaborate. Realistically speaking, only the comments made by Thomas Stremfel of Spectrum Culture (which is a website I've never seen before) and Shaad D'Souza from The New York Times (a newspaper known for their sometimes outrageous commentary) feels targeted at the decision to add the song. The rest are basically reviews from the album that discuss if the songs is a good closure, such comments wouldn't exist if the song was placed in the middle. Every album Gaga has made, has had songs that some critics believe are our of place and do not fulfill the overall narrative of the album, whether the album feels cohesive or not it's always something critics comment on. We could do another section of critics commenting on "Disease" being the opening track, critics are divided onto whether the song is a good opener or not, the same way they did with "Alice" for Chromatica, "Diamond Heart" for Joanne and so on. I remember back in the day with Artpop, many critics commented that "Applause" was the perfect closure since it's supposed to be a celebration, so I don't see this section being relevant. Biagio2103 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think Biagio raises a very good point here. I also checked WP:RSP, and Spectrum Culture isn't listed at all (and doesn't even have a Wikipedia article), which shows how limited its relevance is in this context. Beyond the two cases he mentioned, the rest of the remarks are simply comments on how DWAS works as the closing track of Mayhem rather than actual critiques of the single itself — not its lyrics, production, or musical identity. If we treated every track-placement remark this way, we would end up creating similar sections for countless singles across multiple albums, which isn't standard practice in song articles. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand the WP:WEIGHT concerns, but I think the subsection is still appropriate. Many reviewers specifically highlighted the song’s placement on Mayhem as a notable point—even as the main commentary on the track—so merging everything risks losing that nuance.

Spectrum Culture is a legitimate source, cited even by the aggregator site AnyDecentMusic in their album score for Mayhem. It not having an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant.

The section is well-sourced and balanced. Minor trimming for repetition could be considered, but removing it entirely would underrepresent how critics engaged with the song’s placement. Personally, I’d recommend keeping it as-is for now. Sricsi (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether critics commented on the placement — they did — but how much weight that commentary should have in a song article. Most of those remarks were brief notes within album reviews, not full critiques of the track, which is why a standalone subsection feels disproportionate. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

For several reviewers, the song’s inclusion was the main or only point they made about DWAS. Since those reactions formed a distinct part of the track’s reception, I would argue that summarizing everything into a single paragraph would underrepresent that coverage. Trimming is fine, but removing the subsection would flatten commentary that genuinely existed at the time. Sricsi (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree maybe trimming down the section. The song wasn't considered exactly for the album sessions. Mars was working on music and he came up with that idea, showed it to D'mile who liked and they worked on it along with James and it got to a point they were unsure how they could develop it further. It was toss in a pile...Mars says he would like to work with Gaga, she says the same, opportunity arises it is consider for joker and other stuff...but and this is key here it wasn't developed for the album itself! That has to due with chart performance and success, if the song failed to reach any level of commercial success it would be include? Not a chance...plus this was suppose to be a standalone single, it was only later included in the album.

All in all, the song was created with which intended? Unclear, maybe even for Mars's next album but it wasn't for Mayhem to being with, like a critic said "hard to disagree with a song that has a billion streams". The song was finished during the time her album was being recorded...I heard the album it sounds like nothing else in there! Ofc that's my POV, the song was included after its success...label executives basically said it without saying MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

My concern with the recent trimming is that it now gives the impression that critical opinion was evenly divided between those who supported the song’s inclusion on the album and those who questioned it. In the earlier version, it was clearer that a larger share of reviewers expressed reservations about its placement. If we aim for neutrality, the text should reflect that proportion accurately. Sricsi (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think part of the impression comes from the timeline. Before we expanded the article, most of the available commentary on DWAS did lean negative regarding its placement, which may have amplified that perception. Now that more reviews have been incorporated, the overall picture is more balanced.

It's also important to note that nearly all these remarks are about the song's position on Mayhem, not about DWAS as a single. They're comments on sequencing, not on the song's artistic qualities. With the trimming, both sides of the commentary are still represented without giving undue weight to one angle. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the timeline, but that’s exactly my concern. The number of journalists who questioned the song’s inclusion was noticeably higher in the original text — and if that imbalance exists in the sources, then reflecting it isn’t undue weight, it’s simply accurate reporting. We shouldn’t create a sense of equal balance when the critical coverage wasn’t balanced to begin with.

And regarding the point that these remarks are about sequencing rather than the song itself — that’s precisely why the separate subsection was created in the first place: to distinguish those comments from critiques of the song’s musical or artistic qualities. Sricsi (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify — no sources were removed. All the citations are still there; the text was only tightened. The balance may feel different now because, in the earlier version, the selection of quotes leaned mostly negative about the song's placement. Over the past weeks we added several positive viewpoints as well, so the subsection now reflects a fuller range of what's actually in the sources. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I really don’t think such extensive trimming was necessary. Some of the more nuanced commentary that added value to the article has now been lost. Sricsi (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the longer version is necessary for the purposes of a song article. As Biagio noted, most of these remarks are about how the track functions within Mayhem as an album. That kind of commentary is useful context, but it doesn't require such an extensive standalone subsection. We're not expected to document every critic's view on track sequencing, otherwise we would end up creating similar sections for many songs.

