Talk:Lady Gaga discography

Boys Boys Boys

following that she dosnt have a dick

I provided references, that state that she in fact, did release 'Boys Boys Boys', she released a remix as well, this still counts as a single from the album, therefore should not have been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChazCharlieChaz (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been released as a single in Spanish iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/es/album/boys-boys-boys-manhattan-clique/id345078899) (Nympho wiki (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes i agree, it was released as single to either promote the Fame Monster, or was a bonus track from the fame monster released seperately. This should at least have some sort of mention on either her discography, or The Fame Monster Page. (or maybe they just used the fame monster artwork), but yeah, it should be mentioned. (apeaboutsims) (cant login)--110.175.56.28 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Updates to Chart Performance Records

According to [1], Poker Face, LoveGame, Just Dance, and Paparazzi ALL reach NUMBER ONE on the charts. Paparazzi, for example, has a PREVIOUS peak of #3, but the page I don't believe has been updated since these songs have all reached the top. Thanks! :) Musykboy (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

that article refers to the Billboard Pop Songs Chart, not the Billboard Hot 100. Mister sparky (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Hot 100 Dec 12/09 issue of Billboard. Starstruck debuted at #74 and Speechless debuted at #67. http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=Canadian+Hot+100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.26.57 (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for that! :) updated. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster will be on 3 in Germany. --89.27.204.148 (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Paparazzi is 24 on swedish charts and the fame mosnter # 7 the fame #2 on france —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.158.121.83 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Other appearance

Someone recently decided not to simply move or change the 'Other appearances' section, but completely delete it. This is a section that many people have worked hard on to get reliable info and it deserves to be on the page as there is nowhere else on Wikipedia where this information would go. For example, the songs Don't Give Up and Future Love are now not referenced anywhere in the page, and Big Girl Now and Christmas Tree are only mentioned in the charts area. Please look at the page Sean Garrett discography and other discography pages to see that these kind of pages are not only for songs that the artist has sung. They also include songs that they have written and produced. Discuss? Tikkuy (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the whole section doesnot need to go, but many of them are not botable enough to be listed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided valid reason for my removal of that section, and if you would care for further detail:

• "Big Girl Now" is covered in Other charted songs.
• "Christmas Tree" is covered in Promotional singles.
• "Quicksand" is written by Gaga but not her song.
• "Future Love" has only been performed on her tour.
• "Fashion" was never released as a single by Gaga.
• "Chillin" is covered in Guest singles.
• "Hypnotico (Silly Heartbreakers)" is written by Gaga but not her song.
• "Killa Love Song" - same as above.
• "Eyes On Me" - same as above.
• "Don't Give Up" is a leaked song and was never officially released.

As I said, this is a discography, not a songography. This isn't a list of every song that Gaga has ever written. This is a list of her major recordings. Most of those are not major. Also, Sean Garrett discography should not be used as an example for any discography page in its current state; it fails to adhere to hardly any of the style guidelines at MOS:DISCOG. Perhaps a separate page can be created: "List of songs written by Lady Gaga" where her writing credits can be listed, but it doesn't need to be in a page that discusses only her major recordings. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed most of that section, but it's still there. Is everybody satisfied now? POKERdance ^talk/contribs 18:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to create another page for songs written by her, but I'm pretty sure it would be deleted almost instantly. It seems a bit silly to create a whole page for just a couple of songs. That's why I suggest we put them in this article. Perhaps they should go under a new section, entitled 'Songs written by Lady Gaga' or something. As for Big Girl Now, Christmas Tree and Chillin, I'm quite happy with that, but I wonder if we should have a bit more information on Christmas Tree? It was a promotional single, after all. Tikkuy (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think ALL the songs she's done should be included in another section or something or in the same one. I think she deserves the credit for writing those songs and it is kind of important to the discography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CybertonicRockmanSonic (talk • contribs) 01:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I added another section which labels all of the songs she's written for other artists. Hope that's okay with everyone. Tikkuy (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Not a part of her discography. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMPOSER. Per this article, all composers may have their own article and/or discography article which lists their work. Lady Gaga is a writer and hence her written songs should also appear on her discography page. Unless you would care to make another page for these songs, they stay. 'Don't Give Up' and 'Future Love' will also remain as MOS:DISCOG states that an unreleased song may remain if it is notable. Both of these songs have been sung by major recording artists which already makes them notable - one was officially confirmed to be her on her tour, and one had a music video shot for it and was also confirmed. Also, 'Big Girl Now' must remain as the 'Other appearances' section is meant to be an overviewlook of every song the artist has collaborated on. It's basically a list where people could go to see other songs she's sung on. Do you really expect people to read every section of the article just to find one more song that she's sung on? Tikkuy (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tikkuy, just because things exist does not mean that they should be included. Most of the things you added are not notable, and a discography is not the equivalent to a list of everything one has composed or performed. I really advise that you stop reverting back immediately. No one here agrees with your additions, and until other people can provide valid arguments that your edits should stay, the consensus is to stop adding "Don't Give Up" and Gaga's writing credits here. If you continue to go against consensus, you may end up being blocked for edit warring. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, this is a discography, not a songography published by a fansite that it should list every damn thing she does. You are continuously going against consensus to do things. Next we know, you will be adding "Ba Ba Black Sheep" she sang in her childhood. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not going against consensus at all. CybertonicRockmanSonic clearly agrees with me. Also, I would remind you that it is Wikipedia policy to remain civil. Tikkuy (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:COMPOSER, composers should have their work listed in a separate discography article. Before Lady GaGa broke out as a performer, she had a considerable career as a writer. Nearly all of the articles referenced in the main Lady GaGa article not only find her earlier work as a writer notable, but devote most of their articles to it. Songs which Lady GaGa has written for other artists are obviously notable. I would point out that Legolas, besides violating WP:CIVILITY, is mistaken about his being in consensus. Myself being no particular fan or detractor of Lady GaGa, it is clear from reading anything about Lady GaGa in unbiased news sources that her work as a writer is not only notable but necessary for a balanced and nonbiased portrayal of her work. The section covering her work as a writer for other artists should be restored MarcelB612 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am restoring the following credits from this version of the page, from August 17th:

• Quicksand
• Fashion
• Hypnotico
• Killa Love Song
• Eyes on Me

I consider MarcelB612's rationale regarding WP:COMPOSER highly credible. Regardless of the notability of each individual song, the well-established notability of the composer is sufficient justification for their inclusion. Furthermore, Gaga's career as a composer is clearly notable, and is mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article Lady Gaga. POKERdance's argument is petty deletionism: the presence of Gaga's early credits is of natural interest to anyone who reads said lead paragraph, and the presence of these songs does not harm this article in any way. Regarding Legolas's point, there is, in fact, no set policy governing the content of "discography" articles - if this article would better serve the readership of Wikipedia as a "songography", then there is no reason not to adjust its content accordingly. The guidelines at WikiProject Discographies/style have not been finalized, and the production and refinement of articles like this is an important step in determining best practices going forward.

More of Gaga's early songwriting credits are available at the Gagapedia. With the exception of leaked and unreleased songs (for which I accept POKERdance's arguments against inclusion), the contents of this article should be added here over time.

n.b. I have invited ξ^xplicit (née DiverseMentality), Andrewlp1991, IllaZilla, Contains Mild Peril, and John Cardinal to participate in this discussion on the basis of their contributions to the "discography" vs. "songography" controversy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style. I have tried to include everyone who seemed interested in the question. If opposed parties have other contributors they wish to notify, I encourage them to do so, in order to better form a consensus on this topic. Thank you all. --Peter Farago (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of the details of Lady Gaga's career and I have not reviewed the sources so I have no opinion about the notability of specific songs. I am interested in the question of what to do with details that seem appropriate for discography pages but are opposed by editors citing MOS:DISCOG. This is not the proper place for the general discussion, it's just another unfortunate example of churn caused by a gap in the guidelines. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DISCOG doesn't quite clearly address this issue. Other featured discographies I've seen for solo artists (such as for Eminem, Lily Allen, and Natasha Bedingfield) omit such lists; in fact, because Eminem is a producer in addition to a rapper there's a separate production discography page for him. And then I've seen Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers. Based on other discographies as precedent I'd say exclude songs that she's merely written, but if she produced tracks for others, include those. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense for Eminem, since he is independently notable as a producer. Since Gaga is notable as a songwriter, shouldn't the same rationale apply to tracks she has "merely written"? Or is songwriting an inherently less notable endeavor than singing or production? I am not asking this rhetorically. In film, for instance, screenwriters are by and large less notable than directors, but there are still examples of screenwriters like Charlie Kaufman who have achieved considerable notability despite the prevailing trend. Does a screenwriter or songwriter have to be considerably more prolific or commented upon than a director in order to achieve notability? What is an appropriate threshold to set? My own bias is obviously to err on the side of inclusionism, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts. --Peter Farago (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

