Jump to content

Talk:Lady Gaga discography/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Make Her Say

She was featured on the track and helped out with the video for "Make Her Say" with Kanye West and Kid Cudi.


http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1616551/20090720/kid_cudi.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by CybertonicRockmanSonic (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

She actually isn't credited for the song. A sample from her acoustic version of Poker Face is used. That source also clearly states that she was unable to make an appearence in the music video. • вяαdcяochat 22:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure she would actually have writing credits on the song for the use of the sample. Tikkuy (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

mess

This page is mess thanks to the owner of it!


Euro chart and US Pop Should be added to Singles Discography! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefron12 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no owner of any article, per WP:OWN. Please see above, there has already been extended discussion pertaining to which charts/countries are to be added here per WP:DISCOGS. - eo (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
i was under the impression that the us pop chart has been discontinued? so whats the point having a chart that doesnt exist anymore... Mister sparky (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

HITMIXES

The EP "Hitmixes" should be included in the discography page.

It has a physical release in US and Canada, and it has peaked at #8 in the Canadian Albums Chart: http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=309&cfgn=Albums&cfn=Top+Canadian+Albums&ci=3112305&cdi=10339200&cid=09%2F19%2F2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nympho wiki (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How are you even accessing this link? The old site of billboard expired long back! And also, there isn't any third party notability of the EP that I could find. If you can please provide so. Maybe we can have an article also. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I can view the source, however there is no indication of any peak on the Canadian Albums Chart. Underneath the headings where the chart positions are ment to be, a small strike is all that is visable. Also, nothing titled "Hitmixes" is found on the page. • вяαdcяochat 08:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
yes that link does come up with nothing. but doing a search for "lady gaga hitmixes" does come up with an ep in the canadian albums chart at number 8 http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=309&cfgn=Albums&cfn=Top+Canadian+Albums&ci=3112141&cdi=10334162&cid=09%2F12%2F2009 but doing a search on google for other sources just comes up with an amazon import and torrent sites. Mister sparky (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hence badly fails any notability at all. Thanks for clarigying Brad and Sparky.--Legolas (talk2me) 09:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In some webs it is referred to as "Hit Mixes", written separately. And, Legolas, you still can access the old Billboard site in this link: http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/index.jsp (Nympho wiki (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Every link in this discussion is to billbaord.com. Perhaps this is resulting in some confusion?—Kww(talk) 13:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's right, the old site of Billboard can be accessed through the page NymphoWiki says: BillbAOrd.com And here is the page of amazon Canada where Hitmixes is sold http://www.amazon.ca/Hitmixes-Ep-Lady-Gaga/dp/B002HWON6Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1252696233&sr=8-1 Rub rb (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but first of all, I don't think thats even a legitimate site for Billbaord. The original billboard even transferred the magazine site to the new .# site. SEcondly, anything I see about this hitmixes, it fails notability to me as other than this unconformed billbaord site, I only see online selling retail sites. Hence I'm still not convinced that this should go in. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
But as this is not your personal blog or something, I don't think anyone cares about your doubts regarding this EP. You can check the official Canada charts, and you will see that "Hitmixes" EP by Lady Gaga has charted at #8. Period. You have sources and you can check info about this EP all over the net, so whether you are convinced or not, this EP is part of her discography Nympho wiki (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ya so? It has charted. Big deal. But where is the third party notability regarding this EP? Any source that I find about this EP are online retail stores and Amazon. Again, no reliability. And don't tell me about billbaord.com. That has been deemed unreliable at WP:CHARTS talk. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
http://www.hmv.ca/hmvcaweb/en_CA/displayProductDetails.do?sku=1275682
http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/ALBUMS.html - #17 this week, 9 last week.
The EP is a HMV Canada exclusive. NinjaChucks (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Eurochart should be included!

