Talk:Lady Gaga discography/Archive 3

WW sales update.

A few days ago Gaga was presented with a plaque celebrating her incredible sales of over 13 million albums and 51 million singles (http://newsroom.mtv.com/2010/08/12/lady-gaga-los-angeles) but we have another source from Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/06/12/2010-06-12_seen_this_act_before_word_to_gaga__madonna_did_it_first_and_did_it_better.html) that says 15 million albums sold. I think we should take the first source because that plaque was given for her own label. I don´t think a newspaper is more reliable source than her label.Albes29 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Daily News is a reliable source and they report 15 million albums. Will not be changed unless another reliable source updates with higher figures. –Chase (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should ask other users because I don´t think a newspaper is a better source than her label. Daily News is only a newspaper and newspapers not always says the right info and they are not that relible.Albes29 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Albes29. I have had this discussion many times regarding another artist, and the consensus was always with the record label. If we have a recent source from her record label, as Gaga receiving an honorary plaque from them, I say we stick with the 13 million albums. Daily news might be reliable, but it doesn't hold ground with her label and MTV.--PeterGriffin • Talk 10:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The report comes from newsroom.mtv.com, which essentially is a kind of MTV blog. We should take this source with a little pinch of salt. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We go for what is verifiable by reliable sources, not for what was given to her by her label (didn't her label also give her a plaque for "going diamond worldwide" - something you can't do?). What is verifiable by reliable sources is that she has sold 15 million albums. That will not be changed unless a higher amount is reported by a reliable source. –Chase (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

51 million singles and 15 million albums?

The MTV news say 51 million singles and 13 million albums but the daily news says only 40 million singles and 15 million albums. Meanwhile he Wikipedia page claims 51 million singles and 15 million albums. Isn't that a little biased? Leaving out the smaller figures from both articles. Also MTV's figures go on the claims of Gaga's label which sometimes make up figures for promotional gain. Just a thought. Thanks for your time. CheezeDoodles (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The MTV source explicitly said that she had sold 51 million singles. They didn't say according to her label. And as for the sales figures, we use the highest amount reported by a reliable source. MTV reports 51 million singles and Daily News reports 15 million albums. This is perfectly fine. –Chase (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well seeing as there is a picture of a plaque awarded by her label stating 51 million singles in the article its pretty evident where that MTV article got its figures. Well I did a little digging and her are some figures:

• US certified sales: 11 million singles, 4 million albums
• Japanese certified sales: 750,000 albums
• UK certified sales: 2,000,000 singles, 1.2 million albums
• German certified sales: 1,050,000 singles, 500,000 albums
• French certified sales: 250,000 albums
• Canadian certified sales: 1,040,000 singles, 240,000 albums
• Australian certified sales: 1,295,000 singles, 420,000 albums
• Brazilian certified sales: 150,000 albums
• Mexican certified sales: 60,000 albums
• Spanish certified sales: 160,000 singles, 40,000 albums
• Swedish certified sales: 70,000 singles, 20,000 albums
• Swiss certified sales: 180,000 singles, 120,000 albums
• Belgian certified sales: 60,000 singles, 60,000 albums
• European continent's certified album sales: 4,000,000

Here she only has 16.8 cerfied singles which isn't even a third of her claimed ones. I could post more but I don't see the point.

Her only singles to have past the 5 million mark are

• PokerFace 9.8 worldwide
• Just Dance 7.7 worldwide

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2010.pdf So with this in mind it is impossible that she has sold 51 million singles. Anyway you seem to be a fan of gaga (I am too!) so I doubt you'll change but thanks anyway CheezeDoodles (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't accept original research on Wikipedia. –Chase (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just stating facts, if your too stuburn to accept the truth that's fine. Also that is not 'original research' its backed by reliable sources, unlike that MTV blog. Original research means ideas, thoughts or facts claimed by someone which is not backed up by a third party source but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. Thanks CheezeDoodles (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but using various sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated in any of them is WP:SYNTH, which is in itself a WP:OR violation, unacceptable. And blogs published by reliable sources such as MTV are generally reliable. –Chase (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care anymore. But I did only use 1 source (certifications) to confirm it and another to back it up. But as you are an obviously a huge Gaga fan I know you're never going to change it. Next time please don't dismiss things as 'against the rules' just because you don't like the idea. Thanks CheezeDoodles (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the idea, it's that you're using original research to back your position which is not allowed. And since it's against policy, I may dismiss the proposal if I choose to. –Chase (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I happen to totally agree with you CheezeDoodles, and yes, you happen to be behaving stubbornly Chase, your twisting logic so not to accept the truth. Your 100% right CD!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being stubborn. The sales figures will not be changed just because one of our editors estimated based on certifications. That is a WP:SYNTH violation. I highly encourage you and CheezeDoodles to read this policy thoroughly before continuing to contribute to this discussion. Regards, –Chase (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, as per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". –Chase (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That statement is true Chase, but I don't find this one source to be strong enough to support this kind of claim, especially when certifications argue so severly. These aren't the sales of an album, they are cumulative sales of an artist, something I believe to require various reliable sources that are in agreement, not 2 that contradict each other.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the information has a reliable source, we can cite it. Frankly, MTV and Daily News are more reliable than a Wikipedia user estimating based off adding certifications. –Chase (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your not understanding something. Certifications mean allot, they really tell us what range to place musicians in terms of sales. Also, my main issue with MTV and Daily, is that they contradict each other, and not a little, but allot.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 03:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are co-relating certifications with sales Peter. Truth is they can vary immensely. See Eminem for eg. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what your saying Legolas, I know that for example "Bad Romance" sold like 3-4 million digital singles and still remains uncertified by the RIAA. And yes, Eminem's last two albums remained uncertified for some odd reason. However, isn't it whack to have two references working next to each other that severely contradict one another?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. We generally use the highest amount of sales reported by a reliable source. MTV reports higher single sales, Daily News reports higher album sales. Both are relatively recent. I don't see the problem. –Chase (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"LoveGame / Poker Face"?