John Cardinal, surely the general policy should be informed by specific use cases, yes? I think that makes this a conversation worth having. --Peter Farago (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment about this not being the place for a general discussion was not intended to stifle conversation about this article, and yes, the difficulties with this article can be used as an example for the larger discussion. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late in on this discussion, but I'd just like to agree that keeping the songwriting credits mantains as the most logical and informative way to give people such information. Most respected songwriters/singers have the same thing on their discography pages, such as Alicia Keys and others. Tikkuy (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Red And Blue

Red and Blue is now being sold on Amazon here. Only problem is, I'm pretty sure it's unofficial, as it includes Second Time Around on it which is a relatively new song. Regardless, it's been past Amazon's filters, so can we add it? Tikkuy (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Amazon will grossly fail in regards to third party notability. Also I believe this EP, as you say is unofficial, hence adding it will lead to WP:FANCRUFT. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure of whether or not this makes a difference to your discussion, but Red and Blue was actually legitimately sold as an EP in The Bitter End, which considering its reputability and notoriety, not to mention legitimate distribution, may warrant inclusion of Red and Blue in the discography, although it was not chart-able. (And she did get paid royalties for the purchases.) I don't know for sure, but I'm just trying to help.,,, Musykboy (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

the fact that it includes "Second Time Around" alone proves its an unofficial mix of demo's and definitely doesn't belong here. Mister sparky (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Time Around was orignally on the album, it's not a new song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChazCharlieChaz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster peak positions

We can't use "Notes: 1 In certain territories, The Fame Monster charted in conjunction with The Fame under the same title.". A example: we cannot say "The Fame Monster" debuted at number seven in the UK, because the chart attached Monster sales to the first "The Fame" album. I mean, the seventh position does not include only Monster sales but Fame sales too, so we can't add those positions to Monster table - they are Fame positions, not Monster. The charted version is also the Deluxe Version - which is labelled as a re-release of The Fame -, not the solo Fame Monster. Sorry if I couldn't explain what I think very weel, I tried my best. If you have any questions about my what I've said, feel free to ask them. Decodet (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

what you've said makes perfect sense. its a really annoying situation because some countries are charting it as The Fame and some as Monster. they should all do the same thing, would make our job alot easier! :) Mister sparky (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that The Fame Monster is being released in the majority of the contries as a Deluxe Version of The Fame, so it's obvious that it would chart as The Fame. I'm not sure but I think it was released as a solo disc only in the USA, Canada and Japan, so Monster will chart only in these select number of countries. Is that edition really being considered as GaGa's sophomore album? It was labelled as an EP by Billboard, Rolling Stone and MTV. Apparently only GaGa's label and herself consider it as her second album. Decodet (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not just write it as The Fame (and The Fame Monster) or something and then list the highest peaks that either of them obtained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilforce (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeh i agree. Because it will look like the Monster didnt chart very well because most people will buy the deluxe fame version. We could also show the monster as an ep 4 some countries like the U.S. Either way something has to change because the album peaks and certifications will not be accurate. --Love.Game (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please change The Fame Monster's peak in Ireland to 3! Link - http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.186.108 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, merge them and use the highest peakes and call it The Fame and The Fame Monster in brackets. Lady Gaga and her label can consider it a new album but it's released as a re-issue to retailers and music sites so that's what it should be on here. Jayy008 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Since "The Fame" and "The Fame Monster" charted together in some countries, shouldn't we consider the highest peak position for both? Example: Fame charted #22 in France and Fame Monster charted #15. So, shouldn't we use #15 for both? I think we should do something like that:

Year	Album details	Peak chart positions										Sales	Certifications (sales thresholds)
		US	AUS	CAN	FRA	GER	IRE	NL	NZ	SWE	UK
2008	The Fame Released: August 19, 2008 Label: Interscope Formats: CD, 2LP, digital download	4	4	11	151	21	11	12	21	15	11	WW: 4,000,000 US: 1,560,000	US: Platinum EU: Platinum AUS: 3× Platinum CAN: 3× Platinum
2009	The Fame Monster Released: November 23, 2009 Label: Interscope Records Formats: CD, LP, digital download	5	6					12		14

Notes: ¹ In certain territories, The Fame Monster charted in conjunction with The Fame under the same title.

