Talk:The Fame/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Paparazzi

5th single http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpD4P12O-YY&eurl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.91.198 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

well you can't have a more reliable source than the lady herself that something is definitely going to be a single. i think a page for this single needs to be made! agreed? Mister sparky (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

is this the cover?? http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/2045/paparazzirickbz7.png Mister sparky (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Youtube cannot be used as a source for anything because of copyright violations. If you have a better source, then yes otherwise, similar arguments like for LoveGame. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In that interview, she states that she thinks "Paparazzi" will be the next single. She never 100% assured that it would be! This whole 3rd/4th single thing is driving me bonkers lol! I can't find any reliable resources claiming the next single. Gaga/Interscope need to hurry up and make their decision! I'm tired of playing guessing games! --Child Funk (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Patience my love. :) --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree, this is getting really frustrating. i now think that she's going to release and make videos for every song off the album in a different country or region to gain more publicity for the album to boost the albums sales. and different songs are gonna chart in different countries depending on their personal tastes. she has stated before in interviews that she hates the idea of releasing the same thing in different countries because she thinks its boring. Mister sparky (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I see why she wants to mix it up. Around the time period when "Just Dance" became an international hit, nearly all of her tv appearences were of her performing that song. If she varies the single releases, she can focus on promoting a different single for each of the countries selected. This way it makes it much more interesting for both us and her. For example: Eh Eh was released in Australian and NZ. If she is touring Aus around the time when Eh Eh is gaining sucess she will work to promote it. Then perhaps, a week or so later she then goes to Europe and Paparazzi may be a single over there so she works on promoting that. An interesting way of marketing. Very clever. This may be the case Mister Sparky so thanks for informing me about what she has stated in interviews :) Child Funk (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going more forum like. Please be careful. --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Played on Radio 1 in the UK in which it was announced as the 3rd UK single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.171.54 (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep was also played on Radio 1 today saying it was the new single. i would've preferred lovegame or eh eh as its getting summery but ah well 89.240.63.169 (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

I deleted the review because it's from a homemade (?) MP3 blog. There's already reviews of 'The Fame' in serious and/or real magazines/papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.199.194 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanity ISN'T in the European edition of the album, that edition has Money Honey like the Canadian one instead. So stop adding it to the page please! --Seems like everything else is taken...Seems like everything else is taken... (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WHO KEEPS CHANGING THE CANADIAN CHARTS PEAK??? I WATCHED WITH MY OWN TWO EYES THE Much On Demand show where both she and Muchmusic CLEARLY state that the album was number one in Canada. It did not peak at number 8! She wouldnt lie and thank Canada for making her album number 8, it was ONE!

Album cover images

Please note that album cover images are copyrighted, and can only be used as low resolution fair use images to illustrate the article. Uploading any higher resolution than needed to do that is a copyright violation, and would require the image being released under a GFDL license, meaning it could be used for any purpose, by anyone - not likely. Apteva (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Again Again and Disco Heaven

Again Again doesn't appear to be on the US CD or the iTunes edition, while Disco Heaven seems to appear only on the iTunes edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proserpine (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

When searching for 'The Fame' it leads directly to a disambig page featuring the album by Lady GaGa and a 1998 B-side song from Oasis. I've yet to read up on the particular Wikipedia policy concerning this, but surely the phrase 'The Fame' should lead directly to this page and a link to the Oasis song added as a small sentence on the top of the page to aid any confusion? If that makes sense? londonsista | ^Prod 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

10th citiation

The 10th citation link doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.90.64 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)

I was reading the [section] in the article and it states: The Physical release is set to release on January 31st, 2008. It is expected to get a major boost when the physical is released.. I was wondering if an article should be made due its going to be the third single in Aussie. I think we should make one because there gonna be a physical release of the song. Any suggestions if we should make one or not? --BrenMadge (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On the singles part of the article Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I can Say) is actually supposed to be realsed on MON 2 Feb not Jan 31 in Aus.SOURCE-http://www.bigwentertainment.com.au/product/eh_eh_3059637_868111.html Dance-pop (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think thats pretty reliable source. Now i think there should be an article. --BrenMadge (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

""Poker Face" is the album's second single, "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" was supposed to be the second single but was replaced "Pocker Face"[28]. "Poker Face" was released on September 29. The song has peaked at number one on the Australian Singles Chart, Canadian Hot 100 and on the New Zealand Singles Chart.[29] The song has also begun to go up on the Billboard Hot 100 currently standing at number eighty-one.[30]"

Theres a spelling error on pocker face at 'replaced "Pocker Face"[28]'.Poker is spelt pocker.Can someone change it. 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Singles

The Fame and LoveGame shouldn't be posted on the secetion. Because they haven't been confirmed by Lady GaGa or her label. AllyE1991 (talk) 9, January 2009

Yes it should be put up there, it was confirmed by her label on the radio! The radio station didn't say it, the representative did, so please stop deleting it. She also shot a music video for it, so of course it's a single. Just wait, its going to be confirmed on ehr site when she puts the video up.

Hey peeps, I was in Seattle, and Gaga was on this one Seattle radio interview. She said that "The Fame" would eventually be a single. Then the guy asked if it would be the next single, and she said no. So that will definetly be a single.

Table changes

On the table it should be genres, producers and labels.With an s at end because it is refering to more than one.

Also her labels other record labels are CherryTree (Records), Streamline and Def Jam. Dance-pop (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate covers

I think the article needs alternate cover images the Internationl version is different fro the U.S and the U.k version. Dance-pop (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful Dirty Rich

I added "Beautiful, Dirty Rich" as a single, here is the link that proves it: http://ladygaga.com/discography/ Scroll down, it shows the song as a single. Please change all the stuff in the "singles" section. I'm not sure how to add sources for singles, so if someone could please do that.