I was browsing the iTunes Store and came across her medley of "LoveGame" and "Poker Face" as performed at the 2009 MuchMusic Video Awards (the subway car and flaming bra one), which looks like it was released as a promotional single, quite similar to the "Poker Face / Speechless / Your Song" ft. Elton John medley performed at the 2010 Grammy Awards. This single is not available in the US iTunes Store; it is actually sold exclusively in the Canadian store (probably because the MMVAs are Canadian; basically the Canadian version of the MTV VMAs). Should this be added to the discography? It seems official, as it is one of the releases on her artist page, and the page for the single shows it having been released by Interscope. Thoughts? Yvesnimmo (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like we can add it, but did it chart anywhere? Also, Interscope doesnot list it, but they list "Poker Face/Your Song". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, well I'm not sure about the Interscope site because it also doesn't have Hitmixes and that was solely a Canadian release too, right? And if it charted, it would have been on the Canadian Hot 100, because it wasn't released in any other territory, right? I don't think it did, but let me check. Yvesnimmo (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I doubt it charted; a search through the billboard.biz archives doesn't seem to show anything like that. Yvesnimmo (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Born This Way

Lady Gaga has betrayed at the MTV Video Music Awards, the title of her new album is also in this article Lady Gaga#Discography Xxvid (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Betrayed"? Anyway, giving out the name of a still-uncompleted album with no further details is absolutely not reason to include it here or create an article for it. - eo (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How?

Lady Gaga wants to have but after the Award Video of the Year she has the official name of their new album,Born This Way verkündet.She also said that the album is already finished her album officially only in 2011 for public sale.Xxvid (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be the album at Studio albums insert it also goes well whom Lady Gaga has said it himself at the VMA there are enough resources and there is also information about it in Lady Gaga # 2008-present: The Fame, The Fame and Monster Born This WayXxvid (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All we have it the album's title. And by the way, she said "the name of my new record," record can mean album or single. SO we aren't 100% sure if it's the title of her new single or album; or both. I say wait until we have more confirmed details.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, she said the name of their "album", after the Award Video of the Yearshe said now I have the title of my new Albums betrayed -- Xxvid (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Betrayed"? Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"betray" sorry Xxvid (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding what you're trying to say. Yvesnimmo (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaga said the name of her new record, not album. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to say the Born This Way, her new album!

and she said,new album at the VMA's Xxvid (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No she didn't. If you listened to it, you know that she said,

“ I promised if I won this tonight I'd announce the name of my new record. ”

She said, "record", not "album". Source. Anyway, this is pointless. There is nothing to discuss here. Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK at the VMAs only in Germany, it was provided with subtitles and stood there and record album is so often referred to as an album and then what is in your eyes the difference between record and album?Xxvid (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether she meant album or single or whatever, it fails WP:NALBUM right now. Aside from her saying it, there is no confirmation from her record label or any other third-party source. There is no sourced track list, no chart action, no release date and no press confirming the notability of the release. To top it off, it is almost overwhelmingly going to be deleted or redirected per the discussion at WP:AfD. Give it up. It's too soon and there is not enough information to warrant an article at this time. As has been stated here and just about every other talk page for a high-profile pop-music artist - this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page or a news source for music artists. - eo (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed no items are only created one knows even now the name and that can be pasted into the discography or not? -- Xxvid (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No. No release date or record label confirmation. There is a possibility that it could even be cancelled/pushed back/whatever, in which case it would not even be on this page. The style guidelines for discographies on Wikipedia has a section on what should not be included, and "Un-released material unless notable enough to include." is one such criterion. As of now, it is nowhere near notable enough. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So until 31.Dezember.2010 wait until they publish on its website Born This Way official or what?-- Xxvid (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And I have a question, why are there in the article by Lady Gaga the Lady Gaga #Life and career#2008-present: The Fame, The Fame and Monster Born This Way? --Xxvid (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Will has sometimes say in the German Wikipedia is that they reveal the name of her album de:Lady Gaga#Leben und Wirken --Xxvid (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This not the German Wikipedia. Born This Way is already mentioned in the Lady Gaga article, and in this discography as a potential future release. It does not need further mentioning or inclusion at this point. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia is not the only wiki that has already entered the 78.94.5.9 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Other wikis have their own notability policies. On the English Wikipedia, this album currently does not meet the notability criteria. –Chase (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dance in the Dark and Alejandro as promo singles

I have added Alejandro and Dance in the Dark to the promo singles table as they were released as promo singles from The Fame Monster (1, 2) before being released as full singles, similarly to Meet Me Halfway and Imma Be by the Black Eyed Peas. They have not been removed from the main singles table. If there are any objections to this, I'm willing to discuss. –Chase (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point. It conveys the same information as the singles table. If you want to indicate that they were originally promos, why not just put the notes next to their entry in the regular singles table? It looks quite odd at the moment. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Having them in the promo singles table indicates that they were, at one point in 2009, promos. Removing them would make it seem like Gaga has released less promos than she actually has. I don't see what's odd-looking about it? –Chase (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

They are redundant and confusing, and simply repeat the information above. Just put the notes in the main table. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Adabow, Chase. They really look redundant and a simple note would do the job. And a repetition of singles (whether or not they were promo at one point of time) is siply not feasible since it makes the discography appear more of a songography. Big no-no according to me for a FL. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If they were removed from the table though, it would be confusing since the promo count in the lead/infobox would remain at six, with only four songs in the table. –Chase (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to update the infobox count at all. A simple note is enough to detail the status of Alejandro and DITD as promotional to actual singles. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

they should definitely be removed from the promo singles table. it's misleading and confusing to have them in both tables. the fact they were released as full singles, well alejandro was, overrules the fact they were promo singles. as with the FL black eyed peas discog, they are only in one table. Mister sparky (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional singles

Why are there nine empty columns in this section? These singles have only charted in Canada and the U.K., not in the eight other countries, and none of these have received any certifications (as far as I'm aware). Just seems like a huge waste of space. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The same countries are used throughout the article for consistency. –Chase (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I change my mind. Per other, FL-class, discographies, the empty columns should be removed and I will do so. –Chase (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On a seperate issue, anyone know why 'The DJ Vice Megamix' promotional album CD is still not mentioned or listed? Davidkt 12:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Source? –Chase (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an official promo for 'The Fame' (2008 Streamline/Interscope/Kon Live USA INTR-12496-2). Here's some links (and I know there's sometimes issues with using these as references, but they prove its existence, with scans etc.).

http://www.discogs.com/Lady-GaGa-The-DJ-Vice-Megamix/release/1482291

http://www.amazon.com/Dj-Vice-Megamix-Lady-Gaga/dp/B001QR2A4K

http://ladygagaukitems.blogspot.com/2010/04/dj-vice-megamix-fame-megamix-promo.html

Hope this helps! Davidkt 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Fame and The Fame Monster split?