Decodet (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely support this format. It completely represents the format in which the album is charting in some territories. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

4 Number ones.

I think you should add the chart data where she has all her previous 5 singles reach #1 because its seemingly one of her historic moments.--96.228.139.26 (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

and where was this? Mister sparky (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

actually it was 4 songs on both American Top 40 and on Billboard Pop Songs. I think there should be a column for this achievement.--124.181.105.109 (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No. A column for Billboard Pop Songs is not going to be added, since it can't be added on other singers, and here people will not agree to. --Zefron12 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fame Monster Peak France

I apologise if I'm going the wrong way about this, but I'm new to this and cannot edit the page. The Fame/Fame Monster actually peaked at 14 in France, not 15 as it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanm11 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Certs

I think that the certifications for the singles and albums should be made small to clean the page up; because at the moment it looks rather messy. What does everyone think?--Love.Game (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the certifications for the albums and/or singles should have their own section, honestly. ---74.232.63.242 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are featured discographies with certifications displayed small, so I think it can be in any way, since both ways show exactly the same information. Decodet (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check recent FLC promotions, where adding the small tag is strictly discouraged by the reviewers. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fame Monster position in the UK

The Fame Monster charts with the Fame in the UK, so at the moment the table shows a Number 1 position for both albums.

But the problem is The Fame on its own has peaked at no 1, but it hasn't done since the release of The Fame Monster. Since November, The Fame + The Fame Monster combined has only peaked at no 2. Humdrum101 (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

in the OCC rules they are now classed as one album. the single disc edition of monster hasn't been released in the uk yet, so having a separate 2 implies that it has and charted separately, which it hasn't. it is complicated and annoying, all countries should have it classed the same way, not differently! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeh that is annoying. How are we going to put certs for the Monster?--Love.Game (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe a combined album will have a single certification for it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But looking at the format people might not understand; maybe a note should be mentioned below the charts.--Love.Game (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fame Monster position in Germany

1. 1 --Fisch2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisch2010 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Romance position in Germany

It's "only" number 3. --Fisch2010 21:57, 9 January 2010

It reached number 1 today! http://www.media-control.de/lady-gaga-auf-platz-eins-der-single-und-album-charts.html yay --It's Flo (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ARIA positions

[2] This official ARIA site stated that the Fame peaked at no. 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love.Game (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Pop Songs or Dance?

I think Lady Gaga should have a collum for Pop songs(mainstream top 40) or Dance songs because that is her specific genre and it would only be fair to see how she does under that catagory as well. Taylor Swift had a second catagory for US country, Beyonce has US R&B, Lil Wayne has US rap AND R&B, and the list goes on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.202.93 (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Gaga's genre is still not established and is still too early to add such charts. If only she has unprecedented success on such charts, like Madonna has on the dance chart, then it can be considered. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

tbh i don't get the americans fascination for adding tons of billboard charts to tables. almost every country has different genre charts and they don't get added. i don't understand why the billboard ones should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.25.116 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Biggest market? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the United States has the biggest music market in the world. Also, this particular artist is American, therefore it would be more acceptable for a greater amount of Billboard charts. • вяαdcяochat 08:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Chart is a component chart, so it can't be added. Also, per WP:CHARTS, we can only add a total of 10 charts in the table. Decodet (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Songs is not a component chart. Also I really don't care about the 10-chart limit; it is nonsense. I think adding Pop Songs chart is a good idea. Also, only US and Canada have official genre airplay charts. Langdon (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Songs is indeed a component chart. What the hell are you talking about? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pop Songs is an airplay chat therefore it's component. Decodet (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speechless and dance in the dark are the singles after telephone. ALEJANDRO IS NOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverL906 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WorldWide Album sales

Article gives this source. Problem is the source says 8 million records not 8 million albums. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, this says albums. Sparks Fly 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammy Single

I think we should add this http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/poker-face-speechless-your/id353672026 in the discography. Maybe under Promotional singles, the only problem is that it hasn't charted in any chart yet. --♫Smanu! 08:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

according to acharts.us it has charted in canada at #94--SveroH (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Single Sales

LoveGame Has sold 2.5 million worldwide (meditraffic.de/year-end-tracks) Paparzzi 5 million Bad romance 5,7 million Telephone 1 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.43.139.176 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, mediatraffic is an unreliable source. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Remix

Recently, there has been news of a new Lady GaGa CD called "The Remix". Its a Remix album being released in Japan only. However, for some reason, this has been put under EP's. This Should be put under Album's (or complication Album), becuase it has 16 tracks. (thats more tracks than The Fame orginally had). So i dont think its a EP. But becuase it's not a studio album, its been placed in EP. We should make a new Catagory on the template for Complication album's or something. And why was the article deleted? It had many references for it. (apaboutsims) (cant login)--110.175.56.28 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an album yes. The is a category Category:Remix albums but that is not suitable for the discography article. SunCreator (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