I propose a new discussion on the charts that are used on the Gaga discography. I think it should show up the European Hot 100 and The European Albums since it shows how it (album or single) has done in Europe, the Eurochart represents many countries from Europe continent and is more important than charts included in the discography, like New Zealand and Norway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefron12 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, there is no concrete summary of Gaga's performance on the Eurocharts. By that I mean a singular reference, pointing to the discography. Hence adding references could be troublesome. Also, since Eurocharts are generally a compilation of the European charts, being a compilation chart and not a singular country, I would disagree its addition. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As for the link, http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/lady-gaga/chart-history/1003999?f=349&g=Singles should do. I'll let you guys argue over the rest.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a singular chart, whatever, it compiles what's popular in Europe, It chart by Billboard shows the performance of a song over 16 countries in the European territory, gives good dimension of how the song has gone in terms of this whole continent. And just as meniored above by KWW there's a way of seeing her Euro Hot 100 history, including ALBUMS. --Zefron12 (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Im still against it. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Anybody else's opinion? It isn't a discussion while it's being done with two people only!! --Zefron12 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful Dirty Rich

How can this be listed merely as a "promo single" if it actually charted in the UK? 89.168.8.179 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Songs can chart as long as teh criteria for that particular chart provider allows it to. But that doesnot mean that a song is an official single. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SALES

US: 1,530,000 WORLDWIDE: 4,176,000 http://gagadaily.com/2009/10/one-year-anniversary-of-the-fame/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.248.252 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fansites cannot be taken as reliable sources, though I believe that they offer generally correct information when it comes to sales, Wiki rules do not let us put fansites as sources. --Zefron12 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a half truth. Wiki has a guideline that says articles should rely primarily on reliable source. The use of fansites is not prohibited for unimportant and none contested information. Indeed many articles have unsourced information. SunCreator (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
sales figures are important and contested information... there are no circumstances when a fansite or a blog can be accepted as a source for sales figures. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing songs

I know of some Gaga songs that aren't included in this article, such as Shake Ur Kitty, Rock Show and Dirty Ice Cream. What is the origin of these songs? --uKER (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

if they're leaked demo's or unreleased non-album tracks then they dont belong here. this is a discography not a songography. Mister sparky (talk) 17:43, 30 November 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
[1] 		AUS
[2] 		CAN
[1] 		FRA
[3] 		GER
[4] 		IRE
[5] 		NL
[6] 		NZ
[7] 		SWE
[8] 		UK
[9]
2008 The Fame 4 4 11 151 21 11 12 21 15 11
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)

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)

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.[16],[17],[18],[19] 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)

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)

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 ξxplicit (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)

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)

ARIA positions

[1] 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)

Updates to Chart Performance Records

According to [2], 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)

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)

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)

Boys Boys Boys

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think Gaga's success on these charts defiantly warrants their appearance on this page, she has released 6 singles and they all have gone to #1 on the pop chart, this is something that deserves to be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackballoon222 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.188.226.93 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Because that is not a real video, that is not Lady Gaga in the video —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackballoon222 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sales

As The Fame has been give 3xPlatinum in the US on the discography should the sales not be changed to 3,000,000 as thats the amount it stands for. Also im not sure if any are valid sources but lots of places are saying The Fame has been Diamond certified of 10 million worldwide including Gaga herself in a interview on Tv a few weeks ago. http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13169 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.16.9 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When a record get's a 3xplatinum certification, it means that it has shipped 3,000,000 copies, not sold. And the diamond certification can't be true because worldwide certifications don't even exist. Kirillgdaily (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

|- |20 |align=left|TBA

  • Released: November 2010
  • Label: Interscope, Streamline, Kon Live, Cherrytree
  • Formats: CD, LP, digital download

| | | | | | | | | | |align=left| |- |}

82.37.19.8 (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:CRYSTAL. Nymf hideliho! 15:33, 26 March 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)
It is of course, most definately NOT a bootleg. It's an officlial release and deserves an individual page. Davidkt 17:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone/The Netherlands

It peaked on number 19 in the Dutch Top 40 this week, not on number 12 (that's the Mega Top 100). It's like the problem with Bad Romance above! See: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga 11:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.107.24 (talk)

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)