I can assure you that this is not the case in New Zealand (see page 12), and I doubt that it is in other countries. Why the change now? Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That link says that the sales are combined with the original should a deluxe edition album meet the criteria. Thus it essentially is considered a repackaging of The Fame. –Chase (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But shouldn't we add a note? I mean, people will get the idea that the album didn't chart anywhere except if we write that it is a repackaging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.199.151.59 (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a note, right next to the name of the album, which reads: "In certain territories, The Fame Monster was released as a reissued version of The Fame and thus was ineligible to chart." –Chase (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Fame In Germany

In the table must be "five times platinum" position.On the source side must be a misprint because in Germany you can not get "five times gold" When you have one gold you get platinum several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannick16695 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Germany's certifications are different than most countries. 5x Gold and 5x Platinum are two entirely different things. You might want to see the Bundesverband Musikindustrie article. –Chase (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean but in Germany Lady Gaga had sold 800.000 copies of The Fame(Monster/Remix). You get platinum for 200.000

 copies and 800.000/200.000=4 .  
 I have seen the references number 5 on this page ,Bundesverband Musikindustrie, and on the articel stands not what in the 
 german site discribes . A person must misinterpreted what on this site stands.

The official industry source in Germany is more important than any magazine, frankly. For example, you wouldn't use Us Weekly to say that a Gaga album was certified Platinum in the US. –Chase (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There stand :

               All Products with release after 01.01.2003

      Album: Gold 100.000 copies       Singles: Gold 150.000 copies
             Platinum 200.000 copies            Platimun 300.000 copies

  When you sold a album with 300.000 copies you dont get gold x3 , but it can called 1,5x platinum  -Yannick16695 (UTC)

Here I have found: http://www.focus.de/panorama/vermischtes/lady-gaga-popsaengerin-erhaelt-viermal-platin-_aid_507384.html

-Yannick16695 (UTC)

Only sources from BMVI are permitted for certification information, as BMVI is the official industry source of Germany. And do not remove my comments again, this is a policy violation. –Chase (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

i live in germany and i speak german and what on the german page stand is not the same what on the english page stand

No source other than industry associations can be used for certifications, as no other source handles them. –Chase (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

US Bubbling Under chart should have its own column instead of footnote...

...except in the Singles table as space does not exist there for another column.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would argue for deleting all references. Charting on a chart of things that did not chart isn't worth mentioning.—Kww(talk) 03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course if unsourced the material is to be removed. But if it stays, show own column of US Bubbling Under at section 'Promotional singles' and "Poker Face / Speechless / Your Song" at the peak of 13 instead of 113 on Hot 100. And the same with the items in 'Other charted songs' ("Starstruck" and "Monster").—Iknow23 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No argument at all that making the claim that 13 on BU is somehow equivalent to 113 on the Hot 100 is nonsensical. The rules for the two charts are significantly different, and the 25 songs on the BU usually are well below what positions 101-125 on the Hot 100 would be.—Kww(talk) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the BU is used for consistency throughout the chart. It seems reasonable to compare BU spots to sub-100 spots, seeing as there is a note. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the BU has different rules, and the positions that would be 101-125 on the Hot 100 are most definitely not 1-25 on the BU. A song cannot drop from the Hot 100 to the BU, and cannot reenter the BU after having been on the Hot 100. So, if a song's chart position on an extended Hot 100 would have been, say, 99-101-102-103-101-102-103-102, that song would never appear on the BU at all. That means that positions 1, 2, and 3 are in no way, shape, or form "equivalent" to positions 101, 102, and 103 on the Hot 100.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, songs that have entered the Hot 100 cannot be on the BU chart, which is why careful precaution has been taken to say that BU peaks are comparable, not equivalent, to #101-125 on the Hot 100. –Chase (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That would fall afoul of WP:OR. I don't even see them as comparable, for what it's worth. The "Bubbling Under" serves as an advance notice, and is specifically designed to forecast songs that may appear on the Hot 100. Whenever a song doesn't subsequently appear on the Hot 100, it's a prediction that didn't come true. It is specifically not intended to be a list of the 101-125 most popular song positions.—Kww(talk) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there any sources to back your claim that the chart is a "prediction"? –Chase (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For songs that didn't enter the Hot 100 at all, I would say it is worth mentioning. Not including the BU peaks would imply that the songs failed to achieve any success in the US, which isn't the case. –Chase (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely why my edit maintained the footnotes listing the exact positions while deleting the false relationship to the Hot 100.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you say that it is not related to the Hot 100? It is a list of the 25 most popular songs that have not yet charted on the Hot 100. That, plus the name of the chart (Bubbling Under Hot 100), more than warrants the comparison to numbers 101-125. –Chase (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, as noted at WT:DISCOG#Bubbling, songs that charted on BU are listed as having peaked at 101, 102, etc. in Joel Whitburn's books, which are considered reliable sources. –Chase (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is related, but the positions are not comparable. A song that would be #125 on the Hot 100 could be on any position on the Bubbling Under, including not appearing on it at all. Whitburn lists the songs that way for convenience, but that doesn't make the positions comparable.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I support Kww's edit as the material is not summarily dismissed but presented in a more factual context. There is NO position of 101 - 125 possible in the Hot 100. However, I still prefer that a separate column be created for BU where the space permits as I noted above. Then those can be directly shown to be charting on the BU and will require no footnote at all.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there is not a #101-125 on the Hot 100, but BU peaks are comparable to said positions. And having a separate column for BU peaks would be useless as (1) not many users unfamiliar with Billboard charts would get it and (2) a very small count of Gaga songs charted there. –Chase (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, this is exactly why I say comparable as opposed to equivalent. There is a difference. BU is songs below the Hot 100 - but it's only songs that didn't chart. Thus, it is comparable, but not equivalent as the "true" 101, 102, etc. wouldn't necessarily be there. –Chase (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Chase, we would link the table header to US BU, so if anyone doesn't get it...they are just a click away. No offense, but just because some may be unfamiliar with something is not a good reason to 'dumb it down' and not present the material in the best and most accurate way possible. Why isn't it better to let it appear in a separate column readily accessable for viewing instead of forcing them to read a footnote?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A separate column would just be a waste of space for another potential country to occupy (a maximum of ten are allowed). Yves (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Because as I said, not many of Gaga's songs charted there so it's redundant. Take a look at the new way I've presented the info. Is this any better? –Chase (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yves, as I always maintained I mean where the space is available. There are only 3 and 5 charts shown where I propose the additional column so I see little danger of BU forcing out another country's main chart.
Chase, A BU column is not redundant but the proper way to present the material (where space allows). The fact that it doesn't get a lot of use is unimportant because there is material to present there. NO, what you did is WORSE. The problem is that you are reporting TWO different charts within the same column. Kww had it better, properly showing NOT charted in the Hot 100, but a footnote regarding some other kind of US charting activity.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bubbling Under is widely considered an extension of sorts to the Hot 100, and as you said, it shows "some other kind of US charting activity". It's not like component or genre charts are being added to the US column. –Chase (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I ask again, 'Why isn't it better to let it appear in a separate column (where space allows) readily accessable for viewing instead of forcing them to read a footnote?'—Iknow23 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And I say again, there is no point in adding a separate column for Gaga's four songs that charted. And there's nothing wrong with footnotes... –Chase (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why use footnotes when they are unnecessary?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