You are correct. It is actually a promo single and was used in the U.S tv show Dirty Sexy Money. So it should be added. Dance-pop (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, BDR is still not a single. It wasnot officially released. Just because its used in a tv show doesnot make it worthy of a single. Promo singles need not be added according to WP:ALBUM "Legolas" (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should do what it done in this article. [1]. --BrenMadge (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if the single is a promotional single, which Beautiful, Dirty, Rich is not. It was only used for the TV show, thats it. "Legolas" (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well just put it somewhere in the article :S --BrenMadge (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'll work out something. "Legolas" (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it BDR should get it's own article.Just a thought. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a digital single. I can't see problem to add it in the article since the official site gives the release date. However, we can not create a page because, to date, it's uncharted, uncovered, and has won no awards (i.e fails WP:NSONGS). Legolas2186, sorry if I missing something but where exactly written in the albums' project that "promo singles not need be added"? Sparks Fly 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a promo single and was released as a digital single only. It was going to be the second single but it got replaced with "Poker Face" so I see it as possibly being a single in the future. As much as I want it to be added I don't think it should, although there should be mention of it in the article as it was a digital single and a music video was shot for it.

People I am going to create an article, I think it has worthy info. does anyone agree. Even though it has been disscussed. It has been released as promo and probably is going to be re-released since its a promo.Dance-pop (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, most promo's end up being released as a single. It's already been charted in the UK on digital downloads alone, so I suspect it to be their third single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.32.161 (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Beautiful Dirty Rich is able to have it's own article due to the fact that it charted in the UK. Tikkuy (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

LoveGame

Well just a reminder to keep checking the Canadian charts for this single because It's going to finally chart there soon since it's boosting up the Itunes charts in Canada. It is currently at 43 on the Itunes chart which means it might debut in the Canadian Hot 100 very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.152.65 (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I tink we should add LoveGame to the Singles section because it's been said to be the third single in North America. And its official that they shot a video for it. http://www.josephkahn.com/news/1388.xml?_offset=0 AllyE1991 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you! If a video has been shot for it then of course It's going to be a single. Plus I heard it on the radio where they confirmed it as her next single, they said "We've got a great source from Interscope that this song we will play for you right now, is going to be Gaga's next single." Also, someone here describes her new video for LoveGame:

thecount.com/sneak-peak-lady-gagas-revealing-new-video-love-game/ Someone make an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.90.216 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok It's been charted, lets create an article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.101.18 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree 100 to create a article. This site even says what is IN THE VIDEO. And it is reliable. However it does not have an official relaese so in the article it needs to have it has not been officially realesed.

source-http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/on-the-scene-la.html Dance-pop (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats the cliche. No where it says that it is the next single, everywhere it syas that its not sure. It was the same with B eautiful, Dirty, Rich and Poker Face. Both were supposed to be reelased but ultimately Poker Face was the official and BDR was shelved. Lets wait a few more days. I'm pretty sure that some authentic source confirming its status as a single 'will be released soon. P.S. The video sounds hot !! Can't wait. "Legolas" (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is confirmed. It is going to be the third dingle in North America. I think it is more then reliable, and should have its own article source-http://www.ladygaga.com/blog/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 02:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We should just wait now. The video should debut by the end of this month and once it does it will be told if it is a single or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.203.218 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If its been shot, its probably going to be relesed, when the video is released the song will too(probably), unless its going to be a BDR, I dont think it will acording to the sources. Dance-pop (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm 100% sure that is a single. I heard her label confirm it on the radio, although we can't sue that as our source. It would be against the rules at add it without an official source. We need to find that interview, then we can. Or just wait for her to confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.32.161 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Its is the popwatch that tells us its a single. P.S.Im excited, it sounds fantasic even better then the pokerface vid. Dance-pop (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Another source- http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/lady-gaga-fashion-is-everything-to-me-1380270.html Dance-pop (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources confirm that it is supposed to be released as a single. The independent source just says she is shooting a video. No confirmation, hence no article. Simple. Even if article is created it will be reverted. So chill and don't waste time in trying to create the article. When time is ripe, it will be created with proper sources and info. "Legolas" (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, Love Games has been playing on my radio station. It has played twice today. Doesn't that prove it's a single? :S http://www.chumfm.com/music/playlisthistory.asp Try it. Search Lady GaGa on "by artists" or Lovegame on "by title". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok everyone, the video made its debut today! It's one HOT & SEXY video! Gaga will post it on the site, then she will confirm it as a single then. So we will have a proper source to confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.32.161 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The video has been released on Lady GaGa's official Youtube channel however, I don't feel as though it is the right time to make another article well atleast at this point in time as it will get deleted. It hasn't been confirmed yet but then again why would she release the video? Weird, GaGa is toying with everyone's heads lol! Youstinklmao (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He he, she's not toying with everyone's head. But normally she releases the video just before the song's official release. If the video has been added to GaGa's youtube page that emans the song is going for adds to radio. I think after a couple of days we'll have enough info to warranty an article. Youstink, i count on you to collect as many valid references as possible. --Legolas!! ^(talktome) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the video leaked it wasn't meant to be released yet. Gaga calls it "Video Rape" on her twitter account. Apparently Muchmusic was meant to upload the "Eh, Eh" video but accidentally put up LoveGame then she just decided to release it after everyone uploaded it. The song is now being played on New Zealand radio, pretty weird considering "Eh, Eh" is still climbing. I suspect this will be released to Australian radio's soon too then. I get my info from a source which gets the info from the label, but australia only. So once I get a release date I'll let you know.