THanks i didnt know hwere to put seeing as the page has been deleted.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The article called The Remix has been redirected being purely a bootleg and nothing else. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We have no proof that it is a bottleg. Its also on amazon http://www.amazon.com/Gaga-Remixes-Mlps-Lady/dp/B00338T6IS/ref=pd_sim_m_3--61.68.180.221 (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide sales, again

The sources people keep adding are all based on what Lady Gaga wrote on Twitter. See WP:SPS and WP:RS. Can we wait until it is confirmed in a similar manner as to when she reached 8 million albums sold? Nymf _hideliho! 17:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use that source. It says records sold, not albums sold. use this. SunCreator (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A record is the same thing as an album. Either way, my point is that we cannot use sources (such as this) based on Lady Gaga's own words. Nymf _hideliho! 17:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Records sales" can include singles sales. Album sales not. Decodet (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I already said before, this one says "more than 8 million copies," case closed. Sparks Fly 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sparks Fly you did, but seems the source gets edited out somehow. I've added it many times now to different Gaga related articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If I had my way, I would keep the album and discography article semi-prot for a long time. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What about LPs/EPs before "Lady Gaga" as "Stefani Germanotta"?

Should we add? Why not? - easy for me, please! (sms) 08:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The answers are:

To do so would require reliable sources to verify. See a discussion here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fame WW sales

Sorry, it is obviously IMPOSSIBLE that The Fame has sold 10 million copies worldwide. Would you please be serious and act as a wikipedian? THIS IS NOT A FAN CLUB! why it is always necessary to distort informations just to pretend that one's sold a lot? You're mistaken to yourself! is it really so important the amount of copies? BE SERIOUS!! --93.146.217.154 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not impossible, but such a claim does require a source. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

International Charts

I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed, but why not add in other international charts into the discography table to give a more comprehensive look at how her singles have fared in more countries besides the ones already stated. Of course, there is no point suggesting charts where only one or two of her singles have been released (ie Japan, Bulgaria, Romania, Norway, Spain, Russia, Italy & Slovakia), but how about Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland & Switzerland? They have 5/6 of her singles released there (if not counting Eh, Eh, then Austria, Finland & Switzerland would have 5/5 singles charted), not to mention 5 number "1"s between the 3 countries and 9 "1"s amongst the 5 countries.

Any comments? ZephyrWind (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed previously that only the 10 major markets where the singles are released, are to be listed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok then may I ask what constitutes "major". Madonna's has Austrian, Italian & Swiss; Mariah has Switzerland too; even the Beatles had Denmark, Norway & Spain. So who decides what is "major"? ZephyrWind (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, market share. US leads it, followed by UK, Australia, Canada, Japan etc. Its impossible to source Japan positions hence its not added. For the rest of it, if there are two similar markets, then it is taken into account where the artist performed better and that county is taken. You can search in the archives for a detailed discussion on this. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for explaining. Just thought that Switzerland was a considerable market as well. ZephyrWind (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Singles certifications

Right now, we don't have any problem with the certifications being displayed in the singles table, since she has released only six singles so far. But imagine if she release ten more singles and all of them get at least two certifications... we won't have sufficient space and it will be hard to display. Shouldn't we do something similar to Rihanna discography (a featured discography) and Katy Perry discography here and list all certifications in a separate table and sub-section? Decodet (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO single certifications should stay in the singles table. in almost every FLC discussion i've participated in reviewers and admins have insisted on it anyways. as long as it doesn't get ridiculous and people don't start adding certifications for every country under the sun it'll be fine. seems to work fine for artists like madonna, mariah carey, janet jackson etc. but thats just my opinion... Mister sparky (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It should stay in the table. Only the major markets like US, UK, Can, ARIA and EU is added. Five certiications can have enough space in a table. If the table gets long due to her releasing more singles, then its time to split the article, not the table.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Singles Chart

Shouldn't we put a note in stating that Eh, Eh charted at 68 in Canada due to digital sales and that it wasnt officially released as a single there. Otherwise people will assume that single received radio airplay and promotion which it did not. It also highlights the fact that she had 6 consecutive top5 singles in Canada. --121.214.117.73 (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That can definitely be done. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Her 6 #1's

She holds the record for the whole "6 #1's" thing and I know that you guys can't add a column for it but can it at least be mentioned? That and the fact that she hold the record with Britney Spears for most number ones in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.144.123 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

She has fifteen weeks at #1 on Hot Dance Airplay, that's also a record. Do you want me to add that too? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Teeth

Should we add "Teeth" to the music videos, 'cause you can see this on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWbbR1TMusA&NR=1&feature=fvwp