They're not unnecessary - the purpose of them is to provide the reader with extra explanation without interrupting the flow of the article (or in this case, interfering with the data in the tables of this list). In this case, the extra information is explaining that the song didn't enter the Hot 100 but instead charted on BU. –Chase (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A BU column (where space permits) does not interfere with the data, it is presenting it's own. It clearly and cleanly reports it's own data, instead of being relegated to a footnote under a different chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But considering that only one single, one promo single, and two charted non-singles appeared on the chart, it's completely redundant. And as I said, it's often considered to be somewhat of an extension to the Hot 100. –Chase (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not redundant because it is a different chart. If the data is desired to be displayed it should have its own column unless other restrictions come into play (the 10 chart maximum).—Iknow23 (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is also (to an extent) an extension of the main Hot 100 chart. And reliable sources such as Whitburn do indeed consider it as such. –Chase (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add those positions back again. Whitburn has the luxury of having a paragraph of explanation about why he treats them that way (which is basically to save space). We don't. The footnotes on the dashes explain the situation precisely.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you are reporting multiple charts for one country, See Item 6, "Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart. The exception to this rule, however, is in cases where two columns are from the same country, such as component or competing charts. In these cases, the column header should start with an abbreviation of the country, followed by an abbreviation of the chart name. In all cases, the column header should be wikilinked to the specific chart's page, or if the chart does not have a page, then to the country's page."emphasis added
This shows that two columns can be used for US.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I maintain that it is totally inappropriate to force two different charts to share one column, where space permits each to have their own column.Iknow23 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I 'Oppose a separate column. Just because there is a space doesn't mean it has to be utilized. Candyo32 18:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues with revamp

I have been gone for the past few days and come back to notice that the article has undergone a massive reformatting. While many of these changes were fine, there are several issues:

• Music video and promo single count are missing from the lead.
• Information about Gaga's career beginnings is missing - this was added per a comment at the FLC.
• Featured singles have been separated - no consensus to do such at this time.
• "Video Phone" has been added back as a featured single, despite consensus that it is a Beyoncé single only and not Gaga's.
• Other charted songs are a subheading under singles, which goes against consensus recently formed at WT:DISCOGSTYLE.

I will go ahead and fix these issues, however, I would also like to note to User:AtomicMarcusKitten that while I appreciate your work revamping the article, the tables here are still in violation of WP:DISCOGSTYLE's new standards and thus they will just have to be revamped again. Regards, –Chase (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well sorry! I'm not an experienced fan, but i thought it needed cleaning. But why can't you separate the featured singles? I think there is every need to do this.AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your good faith efforts, the article was FL class in its previous format with very minor changes from when it passed (not to mention, it's just going to have to be totally revamped again in the near future to comply with the new accessibility standards). So I'm not sure if a "cleaning" was totally necessary, but it's appreciated nonetheless. I'm not attacking you or your edits, I'm just pointing out some minor issues. And there's no need to separate because there's only one featured single. When she has three or four (probably even more than that IMO), I could see splitting, but it's redundant right now. –Chase (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, i'm sorry, but attacking me and my edits is exactly what you're doing...wow, there's some seriously snotty people on wikipedia!!! And yes, there is a need to separate the featured single, 100% DEFINITLY!!!!!!!!! AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(Multiple conflicts in posting) :::AGREE with AMK. IT is a better presentation of the material. The albums column in the prior presentation was interspersed with a non-Gaga album with possibly more to be added in the future.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's totally unnecessary when there's one featured single. Not even two or three. One. And there's no policy in WP:DISCOGSTYLE mandating that all albums from the album column in the single table must be albums of the artist. –Chase (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