LoveGame hits aussie radio's today! 27.02.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.85.28 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should at least say that it's been released as a single... why not make an article? :P It's been on the radio for a few weeks and the video has been playing on the television (MuchMusic). [Canada] What information is missing that prevents the making of an article? :P Oh.. and by the way.. I don't really think that it was "leaked"... On February 13, which was the day GaGa posted the video on YouTube was the same day Perez Hilton posted it on his website.. and was also the same day MuchMusic debuted LoveGame on the television. Hope that helped? =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As much as I want we can't. We need a reliable source, find that and we have an article. The vid was leaked and even on Canada. She even said it in an interview, she said they mistakely put the vid on youtube. And than it spread like the Oz bush fires. Thanks for the post... and Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 04:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It still hasn't been confirmed. The link to the LoveGame article from The Fame should be removed untill a reliable source claims it's release. Yes, a music video has been made and now has leaked all over the net. That confirms that it will be released as I don't think record companies would pay thousands of dollars to make a video of that class for nothing. I live in Australia. Not that I listen to the radio that often but some nights I listen to the Hot 30 on 2DAY and it has never been played. --Child Funk (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree and done. --Legolas ^(talktome) 06:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, made a mistake in what I wrote ^^ To add on to what I was saying before, Hot 30 have upadted the top tracks voted from last night and LoveGame now appears at #21. I was looking at Friday nights Top 30 as the site was not updated untill just minutes ago. Honestly, I'm not lying. Take a look at this refference of last nights list before it changes after tonight's countdown! Sorry about that! --Child Funk (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, seen it, but the reference itself fails WP:RS. We need something more authentic like BBC, Rolling Stones, Billboard, Hindustan Times, New York Times or any american radio station. --Legolas ^(talktome) 08:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Genre change

If you go to the main article Lady GaGa her genre are different from the ones in this article. So to keep it the same and not confuse people change both articles so they are the same. 121.98.206.13 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is R&B or Urban music too, plus theres a rapper, so the album has Hip Hop in it. I know R&B is the new pop, but you can't say this album is traditional pop, its R&B too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.245.70 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternate album cover

The image fails NFCC#8 being the same image as the main album cover and not significantly different taht it cannot be illustrated by commentary. Hence should not be added. "Legolas" (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the alternate album has a place on the article. There has to be a reason for it. One blue, one red Lady GaGa. I think it complies with NFCC#8. It has importance>will make people think and if you check other artsits albums you will see alternate> with less signigance.Dance-pop (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Free Download

Can we add to the article that her official australian site (ladygaga.com.au) is giving for free a download a Mixtape-Medley of the album songs? --Smanu (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No. No advertising. --Legolas ^(talktome) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreleased tracks

Do you think a section on this or her discography page for unreleased or leaked tracks. (examples-Vanity, Rock Show, No floods etc.) like britneys discography.Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The UK album also has several bonus tracks that are wonderland, vanity, ka-boom are the most well known. However, unknown if the tracks: fashion and let love down are going to be bonus tracks too.

Singles section formatting

I changed the singles formatting to match the attractive formatting seen in articles such as One of the Boys and Vrisko To Logo Na Zo and as seen in effect on this version of the page. An editor objects to this change and prefers the condensed version where it is hard to identify the singles as seen here. Any thoughts for or against my way? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor is me. The only reason i reverted back to the old version is because the singles already have their own separate pages and do not need to have a separate paragraph. Their is very little info for the singles to warranty a separate paragraph. One of the Boys has very little paragraphing over the whole article hence the singles could have had separate paragraphs in it (though it still looks abrupt). But in this case it looks odder as there are too much paragraphs already in the article. We are trying to eliminate all the unnecessary paragraphing, not include more. --Legolas ^(talktome) 04:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

They have separate paragraphs already the argument that they are too small is rather weak. Like I said, its difficult to navigate through them, the bullet is not enough. Readability wins over your particular view on aesthetics. Let's see what others have to say. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not also about aesthetics. As i said before, the singles already have their own separate pages. Hence warrantying them a separate paragraph is unnecessary. A reader when he/she will read the article, it is enough for him/her to find a link and go to the main single article. The singles are not that important part of an album page to have separate paragraphs. The article should reflect about the album. --Legolas ^(talktome) 12:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with paragraphs? A paragraph can be any size and it does not make sense to hinder readability because now all of the sudden the singles aren't even important. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the singles aren't important but this is an album page, and when the singles have their page, i find it unnecessary to highlight the singles by paragraphing when they have their own separate pages and are present in two areas of the article (infobox and Singles section). I'm not against paragraphs. If you would see the article, I was the one who introduced the new paragraphs for Beautiful, Dirty, Rich. But this time i find it completely unnecessary and cluttering. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I want a few more opinions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not really care, I didn't even read all the comments(lazy...) consenus I hear calling.Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 06:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)

This is going to sound strange but if you're the one changing the "its" in that section to "it's", STOP. You're wrong so stop reverting my edit, jeez.Magicmuggle (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

International vs US Album Cover

Someone repetitively changes the original international album cover to the US version! If someone is that desperate for the US cover to be included in the article, than put an Alternative Cover in the infobox! If not than it should be kept as the International version, as that is what most countries have! Child Funk (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the International cover to be included. The main infobox cover should be always the cover released in the artist's nation. If an international cover is relased that can only be included in the article if it is significantly different and doesnot fail WP:NFCC#8 at all, which I must say is not the case with Gaga's article. There is nothing different in the international cover other than the font being red. --Legolas ^(talktome) 11:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the international cover's font is white, while the US versions is red. The one we currently have right now as I write this message is the international cover. Child Funk (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohh is it? OK I will check and reply back. --Legolas ^(talktome) 07:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the U.S. and U.K. are red and the NZ and Aus. is blue (I live in Aus. I know) (the original cover is red - first version she released) I am Rorschach (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The first version of the album was released in Canada (which had white font) and a month or so later, Australia got the same as Canada (same tracklisting, cover/font etc) however, in Australia The Fame was re-released in November where the tracklisting matched the US version because the original didn't have those extra bonus tracks like Starstruck and a couple of others. The re-release still had the white font, it wasn't changed to red! Europe has the same as Oceania and Canada. The US was the 6th country for the album to be released in, therfore the red font is not the original. childfunk^chat 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources are needed. Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Protection

This article needs protection, esp. from IPs. Could someone request it as I am about to clear some vandlism up.I am Rorschach (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Track-Listings

OK now the constant revision of track listings to an incorrect format is childish and unhelpful. it just means that someone has to spend time making corrections.