Regarding the intro line: the repeated phrasing ("As Die with a Smile was initially promoted as a standalone single…") isn't needed here. The article already mentions both the standalone-single release and the album-session context in dedicated sections, and the comments quoted here refer specifically to the song's placement in the tracklist, not to its release strategy. Keeping the intro focused on placement avoids redundancy and keeps the section aligned with what the sources actually discuss. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, with the recent “trimming”, the current version loses important nuance. For example, Mark Richardson (The Wall Street Journal) felt the track “slightly out of place” because it sounded more anonymous than preceding songs; Atwood Magazine called its placement “anticlimactic” as it doesn’t fully align with Mayhem’s sonic or thematic direction; and Sam Rosenberg (Paste) described it as “an odd note to end the album on,” seeing it as a maudlin conclusion to the album’s upbeat tracks. Flattening these reviews makes it seem critics only offered very simple opinions. We should retain the reasoning while trimming minor repetition. Sricsi (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

All the nuance is still there — no sources or key arguments were removed. The trimming only reduced repetition so the subsection doesn’t outweigh the rest of the song article. Most of these remarks concern how the track functions within the album, not a critique of the single itself, so keeping the section concise avoids giving that angle more weight than appropriate under WP:WEIGHT. The reasoning from Richardson, Atwood, Rosenberg, and others is still included, just presented more efficiently. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

If you feel any specific quote lost clarity after trimming, feel free to restore or expand it — that applies equally to positive and negative remarks, not only the negative ones you highlighted. Still, the general consensus here seems to be that the subsection benefits from being more concise, so keeping it streamlined is preferable. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That doesn’t seem to be the case from my perspective. For example, the current wording — “and The Wall Street Journal’s Mark Richardson felt it sounded ‘slightly out of place’” — removes the reasoning he actually gave (that it felt more anonymous and therefore sat awkwardly within the album’s sequencing). Similar nuance from the Atwood and Paste reviews was also lost, so the subsection now reads more like a list of short impressions rather than critiques with context.

I also thought we had agreed to leave the article as is until the copyedit takes place, and then revisit this section afterward. I’m not sure why this particular subsection required such immediate and extensive trimming, especially when the previous version already reflected the sources’ reasoning more accurately. Sricsi (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

All sections need trimming, but I asked the GOCE to do so since its easier for them and they can have a neutral POV. On top of that, this section right now just feels unnecessary wasn't it first created since "DWAS" was a standalone single? It looks like regular reviews, only the NYT seems going straight to the point...I would say restore it as it was and let the GOCE take care of it. If they have reservations about it we will help them as we should.

The only think I want for the article is YEC positions and lists of YE songs, everything else should stay as it is. I have to go with Sricsi POV, so I will restore it as it was MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I feel like "Gaga explained that the collaboration materialized while she was recording her upcoming studio album in Malibu, after Mars invited Gaga to his studio one evening to listen to music he had been working on, and she was “blown away” by the track that became “Die with a Smile”. in the background and development section + the sentence that starts with "American record producer Andrew Watt..." in the conception section + the beginning part of the writing and recording section "Regarding the writing and recording process..." felt redundant when i was reading through the article. I'm kind of new to the wikipedia editing thing so Idk if that really matters, but I wanted to give my opinion anyway. Sparkystar2006 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input we will wait for the GOCE to give the article a revamp. I mean three people wrote this article. So someone else taking a look at it is always appreciated. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Should sound better now MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! The Super Bowl version performed during Bad Bunny's halftime show has been released on Spotify. Would Spotify alone be sufficient to include it in the "Release" section and the "Release history" table, or would it be better to wait until it appears on other platforms such as Apple Music or is covered by a reliable secondary source? Thoughts? CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Release history: sure, if we write Spotify.

Release: I wouldn't. The Live in Vegas version is also not included here. Sricsi (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Spotify, Itunes, Apple Music, amazon, etc are reliable sources.

The live in Vegas is included on the table. We can't omit information. Apple Music sometimes takes long because of metadata and licences MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the name of the song capitalized as "Die With a Smile" or "Die with a Smile"? The name of the article and most mentions of the song here use lowercase w, but uses uppercase W a few times too. The sources I found all use uppercase W, listed below:

Song on YouTube

Song on Spotify

News article by Variety CammypoopE (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! The issue is that the sources you cited, except for Variety, also present it as "Die With A Smile", with the "A" capitalized as well. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi - I have tagged this article as possibly containing AI-generated text, see the template for more information. At the very least AI seems to have been used to summarize and/or paraphrase sources, poorly. Spot-checking, there have been some source-to-text integrity problems (and the edit history suggests there have been several more) as well as other issues, here is a small sampling of what is probably many more:

• Gaga highlighted Mars's "inexplicable talent" - Not a direct quote from the article.
• Time's Andrew R. Chow described the performance as a form of cultural reversal, highlighting Gaga's adaptation of the song into salsa within the context of Bad Bunny's Spanish-language halftime show - Turns into meaningless word salad what was a clear and specific argument: "While conservatives called for Bad Bunny to sing in English, instead he got a major white female pop star to adapt her song into salsa.".
• described the reverb-drenched production as blending Lee Hazlewood-style songwriting with Slowdive-like shoegaze atmospherics - Overly close paraphrasing ("reverb-drenched" is a direct quote and "Slowdive-like shoegaze atmospherics" is almost a direct quote).

Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

All fixed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Most-streamed songs of all time - 20. "Die With A Smile" - Time Out

Is this source reliable enough to be cited in the article? CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Unsure. It mixes music with food, housing and other topics. Plus, its not like the song its the most streamed of all time or close to that MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It isn’t. Sricsi (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)