AtomicMarcusKitten, please stop shouting (WP:YOUREWRONG); there is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. Yves (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why thankyou Iknow23 ;DDDD and you should really ask for a vote if the featured single should go in. It isn't just YOUR article...just because you got it to fl, doesn't mean you know whats best! and haha, yves, what a ledge :') I think there's need for it to go on its own, as its not HER single, she's just a FEATURED artistAtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, it is her single. Yves (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming ownership of the article. Frankly, you're just being overdramatic over me addressing some issues with your revamp. And consensus has been for awhile now to not split up the section - it should be discussed before it's split again. –Chase (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, voting does not replace discussion. –Chase (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But you're clearly trying to attain ownership of the article. Whenever someone edits the article, you have to stick your ore in... and i'm not reading any of the WP:... things, i quite franky, cannot be bothered xDDD Moreover, (YES YOU'RE NO THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN USE A CONNECTIVE) do what you want, i have more important things to do than discuss with you stubborn people ;DDD...oops, looks like i'm gonna get blocked :PPP AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If I assumed ownership of the article, I probably would have reverted all of your edits - as you can see, I've left many of them intact. If you can't contribute to the discussion in a civil manner, it's best if you don't contribute at all. Just a hint of advice, so that you don't get blocked. –Chase (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'Other charted songs' do not belong within the 'Singles' section. I just thought of an important reason (IMO) to separate the featured singles! That is the 'Certifications' column. Do you propose to intersperse album certs of non-Gaga albums in the 'Singles' table with those of Gaga?—Iknow23 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would non-Gaga albums even be considered? "Chillin" is a song by Wale and Gaga which is why it's here. Attention Deficit is not in the albums section because it is not a collaborative album. I fail to see your point. –Chase (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i hate to admit, but i agree with "him". Are you even a native speaker of english? (no offense)AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Clillin" is in the 'Singles' table. Its album is listed in the Album column so ANY certs must be listed in the Certs column. I don't really want to see certs for non-Gaga items interspersed with those of Gaga. Kinda misleading a little bit (IMO). However, if in a separate section it is clearly noted that Gaga is a featured artist and thus the non-Gaga certs (although there), can be more easily ignored. (As readers are here for Gaga material.) I don't believe there is a rule against having a table with only one or two items. I think it would more clearly present the material.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Certifications in single tables are for singles only. "Chillin" ft. Lady Gaga has not received any certifications (that I know of). Why would any album certifications go in this table? :S *confused* Yves (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's confusing about it. ("Chillin" also isn't certified, and likely will not be anytime soon.) I also don't see the need to make a new section/table for one song. –Chase (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yer, he/she's right!!!! Sorry if what i said came across as slightly mean, i actually felt bad after i said it unlike other *ahem* people on here! you seem nicer than the average wikipedian ;DD and AYYY, ill have less of that! stop ganging up on him, you're just being bullies now :PAtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, and the last edit you just made on the lg discog, that's exactly what i mean by you thinking you have ownership of the article..... AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, nobody's bullying anybody - we're discussing. And secondly, that's not an assumption of ownership. That's making sure official releases take precedence over non-releases, which should be done. –Chase (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

oops, got Yves point.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the display of ALL the charting sections to be uninterrupted. I believe that is more intuitive. 'Singles" are songs, so why can't 'Other songs' (in their own section of course) charting activity immediately follow them (the singles)?—Iknow23 (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly! but i'd just give up if i was you, they're just being hard faced :/ AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Single count

Iknow23, may I please ask why you are changing the infobox single count from 10 to 9? "Chillin" is a single by Gaga, regardless of whether she is the lead artist or featured artist. –Chase (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Yves (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the discussion you linked to in this edit summary is about whether her featured and lead singles should be separated, not about whether or not "Chillin" is a single. –Chase (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the edit summary that I used, please see the Talk section above titled 'Singles', where it certainly looks to me that most say it is not her single. If she did not release it, it is not hers. It is something that she participated in to some degree, that is all.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That discussion was about whether her featured single should be separated from the rest of her singles, not whether or not it is a single. –Chase (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is a single, but not her single.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How is it not her single, if it's a song where she is billed as the featured performer? I also don't understand your logic about Gaga not releasing the song. Gaga did not release any of her singles - Interscope did. Same with Wale - Interscope released his singles, not him. –Chase (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Billboard credits all involved artists, regardless of featuring. Yves (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As do all major charts, to the best of my knowledge. –Chase (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. This is getting ridiculous. Of course it is the record companies releasing the singles, albums, etc. on behalf of and in the name of the artist. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And in the case of singles with featured artists, the record companies release it in the name of "(artist A) featuring (artist B)". –Chase (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography#Other appearances states "The following songs do not appear on an album or single by Gaga." "Chillin"is a single by Wale that features Gaga. But it is not by Gaga.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It states, "The following songs do not appear on an album or single by Gaga.", not "Only the following songs do not appear on an album or single by Gaga." Yves (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a single by Wale and Gaga, who features. Featured artists are always given credit for the song. –Chase (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaga is featured on Wale's album Attention Deficit, so does that make it her album and since it is a studio album will you add it to her studio albums section and count?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's silly. Nothing on the page implies it's her album. Lady Gaga is the featuring artist for the song. Yves (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So I believe the same when it comes to a song/single. She is the featuring artist but it is not her song/single. It can be mentioned however, as it is something that she did participate in to some degree.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is her single as she is featured, but it is not her album, because the song is the extent is her collaboration with Wale. Yves (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the singles count in the infobox should state the number of singles released (promotional, solo, featured artist etc.) Then the first or second sentance of the discography usually says "Lady Gaga's discography consists of nine solo singles, one single as a featured artist, three extended plays (EPs) and one studio album..." -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edited accordingly. This is an improved explanation of the material presented.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to split off her featured from lead singles when listing the count in the first sentence... really unnecessary. –Chase (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The single should be added under 'Other appearances', not under her main singles. This is a single she was featured on, which is different than a duet. A good example of this would be the single "Say Say Say" by both Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney, they were both credited as the main artists on the single, neither of them was listed as a featured artists, the infobox on the single page also clearly states "Single by Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson" while the infobox for "Chillin'" states a "Single by Wale featuring Lady Gaga", there is a clear difference between the two. –YuuChu (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Other appearances is for non-single guest appearances and miscellaneous Gaga songs that are not on any of her albums. "Chillin" is a single. –Chase (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

There are too many country certifications listed in both the single and album column. The single column should only contain U.S, AUS, CAN and U.K certifications. 121.220.83.118 (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be Anglocentric. The certifications listed are those of the countries listed. Yves (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i'm tired of seeing this page look so messy and disorganised and cramped. 121.219.26.69 (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Those are pretty much the main ones. For other ones, it's simple to go see the sep articles. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 23:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should add all certifications, if the country is listed on the table. If the other countries are notable to be on the table, they can have their certifications listed too. Decodet (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Chart success of The Fame Monster