• WP:albums (the guidelines for albums) cleary says that if one person has contributed to most or all of the album in terms of writing or production credits then they should be accredited once in a sentence at the start of the track listing. Therefore Lady Gaga should not be listed as a writer along-side each song!
• further more this album has featured artists, to help distinguish between featured artists on tracks and writers/producers small brackets have been used. this is common practise for many albums. Please take a look at some examples: Human, Doll Domination, I Am Sasha Fierce. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Agree with you, but the minimising of hte font is not needed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Euro charts

Source Billboard for Euro charts. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/lady-gaga-scores-euro-chart-double-1003965830.story Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Leftover/unreleased tracks

Here is a source http://italiancharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Lady+GaGa&titel=The+Fame&cat=a and http://italiancharts.com/search.asp?cat=s&search=Lady+Gaga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not needed. Will only clutter the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth putting on, this is encyclopeidic content, the article is quiet small, people would wnt to know. Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the article is already past 40KB. Its not a small article and anyways links donot point to the fact that songs like Vanity and Dirty Ice Cream are unreleased tracks from Fame. They are simply unreleased songs. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre 2009

Disscus Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Most currently listed are fine, however I don't think it is that necessary to have five genres. Perhaps it could somehow be simplifyed down.

I think Europop should be removed along with Dance and be replaced with Electropop (since the singles all have electropop as genres) childfunkchat 10:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to have broader genres, like pop and electroi intesad of electr-pop where theses sub genres can be used for the singles. Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Europop could be removed too, since it doesn't play much of a big part in the album. Still, electronic should be replaced with electronica. The term electronic music does refer to a music genre itself; according to Category:Electronic music, "Electronic music is a loose term for music created using electronic equipment", and therefore cannot be considered a music genre. Also, take a look at the list of genres presented at Allmusic: electronica is listed instead of electronic. Funk Junkie (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To keep it simple as possible, the genre's should be minimal and simple as possible. Simply two or one of the following should really give the idea. "Pop", "Electronic", "Dance pop" etc. We'd have to be able to cite them anyways. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Electro is better then electonica---more 80's then electro which is more mordenized. however electroinic is good to use because gaga use electronic equipment as well as sub-genre. Also on the main gaga article under genre is states electronic with sources. Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Electro music is originated from—among other genres—hip hop and funk, and therefore does not reflect Gaga's overall music style. Again, electronic is an umbrella term and does not refer to a music genre. If you're willing to mantain broader genres, take a look at List of electronic music genres and you'll see that electronica is the parent genre of electropop. Funk Junkie (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is true. I am going with the main article, Gaga also uses synths, etc. so the broadest genre is electronic. Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Find Your Right Path Or Fight For Your Own Destiny 15:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I got to say to people use 'http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:apfpxzlkldje' to better define album genres. At least, it's sourced, one of the very rules of wikipedia, and everyone will be happy. Find Your Right Path Or Fight For Your Own Destiny 15:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Then, Dance-Pop, Urban and Pop Rock would be a better choice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny pt (talk • contribs)

UK

The fame hasn't been number one this week, Bob Dylan has - the chart procession needs changed. Thanks 90.208.209.183 (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Funk Junkie (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

music and lyrical structure

Her sharp lyrical talents...

This line s POV. Such a statement does not exist in the article, and her lyrics have been criticized for being vapid, cliched and unoriginal. 75.22.201.250 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources.....Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa The Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.149.87 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fame photos

Taken by Warcwick Saints. http://www.warwicksaint.com/photographer/archive/music Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 08:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

just got the tracklists into the tracklist boxes

go gaga~ ChongLi (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I wonder if somebody could help complete the release history list please? RainBell (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sales figures

Hi! Just wanted to say that the sales numbers are unsourced. Certifications are not an indication of number of copies sold, but a combination of direct sales and copies shipped to retail - Nielsen SoundScan numbers are the actual sales. Hekerui (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I propose removing it altogether. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the certifications can be kept when properly sourced. Other sales figures are there in the text and okay. I added a recent figure for the US, but the others in the Charts section should be removed without sourcing (as in: the whole colum has to go), I agree. Hekerui (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your addition is extremely good and will help in the future. However, I fear that this addition will only increase the vandalism from the IPs and the fans who will add random sales figures. I just hope we are able to revert such change. The column can stay. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SHE HAS SOLD 25 MILLION SINGLES http://www.ladygaga.com/blog/default.aspx?nid=22870

Singles (2)

I'm going to rearrange this section in the article a little bit to make it easier to read - a big clump of a paragraph is a little confusing. Any suggestions or objections, go ahead and tweak it. :) talkingbirds 15:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree. There is not much information to warranty separate sub-paragraphs or even usage of ;. The article is GA nominated where prose, rather than paragraphs are noted, hence please don't change it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for telling me. I'm still a little bit new to the policies and such. :) talkingbirds 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No problemo :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say if talkingbirds can make improvements he/she should do so or at least feel free to propose which ones these would be in more detail on the talk page. Hekerui (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused with what you're saying. I guess I was too vague on my description? I can fix that in future talk page discussions :) talkingbirds 22:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Legolas, prose has everything to do with paragraph structure--or lack thereof. If I were you, I'd offer the GA editors some heavy-duty tool to chip through the concrete block of your "singles" paragraph. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See other GA albums then talk back. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? I know prose. I'll wait for the review. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Knowing prose doesnot mean that you will add unnecessary paragraphs. The singles section doesnot have enough material to warranty separate paragraphs for the singles, not even using ; will help in structuring the flow. I really appreaciate your help, but this just doesot work. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. I didn't add any unnecessary paragraphs; I reverted a change that turned five paragraph into one massive paragraph. Apparently I'm not the only one to think that way--see above. There is no policy that says "five singles should fit into one paragraph," and that paragraph simply is way too long; you threw out a red herring to a relatively novice collaborator who had a good idea. But have it your way. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This guy is obviously a complete twat, why the hell are all the singles clumped into one paragraph?! It's really hard to make sense of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.183.32 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image captions