I recently tried to edit the peak positions of the fame monster, but i received a message saying that they were in accurate, when i infact used the fame monster page as a resource, it states that the album didn't peak at all in many countries where it is proven to have peaked at number 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividoenwashington (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, we don't cite ourselves as a source. Second of all, those peak positions represent those of the main album, in territories where it was a reissued version of The Fame. Personally, I think all charts where The Fame Monster did not chart on its own should be removed from that article, but this is not the place to discuss it. –Chase (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Uhmm?... No!, in some countries the album charted together with The Fame, so it's either merge with it's peaks (in the table) or The Fame Monster? receives its own peaks (in the table). in some regions it charted as The Fame (a different title is some regions) which included "The Fame" tracks. in the USA it would have been the deluxe edition; were in some regions it would just be "The Fame". so basically it's a re-relase of "The Fame" or It's "The Fame Monster" with a different title + track listing(which happens to be "The Fame's") sorry Chase, but thery're aren't any in-betweens. It's either a re-release or a seperate album with it's seperate peaks! Ifiwere (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You do make a valid point with the re-release issue, which I believe is what the chart providers are considering the album as. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is quite a difficult issue, because in some regions The Fame Monster was released only as a re-release, while in others (North America) individually as well. I can tell you that here (New Zealand), at least, that The Fame Monster was like a deluxe reissue of The Fame. In places like US, however, did the deluxe edition of The Fame Monster chart with the standard edition, or with The Fame? I guess it depends on each territory. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In the US, the deluxe edition charted together with The Fame, the eight track album charted separately, hence the two diff peaks. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

hey :) I just wanted to suggest that perhaps the list of the charts in the fame monster should be more extensive. and should show the number of albums sold worldwide.:) and more certifications :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.239.140 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources for sales worldwide, please list them. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The FM NZ

What is our position/consensus on the charting of TFM in New zealand? Because I can see that the album and the EP charted separately there. Has there been any previous discussion on this? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I live in New Zealand, and (apart from iTunes), have not seen TFM sold separately. TFM is only sold as a deluxe package of TF. If you look at the official chart page, you can see that it reads "The Fame: Monster", and that it has been on the chart for 99 weeks. TFM has not even been released for a year, let alone charting for nearly two. The Hung Medien site only lists it separately because it is done so in other countries, and they have a big meta-linking up site so that you can compare between countries. So, the point is, all sales of TF and TFM are combined, and they charted together. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

OKies.. Thanks for explaining Adabow. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

EP?

The Fame Monster went from being a studio album to a re-release of The Fame to an EP... next thing we'll discover it's a single. So why is it in Lady Gaga's studio albums on her main article, and why in the info box it says "Studio album by Lady Gaga" and identified as one on the "EP"'s article? And Gaga is the only artist on Wikipedia to have a single where she's featured added as her own...--Hussein Ibrahim (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The matter is still being discussed as to whether it's an EP or studio. And Gaga is not the only artist. See Madonna singles discography, another FL class discog. –Chase (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is actually now in favor of TFM being regarded as an extended play per numerous quotes from reliable sources, including Gaga herself. Thus it will not be added back to the studio section. –Chase (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?? Sorry, I don't see consensus anywhere. Lady Gaga says it's her second album. Plus, you should look up "EP" in a dictionary. Don't mean to be rude, but an EP must be a lot shorter than "The Fame Monster" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.31.177 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed at Talk:The Fame Monster. Consensus was to refer to the album as an EP since it has been referred to as such by multiple reliable sources and Gaga. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'M SORRY but THE FAME MONSTER is Lady Gaga's SECOND STUDIO ALBUM, not an EP, and it has been promoted as that. Three worldwide chart topping singles: "Bad Romance", "Telephone" and "Alejandro". Even "Speechless", "Dance In The Dark" and "Monster", not released as official singles, have charted around the world. Through music history, there have been many studio albums with only 8 tracks. And Lady Gaga herself established that when she was writing "The Fame Monster" thinking about being only and add to "The Fame", she realized it was her SOPHOMORE album. She has been on tour for more than a year with "The MONSTER Ball Tour" on SUPPORT OF HER SECOND STUDIO ALBUM, "THE FAME MONSTER". Such a long tour for an EP would be absurd. Whoever is talking about "consensus" is really talking non sense. As I explained, 8 tracks are enough to complete a studio album, and the touring and the released singles support me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.8.78 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Kesha and Usher have released singles from EPs. Kesha is going on tour to support her EP. Your points frankly are not valid. Gaga has called the album an EP, and so have numerous publications, and that's what we will go with until Gaga says otherwise and it is documented by a reliable source. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

THE FAME MONSTER WAS JUST NOMINATED FOR THE ALBUM OF THE YEAR GRAMMY. STILL THINK OF IT IS AN EP? I THINK NOT.

Why not? EPs are albums. Yves (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

NO GRAMMY HAS EVER BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO AN EP UNDER THE ALBUM OF THE YEAR -THE MOST IMPORTANT- CATEGORY. ONLY FULL STUDIO ALBUMS CAN COMPETE. THE FAME MONSTER IS LADY GAGA'S SECOND STUDIO ALBUM AND THE MAJOR AUTHORITY ON MUSIC -THE ACADEMY- JUST CONFIRMED IT. PLEASE MOVE THE FAME MONSTER BACK TO THE STUDIO ALBUMS SECTION ON LADY GAGA'S DISCOGRAPHY. THANKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.8.78 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia says about the Album of the Year Award: "Many wonder what the difference is between Record of the Year and Album of the Year. Record of the Year is awarded for a single or for one track from an album. This award goes to the performing artist, the producer, recording engineer, and/or mixer for that song. Album of the Year is awarded for a whole album, and the award is presented to the artist, producer, recording engineer, and mastering engineer for that album. So, in this context, "record" means one song and "album" means the whole collection of songs on a CD or LP". NO EP CAN BE NOMINATED IN THIS CATEGORY. THE FAME MONSTER IS LADY GAGA'S SECOND STUDIO ALBUM! CHANGE THE INFORMATION NOW! STOP GIVING FALSE INFORMATION TO PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.8.78 (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So no answer or changes? I guess you just lost your argument but wont admit it. Is your own pride more important than being honest, correcting a mistake and giving the actual accurate informaction? That what's Wikipedia is here for, to educate people, not to be managed by arbitrary, ignorant people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.8.78 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster Videos

This was released on May 7, 2010 everywhere except North America (Australia, Ireland, Japan, France, New Zealand, the UK, etc.). Since it's a video EP, I'm not sure whether to add it to EPs, or to start video albums; I'm leaning more toward video albums. Yves (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not an audio EP, so definitely video albums. I am confused, though, why Hitmixes is classified as an EP, and not a remix album? Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought so. And to answer your question, I believe it's because both Amazon and allmusic refer to it as one. Yves (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nsbailey2, 7 December 2010

{{subst:edit semi-protected}} This source shows that Lady Gaga only has one studio album, "The Fame," when she actually has "The Fame Monster" also. In addition, Born This Way should probably be listed as a pending studio album.

Nsbailey2 (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The Fame Monster has been decided to be an EP, and it is included on the page. Born This Way doesn't have a confirmed release date. Yves (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

fame monster sales

It has sold 5.8 million and is confirmed on many sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.98.125 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is by banned and unreliable website Mediatraffic. So it can't be added. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

More charts for promotional singles

Given that "Dance in the Dark" has charted all over the place and "Christmas Tree" has recently charted in Japan and the US, should the table for promotional singles include more charts. It currently has Australian, Canadian and British charts, but we could add and source others. I don't think the table is complete without the extra information. What does everyone else think? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 02:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's Paper Gangsta?

Why is Gaga's song Paper Gangsta nowhere to be found in the discography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.54.124 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I shot it down, that's why. Serious note, why the hell would it be in an article of her released singles, albums etc? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What a strange response! Paper Gangsta is obviously a Gaga release, and it appears on The Fame. Here's a link that proves it:

http://new.music.yahoo.com/lady-gaga/albums/fame--61903067

Plus there's a music video. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information. Why would an entry on Lady Gaga's music exclude one of her songs and videos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.54.124 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. That goes for the music video claim also. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Paper Gangsta" is not a single by Lady Gaga, so it's not mentioned in the discography. It's mentioned in the album article, The Fame, though. And what music video exists? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Singles?

Why is the singles listed as a compilation album? Even though it was actually released, it had a limited number of copies, and it was not even promoted by the record label or Gaga herself. I think it should be taken off. Zpenguin23 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Zpenguin23

A release is a release, whether promoted by Gaga or not. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What is that song "chillin" by wale doing under gaga's singles? That should be under the "other appearances" tab. ---Aerovistae 1/25/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.241.108 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

THE FAME MONSTER'S SALES

According to MediaTraffic.de, which is a weekly music tracking chart, 'The Fame Monster' is the top selling album worldwide of 2010, selling almost 6 millions copies worldwide... So doesn't that mean she has sold 18 million albums overall? ('The Fame' has sold 12 million worldwide + 'The Fame Monster' 6 million WW) Someone should change that in the introduction of this page and in the info of the Fame Monster section. Thanks!

The link/source is here: http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/Lady-Gaga-Outsells-1231/ AND http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1654975/20101228/lady_gaga.jhtml—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.142.11 (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, thats original research since mediatraffic.de is an unreliable source. And WP:SYNTHESIS also applies here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well MTV says it too. So now there's 2 sources claiming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.142.11 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, MTV cites the mediatraffic as their source. Still unreliable. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

She hasn't sold 18 million albums worldwide, but only 12 (cause sales of The Fame and The Fame Monster are counted together). Furthermore, what the hell she has sold 51 million singles worldwide??? She hasn't even sold 35 million singles worldwide. Could you please have good and credible information with sources before writing it??? Why always changing sales of artists? She won't be best or worst if you write that she has sold 12 million albums instead of 15... Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.155.193 (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does matter! And why is mediatraffic an unreliable source? What makes the current official source so correct? If MTV is stating it as well, I would think they are correct, I mean they aren't called MUSIC TELEVISION for nothing. And it also says in the intro, "AS OF AUGUST 2010..." It's January 2011 can someone update! I'm pretty sure her sales have increased in this 4 month period! The FAME has reached '4 million' sales as of now and the worldwide sales hasn't been changed yet with the new US sales? Come on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.142.11 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of albums

No I'm not going to rehash the "Is The Fame Monster an LP or EP?" discussion. I'm looking at the other albums. While The Fame and Born This Way are clearly full length albums and in the correct sections, the grouping of the other albums seems bizarre. Hitmixes and The Remix are both remix albums - the clue is in the titles - because they both contain remixes of previously released material. The infobox on the latter's page even calls it a remix album. The Singles is a box set. It contains 9 CDs: 8 CD singles + a CD of The Cherrytree Sessions plus "Christmas Tree". A brief look on Amazon or eBay will show you it's a physical box set. The Cherrytree Sessions and The Fame Monster are the only releases I'd call EPs. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 21:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, you are kinda right about this. I was thinking the same thing for a few days. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD but could do with some help changing stuff round. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 11:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

After another lookup, general categorisation of an album is studio, compilation, live and EP. Hence the Hitmixes and The Remix are fine as EP and compilation. However, the box set needs to be done. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Legolas, isn't Hitmixes a remix album (therefore compilation), though? Aren't EPs just smaller studio works? Adabow (talk · contribs) 12:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the very minimum I got to practice my tabling. I don't understand why Template:Infobox artist discography has no field for remix albums but Template:Infobox album does. I filed The Singles under compilation with a note that it's a box set. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 12:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sighh. I think you guys are right. Thanks for the changes EA Sawyer. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I have some help with the infobox please? And if these changes stick, the other albums will have to be mentioned in the lead section. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 12:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Remix albums and box sets are both types of compilation albums. And no, not all EPs are studio, Adabow. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

the fame worldwide sales

It says 'the fame' has sold 14 million copies worldwide. It even says it on the main Lady gaga page article. Please change the 12 million to 14 million. So wouldn't that bring a new number to her total album sales?

http://www.universalmusic.fr/lady-gaga/actu/dance-in-the-dark-le-nouveau-single-de-lady-gaga/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.142.11 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That is probably true, but we cannot accept the record label as a reliable source. Try to find a third-party source, such as Billboard or MTV. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

UK sales of 'The Fame'

Buzzjack Music Forum track album sales and have amassed a total of 2,488,700. http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=124549&st=20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Moved from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lady Gaga discography/archive1 {{edit semi-protected}} I want to edit the page 'Lady Gaga Discography' yet i realize i don't have special permissions to do so. I want to edit a section which is heavily out dated (one single has gone from no chart positions to worldwide number one 'Born This Way') i have references to confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaDailyUK (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? No charts have even updated yet. Even if they had, there is no way that a song could reach number one on a singles chart from one day of sales.