I noticed that the captions for the images of the live performances use the word "on." For example: Lady Gaga performing on The Fame Ball Tour. I believe that "on" is appropriate to use if the image showcases a performance on a television program for instance, Lady Gaga performing on David Letterman however if it is at a certain event, the world at or during should be used instead in my opinion.
• вяαdcяochat 00:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Sigh! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

MuchMusic Awards

I do not correctly know if this would actually increase the encyclopedic value of the article however, I found some majority of significant photographs of Lady Gaga's performance at the MuchMusic Awards 2009 in Toronto, Canada. • вяαdcяochat 08:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful pics. But non-free! Sigh! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Do we really need a disambiguation page for The Fame? It doesn't seem reasonable that someone would search for "the fame" while looking for fame. And the Oasis B-side doesn't even have its own article and isn't a notable song. I think that we should ditch the disambiguation, and move this page to The Fame. --Pokerdance (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disregard this. I have moved the page. --Pokerdance (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Charted Songs

I believe this article should have a place in it for the songs off 'The Fame' which have not been released as singles but have charted nonetheless. This includes Starstruck, The Fame and Beautiful Dirty Rich. I would be quite happy to make a new section underneath the Singles one, but I just wanted to check with you guys first. Thanks! Tikkuy (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No extra section is needed. It can come in the Singles section. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary or more so notable on the album article? Those particular songs have already been listed on the discography. • вяαdcяochat 08:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda going neutral in this one. For me it can or cannot be notable. I have reasons for both sides. Hence I'll go with the consensus. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, none of them are that notable enough to be worthy of mention, and as you say they are promo singles only and hence only downloadable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The problem is, a lot of songs that aren't released as singles chart these days. Do you think it is worth the recognition? • вяαdcяochat 08:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's notable enough...The discography page lists all other songs which have charted, whereas the section here would only feature songs that appeared on "The Fame". I think people would be interested, especially if they'd heard the song on the radio or something and were wondering what it was. Tikkuy (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Monster

Could someone please explain why this is not mentioned in the article at all? People keep removing it citing either copyright issues or unreliability of YouTube as a source (even though it's her speaking). However, in WP:SOURCE I cannot see any reason YouTube should be precluded as a source. YouTube may be unreliable, but it is not the true source in this case, Lady GaGa is. A potential copyright violation doesn't seem like a good enough reason. 09 F9 is a far riskier inclusion, and it is hosted on Wikimedia's own servers. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 23:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There are too few reliable sources that discuss the re-release that it does not deserve a whole section. I have added a brief mention at the top of the page, backed up with the video of Gaga at the press conference. That is all that should be there until it is confirmed by more reliable sources. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A mention is all I wanted. I agree, all we know is that it has been announced, but that much is reliable. But I notice someone has AGAIN removed it. I am not saying they are wrong, but can someone please point me to EXACTLY where YouTube is precluded as a source in policy? When someone reverts an edit for policy reasons, it's nice to link to the relevant policy page. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 10:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Legolas removed it, and I would like to know that as well... Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Youtube cannot be used as a source especially for an article which is nominated for GA. It will be removed again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that YouTube is generally not a good source, but what exactly is the problem if it's a video of Gaga speaking? Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations. Wikipedia is very strict about it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't paying attention to the potential copyright violation much; I thought you were trying to say it wasn't reliable. But thank you for clearing that up. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Legolas, you still haven't shown me a policy page saying this. What I'm asking for is just proof that YouTube cannot be used as a source. You are alleging that it MAY be a copy-vio. WP:COPYRIGHT: Linking to copyrighted works certainly does not say this is sufficient reason to exclude a link. We do not know the video to be infringing. If you have proof it is, sharing it would be helpful. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube is more of a "personal" or "social" website where the general public can contribute. That is why it is best not to use it as a source as it can be heavily modifyed or removed anytime of the users choice. It is better to use reliable thrid party content from a trusted source for better accuracy. • вяαdcяochat 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept that, but that is not the reason Legolas has used to justify its removal. Besides, a video of Lady GaGa speaking can hardly be considered untrusted, can it? - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen about 3 interviews and read 3 articles on the re-release i have put forward 2 of them in the discography page both have been knocked back i thought you listen to what the artist says from her own mouth about her album in an interview. How can this article be Fact if bits of facts are not allowed onto the page with high relevency such as a re-release or a new album Nbeau1989 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.lady-gaga.net/2009/07/21/dutch-3-voor-12-radio-interview-090720/#comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbeau1989 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bits of fact can only be considered if they are notable, supported by reliable and verifiable sources and is not a case of recent events likely to change in future. This is not the case with the fact that you are trying to add. First of all, youtube leads to copyright violation hence cannot be used, second all the sources that you are providing fails reliablility and lastly, this is a pure case of recent event since there is no more information available at all. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't you people understand? We are trying to construct a quality article as best as we possibly can. Following the guidelines should be our first priority if we wish to succeed in doing so. • вяαdcяochat 08:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly that Legolas' said YouTube cannot be cited as a source, and reliability of other sources etc. etc.. But I can also see that WP:YOUTUBE directly contradicts that notion: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". Once again I reiterate: no one has shown any good reason to assume the video on YouTube is a copyvio, and a video of the artist herself is certainly not of questionable reliability. Someone may very well have a reason to think the video is a copyvio, in which case: sharing is caring ;) - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 09:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also this seems a case where "ignore all rules" might apply. No one disputes that se has stated a rerelease of The Fame, called "Monster" will follow. It is easily verified, but (allegedly) non citable since it may, be a copyvio. So we are forced to ignore very reliable information (don't tell me videos of her speaking are not reliable) simply because the sources MAY not be eligible for inclusion. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". This refers to a case when the video is posted on a youtube channel by a particular company like Universal Music or WArner Music or Interscope records etc. But this is not the case here. And who said that noone disputes teh Moster name? I myself dispute since it hasnot appeared in any reliable source. Also, even if it would have appeared in any reliable source, the information is too recentism to actually go into the article. So, either way, it fails. Even WP:CRYSTAL applies here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're explanation of what the policy means isn't what it says. And who are you to tell me what it means? (I don't mean that agressively: in fairness, unless you wrote that rule, you're interpretation is no more valid than mine. You're inferring something that isn't there without any good reason that I can see. That may be what you want it to mean, that may even be what it actually means, but that is not what it says. There seems to have a myriad of reasons to exclude it, all of which I have so far disputed, but I don't care enough to continue this pointless debate. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 15:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I on the other hand, would like to continue this, as I think this Legolas person is wrong, and I'm going to add The Fame: Monster to the page. 84.13.95.177 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added it as today Lady GaGa confirmed the re-release herself in a press conference http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a176457/video-lady-gagas-london-press-conference.html Chris as I am Chris (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now someone has deleted it because apparently a video of Lady GaGa confirming it is not a reliable source... think some people need to actually check the source thats been given before deleting it maybe? Chris as I am Chris (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The section was deleted because of usage of Digital Spy, an unreliable source. Also The Fame: Monster is still a case of WP:RECENTISM untill and unless concrete information comes regarding the re-release, songs and timelines. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Fame Monster" release date confirmed for pre-order in Japan on the 14th November 2009 SOURCE: http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=UICS-9113:

Release date confirmed by MTV 24th November 2009 for the USA. SOURCES: 1. http://gagadaily.com/2009/08/the-fame-monster-release-date-according-to-mtv-com/

Are these sources valid?121.217.32.178 (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Singles section

User:Pokerdace is removing content from the single section making it small paragraphs when there is not enough content. He is also adding alternate covers which fail WP:NFCC#8 and is insisting on doing so. Let him explain his edits here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will do so gladly. Sorry, but the alternate Fame cover does not violate that rule, as it is an alternate cover which explains what it looked like in other regions. If you are suggesting that the U.S. edition of The Fame cover be removed under that criteria, you might as well suggest that the "Additional covers" option in the album infobox should be removed, and remove additional covers on other album pages.

The "Singles" content contains short snippets of the major information, with a link to their respective articles so readers can obtain more information if they wish to do so. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Working a lot with images, I can safely say the second image clearly fails WP:NFCC. Specifically, it does not meet the criteria described in the third point as multiple non-free images are being used when one conveys equivalent significant information. A simple altercation in text does not justify the use of a second cover; it can be mentioned in the article body, if it even needs to be mentioned at all, considering how insignificant the change is. — Σxplicit 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of the second cover illustrates the differences between the two covers. As I said, feel free to argue about other alternate covers on other albums, such as the ones on Jonas Brothers (album) or Good Girl Gone Bad. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem lies with the image not the template. Is there anything in the image that the user cannot understand looking at the original cover? I guess not. That is why it is failing WP:NFCC#8. Also I point out to a comment of yours in which you said it is an alternate cover which explains what it looked like in other regions. Fine but does it increase the viewers understanding in any way? I, as an outside viewer cannot possibly see why it is needed since only difference is teh font color.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because other shit exists that doesnot mean that you can add another insignificant cover. Atleast a quick look made me understand that the covers you mentioned in these articles are significantly different from the original cover. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

← The misuse of alternate covers in other articles is not an issue in this article. Also, looking over your rewrite of the singles section, there's a fundamental problem; you've left the section entirely unreferenced. Considering this article is up for GAN, it wouldn't be passed in this condition. — Σxplicit 04:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reasoning for originally having no references above. But perhaps my section can be re-added over the current one, with references from each respective article added. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh silly me, there was no reasoning to start with. But my reason was because the Main article templates linked to their respective pages which contained reference. This was a mistake, so please discuss my most recent reasoning instead. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But don't you think that a wikilinking is enough? Using the main article template is creating a number of paragraphed structure which is breaking up the flow. One of the criteria for GA is that the articles should have a coherent flow, which is not happening in this case. I just made a dummy edit of introducing the * parameter to distinguish them, but I believe that works as fine. What do both of you think? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your change is fine. I think that adding my text from my previous edits (with references, of course) would most likely improve this article's chances of becoming a good article, as it seems to be written a tad better and gets to all the major points more briefly. I don't feel like doing this right now though as I'm on a slow computer, so I'll try and do this sometime soon. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave it as it is now, there has been enough warring already. Lets see if anybody disrupts the article from its present condition, then we can have another discussion. Our first goal at present is to make the article stable now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd avoid the use of asterisks because the section becomes a list rather than paragraphs. — Σxplicit 04:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I know list type paragaphs are not seen in good light at GA, hence the section was a complete block previously. Do you think we should keep it that way or just adding simple breaks between the single description blocks will be fine? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd go back to the initial paragraphs. The GAN reviewer may have others suggestions or won't have any problems with the way it's written. — Σxplicit 04:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Cool. I'll keep it to the initial one and leave a note at the concerned editors not to make any change before the GA review completes. Lets wait for the GAN reviewer then. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Please leave the genre as "electronic dance." The majority of the album's songs are a combination of electronic music and dance music. Combine them to better generalize it. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the term "electronic dance music" is supposed to be a combination of electronic music and dance music; I believe the word "electronic" was solely added to make it differ from regular dance music. I still think it should be listed as "[[electronic dance music|dance]], [[electronic music|electronic]]". Just a thought. Funk Junkie (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Source for the position in the Finnish albums chart

Hi, could someone please put this [2] as the source for the Finnish chart position, it's the official list ("Virallinen lista"). Thanks :) -- 88.114.122.161 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

acharts is used as the source which reflects Yle website, hence the source is fine. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm...sorry, what?? At the moment, there's no source marked for the peak position #3 in the Finnish charts. So...could you or someone else please put this [3] there?? If you consider a Yle (government-funded broadcasting corporation) website a reliable source?? :D -- 82.181.82.230 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Album Sales Worldwide