Once charts have been updated, and if "Born This Way" charts, please provide links to sources on this talk page. We cannot grant you permission to edit just for one purpose. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaga came close to topping the UK charts in two days :D Irrelevant but I felt the need to share somewhere... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisci88 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

yes i am serious! i wrote this as soon as it was announced as number 3 on BBC radio 1 chart show. here's the source, http://www.theofficialcharts.com/

Chillin

The son "Chillin" shouldn't be in the singles tab. It should be under the "Other appearances" tab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.103.239 (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no reason that it should be. "Chillin" is as much a Gaga single as Wale's. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, then Video Phone should be on the same tab too. She is featured in the song, if it were in her album, only then would it be a single of hers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.107.0 (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Chillin'" was released as a single. Only the original mix of "Video Phone" (without Gaga) was released as a single. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In Kesha's discography, all her featured songs are in a seperate section. And all are released as singles. Lady Gaga's featured songs should be on a seperate tab, doesn't matter if they are singles or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.179.12 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "Chillin" is completely out of place. All other discography pages have featured singles in a separate section, not mixed in with the artists own singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.27.48 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. Feeling "ackward" about "Chillin" for a while. Someone should take it out of "Lady Gaga's singles". I mean, if the song is not her own, then we should put it under other categories! †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers 01:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Lemme educate you. "Chillin" is as much a Gaga single as Wale's. They are billed equally but royalties differ, hence Gaga is a featured artist. So it is perfectly fine to have "Chillin" under the singles. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If, in the future, Gaga released several other "featured" singles, then they may warrant a separate section. But for now, there is no need, as it is a single by Gaga. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if Gaga IS a featured artist, shouldn't it be under a "featured artists" tab? In that sense, 30h3's single "My First Kiss", Taio Cruz's "Dirty Picture" and Florida's "Right Round" have featured Kesha. Aren't those songs as much as theirs as they are of Kesha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.176.187 (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Kesha discography includes a separate "featured singles" section because there a three of them. One does not warrant a separate table. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I TOO agree that "Chillin" SHOULD be in featured singles, as it was once before. She is FEATURED in the song, and it's not Gaga's own single. Just look at its charting positions, it's clear it isn't as much her's as wales. It doesn't really show her success. It should move! 81.97.33.140 (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

ALSO, it isn't even on one of her albums... 81.97.33.140 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The list clearly indicates that Gaga is a "featured" artist. A one-entry section/table is redundant, as it can fit well into the main singles section. Come back when there are two or three more featured singles. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Video Phone is also a featured song, Hello, Hello is also a featured song. I mean we got two more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.187.217 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If "Chillin" was as much Gaga's as it is Wale's, then why doesnt it appear on The Fame or The Fame Monster? Lady Gaga is credited as a FEATURED artist in that song in so many sources, and its obvious that for personal reasons youre arguing that she is just as important in that song. "Chillin" is Wale's song, and therefore belongs in the featured section next to "video phone" and "hello, hello". If you cant make the distinction, maybe you shouldnt be in charge of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.27.48 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no editors "in charge" of any article on Wikipedia, see WP:OWN. "Chillin" is a single. The remix of Video Phone" was not released as a single, only the version without Gaga was, and thus belongs in Other appearances. I have not heard of "Hello, Hello", however. The point is "Chillin" is a single, and belongs in the singles section. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay so if she is featured in another song,which is released as a single, would you make a separate tab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.46.94 (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just look up the single "Chillin" and read for yourself all about how it's Wale's single. Yes, Gaga was featured in it, but if you look at the standards for a discography page, the singles section reflects ONLY the artist's own singles. If "Chillin" was Lady Gaga featuring Wale, then it definately belongs here. That is not the case. It is 100%, without a doubt, Wale featuring Lady Gaga, and therefore belongs in a separate category. That is the way ALL other artists have their discography pages set up. Lady Gaga's shouldnt be any different. It is so clearly out of place, which is why everyone that knows anything about guest appearances finds it odd that you would list "Chillin" between all of Gaga's own album singles. Give it up already, it makes no sense keeping it where it is right now. I've tried understanding your rationale, but sadly you simply don't have a real defense.

Also, if you look at Beyonce's discography page, she has a special category called "As a featured artist", which is where "Telephone" is listed. If other pages used your reasoning, "Telephone" would be listed under Beyonce's singles. Its not, meaning you are being inconsistent with wikipedia discography norms.

• Adabow, if your reasoning for including "Chillin" in her singles section is because she has only one song that she is featured in, maybe I can add another? She was featured in New Kids' On the Block single "Big Girl Now". ZephyrWind (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Big Girl Now" is listed under "Other appearances", as it was not released as a single. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Charts

Born This Way has charted at no.3. No changes have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.46.94 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did it chart? Name of chart and reliable source please! -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles, The OFFICIAL UK charts company. 119.153.106.238 (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the reference to the singles table until the main Official Charts Company reference we're using updates, which should be quite soon. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way

Born This Way was directed by Jonas Akerlund.. Not by Nick Knight! Can someone change that, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyer1988yes (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not directed by Jonas Akerlund. Check Gaga's website for confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.234.38 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

single sales

Good morning america interview says she has sold 60 million singles! please change

video of interview is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swem7Q6ZI-U&feature=player_embedded#at=258 BORN THIS WAY IS PLAYINUM IN US!!! GO AND SEE IN GAGADAILY OR PEREZHILTON OR BILLBOARD.COM !!! PLEASE ADDED!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.116.245 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC) The RIAA, the body certifies records in the US, has not certified "Born This Way". Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

True album and single sales

Okay so on her main page it says she's sold an estimated 60 million singles and 23 million albums, so why don't you change the info on the discography page too?! Come on Wikipedia editors, get with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.142.11 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

paparazzi sales

paparazzi has sold 3x Platinum according to RIAA, heres the link Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiassandell (talk • contribs) 08:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)