According to Lady Gaga, she's sold 4 million albums worldwide not 2.3 as this article states.

http://www.mtv.com.au/news/gagas-angry-sex-row-1c45fad6e802/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.139.26 (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and also if you add up all of the country's album sales on the bottom of the page it adds up to way more than 2.3 million-This article has said 2.3 million albums for almost a month while Lady Gaga is selling 30,000-35,000 albums a week in the US alone...2.3 million can't be accurate as well as 1,162,000 in the US (has also remained the same for almost a month)

Thanks but any sales report has to be from third party sources, not from the singer. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

She has sold 3 million albums worldwide and 20 million singles http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-14-2009/0005059985&EDATE=

Legolas, for someone reporting on Lady Gaga you don't seem to know very much about her or are unable to find the articles about her. And I only say this because you seem to want to run this page. The 2.3 million needs to be updated because it's UNsourced and UNtrue. Why would you not take a source from Lady Gaga herself yet have a completely unsourced figure on the page? That doesn't even make sense. Here are several *third party* media news outlets that atleast confirm the album has sold 3 million (even though Lady Gaga says 4!): Sawf News: http://news.sawf.org/entertainment/58880.aspx, BizJournal: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/prnewswire/press_releases/California/2009/07/14/LA46596 [user:Thehausofgaga] 1 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehausofgaga (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Fame (Special Edition) 2009

There’s a twenty-three–track special edition of this album (discussed here) that this article doesn’t cover. Just FYI. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry blogs are not acceptable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing and development... music structure and lyrics

These two sections are extremely alike... I read it multiple times and the the las paragraph of the first section just states what the inspiration of the song was which is the same thing as the second on. It should be better organized or made into giant section called "background". --Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Short film

A short film was made to promote the album called The Fame: Part One. Could a summary of it be included in the Promotion section? POKERdance ^talk/contribs 05:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. But using interscope records as reference, not youtube. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The video was uploaded by Lady Gaga's official YouTube account, which is handled by her and most likely her record label. I don't think that would constitute a copyright infringement. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 05:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its better not to use youtube since, even though it will pass copyrights, the videos there are extremely unstable and are taken down at random. Also youtubes are denoted as bad sources at GA. Since this is a GA nominated article, lets go with the official references since they are present. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, don't you think that reliable third party coverage would be required if we were to include this within the article? • вяαdcяochat 05:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable third party will be required if we were making any commentary with it. But in this case we'll just mention that it was released for promo purposes and maybe a three line description of the content. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Found this. It's a MySpace video, but it's on Gaga's official website which should make it a good source to use. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 11:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fame: Monster

I remember reading an article that Gaga plans to re-release the album as The Fame: Monster and i saw a couple of pictures of her with skeletons... creepy, but I think it's true. Can someone please add this to the article if any reliable sources show up? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I will be glad to once it is confirmed in sources other than blogs and fan sites. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa herself has confirmed at a press conference whilst promoting her 'Heart beats' headphones, that her rerelease actually title 'The Fame Monster' will be in stores soon, a double sided disc, with the second side full of new songs. The reason behind this rerelease is beacuse her record label wanted a whole new album, but GaGa felt she hadnt finished with the fame yet.Article Video Raintheone (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unrelaible source Digital Spy. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you look? Lady GaGa says so herself, now how more reliable do you need than the Lady saying it herself. Digital Spy is realiable actually as it has serious interviews. Raintheone (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Having interviews doesnot make one reliable rather their credibility. Digital Spy has been unreliable, plagiarising and tabloidy the whole time, why the hell will it be exceptionalised only for Gaga? --Legolas ^(talk2me)

The Cherrytree Sessions as next album

I recently added The Cherrytree Sessions to the next album field in the infobox which was reverted with the reason, "EP is not an album, please check the definition." I believe that as a part of Gaga's non-single discography, it should be included in that field, and I wanted to gain consensus here and see what other editors think. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See this link. The official cut off for EPs to be included as albums are 25minutes of length and 4 featured tracks. Cherrytree fails in both respect in that case. Also, the chronology is for albums and not EPs. The Template:Infobox Album has provision for the chronology of an EP, if the artist choses to release any such thing other than Cherrytree. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I was adding it in the discography because of examples such as Greatest Hits: My Prerogative and Chaotic (Britney Spears EP), but now I get why it's included in the chronology there and not here. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 04:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PEREZ HILTON ANNOUNCES RE-ISSUE OF "THE FAME" ON MUCHONDEMAND

In a recent interview with Much Music, Perez Hilton announced that Lady GaGa will re-release "The Fame" with new material in the near future. Just thought that this should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.193.43 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when has Perez Hilton ever been a reliable source for anything? I think this might be true, that the album is getting a re-release, but it can't be included in the article until we get reliable sources. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PEREZ ANNOUNCED THE RE-ISSUE FOR GAGA

Perez Hilton announced that Lady GaGa will be re-releasing "The Fame" FOR her after he spent a week with her while she toured in Japan. It wasn't just a rumor. Perez and Lady GaGa are very close friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.193.43 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, but he's still not a reliable source. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 04:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That site should be blacklisted for all I care. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. He's good for nothing but gossip. Unless it's an incident such as his altercation with will.i.am, he should never be used as a source for anything here. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 04:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Version + Songs editions

So, I see there's no mention at all of the Japanese version of the album in the article, even though it includes a song not featured anywhere else (Retro, Dance, Freak) and a DVD with all of the music videos, minus BDR, for obvious reasons. And it also has a variation on the cover, it has shiny dots all over it.

And, I'd also like to discuss the editions of the songs; for the record, I've personally checked the audio files from the Original release and the Revised one, in an audio editor program, and compared them by using the inversion method to filter differnces between them, every track was mastered the same way, except the ones described below:

LoveGame: In the Original Album version it lastes 3:33, while in the Revised Album version, and also posterior versions of the album, it lastes 3:38, and it's also reworked, it has more echo effects in the vocals and they added 1 extra chorus at the end, to make it longer, along with extra vocals at the ending. (This longer version is used in the video)

Paparazzi: It's almost the same thing in both Original and Revised versions of the album, except it has been mastered differently, the volume of the songs don't match when they're compared, apart from that, they're identical.

Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say): Same situation as the song above.

Money Honey: The Original version is 3:07 while in the Revised version it's shortened to 2:50, the main edit of this song is the intro, the very first seconds are the same in both songs, but in the longer one it continues to an instrumental extension, while in the shorter one it skips that part and goes to the verse 1 rapidly, and after I compared them by the inversion method, I noticed the very beginning of the verse 1 has been mixed differently, then it just remains untouched, no differences found after the intro.

Boys Boys Boys: Same situation of Paparazzi and Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say).

LoveGame (Space Cowboy Remix) [From UK album version]: I've also noticed that this mix, from the UK version is different to the mix that was released in the LoveGame Remixes single, the album version is shorter by 15-20 seconds, and when you edit the "main mix" to make it match the album version, you can notice that the blending of the cutted parts are way different, in other words, they're different edits, even though they share the same name. jrcaporal (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fame American Release date

The Fame United States Interscope release date states that The Fame was released on October 28, 2008 for the United States not the date presented in this article, please fix!Backtrack132 (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre Change v.2

Like it or not I'm gonna change The Fame's genre according to AllMusic.com. They describe music better than wikipedians. Pop music and electronic dance doesn't suit this album much because The Fame sounds more like an Urbanized Dance-Pop album (Urban/Dance-Pop). JaymanJohn (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of new genre: rock

I figure this would probably be considered a controversial edit, so I'm going to discuss it here first and see what other editors think. There are elements of rock music present on much of the album, and several songs ("Brown Eyes," "Summerboy," "Disco Heaven") are of the rock genre. D.C. Blake (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They are in no way rock. Usaeg of guitar and synth doesnot qualify the whole ambience and feel of a song to be rock IMO. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Brown Eyes" is definitely a rock song and has the feel of one as well. "Disco Heaven" has influences of dance-rock similar to "What You Waiting For?" by Gwen Stefani. "Summerboy" for sure has the feel of a pop rock song. And as I said, there are numerous rock influences throughout much of the album, even if some of the songs are not rock per se. Perhaps the new genre could be added as pop rock instead? D.C. Blake (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

With what source(s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks Fly (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need sources? Pop and electronic dance aren't sourced... D.C. Blake (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. Rock/dance-rock/glam rock/pop rock only make up a small portion of the album, when I think about it. Many genres are explored on the album (pop, electronica, dance, R&B, hip hop, rock, etc.) and it would probably be best to get to the point, with the main genres. D.C. Blake (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga vs. Gaga

The page is referring Lady Gaga as "Gaga" the majority of the time, but she has not dropped the "Lady", her friends and family and fans call her "Gaga" but her stage name IS STILL "Lady Gaga". Referring her to as just "Gaga" can lead to confusion if she dropped the first part of her stage name, which she hasn't. When writing about her use Lady Gaga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehausofgaga (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaga is fine. The second half of her stage name is actually what she actually prefers to be called, I believe. D.C. Blake (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad Romance

It has been confirmed that "Bad Romance" is the first single off the re-release of Lady Gaga's debut album named The Fame: Monster. She will début the song on October 3, 2009 on Saturday Night Live..CalvinNelson4 (talk) 02:35, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what is bad romance? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Legolas. Great job on GaGa's articles. Keep it going! Well, i am an Indian too!*wink*

Coming back to the topic. 'New York' was a rumour long back which has been cleared by GaGa herself. Bad Romance is the official next single which will be performed on SNL. You can even check out the confirmation on her official site. I even downloaded the song. Its hot! Check it out.

Hi Logolas. Sorry. It was just a simple spelling error. I have changed it now. CalvinNelson4 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok got it. I'll listen to it. Thanks. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Only a snippet of the song was performed on SNL. Also, the leaked audio was apparently a demo. Rolling Stone have reported on the song here and MTV here. • вяαdcяochat 09:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-release infobox

Re-releases donot have infoboxes and neither should this one. But one user is hell bent on adding the infobox and hence I believe such continuous additions are making the article lose its credibility. Lets reach a consensus on this asap. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss. Re-releases don't get infoboxes, plain and simple. ---Shadow (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I knnow ShadowRanger that Re-releases don't get infobox but you must be knowing that a certain user is edit warring over this. The article can lose its GA because of this Im afraid. Hence its better to reach a consensus regarding this than turning this more ugly.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic. But i suggest that the CD1 (Monster side) of the re-release should not be hidden. Those are completely new songs and it would be better if they are displayed by default. Just a suggestion.

As already stated, there is no need for an entire infobox dedicated to the re-release of the original album. A large majority of the re-release is the original album anyway. I however would not mind if a simple image displaying the cover of the re-release was appropriately included within the article. • вяαdcяochat 05:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster standard edition IS basically a studio album, because it has NO previous material from The Fame. So I believe there should be AT LEAST an infobox for the standard edition! PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a dual disc, not a separate album. Still is considered a re-release and hence no infobox is needed. And there's no need to write in Caps as that denotes shouting and being uncivil in talk pages.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You say it has no new tracks, that is clearly not the case. If it had no new songs, it would not be a re-release and a source has shown all of the original Fame songs are there. It will not get an infobox. ---Shadow (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Romance Single Cover

http://www.rap-up.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/gaga-romance.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.0.45 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably fan-art untill confirmed by official source. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the article, Rap-Up, it is an American urban music magazine. Whether that is an official source or not, I think it is a bit to early for anything yet. More coverage would be required. • вяαdcяochat 07:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The credibility of Rap-Up is really debatable. You are right Brad, more coverage is required. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaga's website just confirmed that is indeed the single art. ---Shadow (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. thanks shadow. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)