Singles "Just Dance" and "Poker Face" have sold over 5 million copies in the United States, but the RIAA states them as only being certified "4x Platinum;" my point being that these two should be kept to their respected certifications. After reviewing the list of Lady Gaga's certifications, both "LoveGame" and "Paparazzi" have not reached "2x Platinum" certifications; thus, they should be restored to their respected RIAA certification of "Platinum" status. Also, "Bad Romance" has only been certified "Platinum," and should be kept as having only that despite the reports of multi-million sales. I reverted "Poker Face," "Just Dance," and "Bad Romance" back to their correct RIAA certification; I felt it necessary to address that incorrect changes were made to these respected singles. Drakehottie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 4 May 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)
I came here to say exactly what you said. Rihanna has released like 20 singles already, but the table looks still clean, while with Gaga's only 8 singles it already looks like a mess and you have to scroll to see the whole table. It's hard to compare chart peaks. Please remove certifications. Kirillgdaily (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No. Certifications stay on in the tables and is fine. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not fine. The table looks like a mess. Kirillgdaily (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Define mess. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the page to the way Rihanna's discography looks. Certifications now have its own section. Legolas, don't change it, you know it looks much better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirillgdaily (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FLC. Both dictate that the previous version is the one used in all Featured lists. I won't revert it since you made such a good faith effort, but achieve consensus for it please. And sign your posts next time. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Kirillgdaily (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to start a separate topic about this. I think it looks unsightly as well, and looks much better the Rihanna/Katy Perry discography pages way. But someone's gone and reverted it again. I think be bold and go ahead and re-do it... if it gets reverted again, I guess I'll come back here and discuss it further. Ss112 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

in flc discussions admins and reviewers insist of certifications staying in the tables. its consistent. the album ones are in the albums table, so the singles ones should be too. katy perry's certs have been back in the singles table for a long time btw. Mister sparky (talk) 21:18, 5 April 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)


- Yes, I feel that's notable. I know other artists discography pages such as Paramore have a column for other Billboard charts that they've made it on and seeing as she has multiple number 1's on that particular chart I think it's noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.144.123 (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Certification

Why were certifications added to the singles table again? It looks like a mess gain. Kirillgdaily (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several featured discographies written with them in the singles table. If you don't have a real rationale for your change, it stays this way. Nymf hideliho! 11:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
in FL review discussions reviewers and admins insist on them being in the singles table. if the album ones are in the albums table, then the singles ones should stay in the singles table. Mister sparky (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like a mess. The album charts are big enough to fit them in, but the singles chart are disproportionate because of the no of certs. Some have 3 while others only have 1. It doesnt make sense to put them in together. --Love.Game (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Remix, Japanese remix album

Gaga has released a remix album in Japan, titled The Remix. HMV, Allmusic. Dt128 let's talk 08:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Disco Heaven" and "Disco Stick"

There is no mention of these two Lady Gaga songs or videos in the article? Why aren't they listed on the discography?

disco heaven is an album track on The Fame, and "disco stick" is lovegame. Mister sparky (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 79.79.146.6, 23 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 

Lady Gaga is number on in austrlia


79.79.146.6 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please state a reliable source for facts that you wish to add, thanks.  Chzz  ►  19:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

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)

Eh, Eh Nothing Else I Can Say chared at #2 in Sweden and #9 in New Zealand, which isnt incuded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.204.109 (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro in Switzerland

In Switzerland, Alejandro is on number 42[20] --84.158.3.190 (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Fame WW sales

Ok this is getting ridiculous - Lady Gaga HERSELF announced on twitter February 26 that the Fame had sold TEN million worldwide. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017944759 And even if you dispute this, how could her sales not move from eight million in the FIVE months since it was updated to 8 million ? Her album has been charting in the Billboard Top 20 for FIVE months since then, yet her sales figures haven't moved from 8 million? How is this possible??? I'm changing it BACK to ten million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.228.10 (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Honestly, there's been an on-going dispute about the actual worldwide figures of "The Fame;" some say that we must be reliant on the previously mentioned eight million sold, while others point out that the figures are more than ten million. Thus far, the only reliable source is the one stating that the album has sold eight million worldwide. I bring this up because, like other major albums, it should be mentioned how well the album has done commercially. So, I think it should be mentioned that "The Fame" has sold at least eight million copies worldwide. Though the source is dated, it's one of the only credible sources providing the evidence of worldwide sales. Drakehottie 12 June 2010, 13:50

Source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1630704/20100128/lady_gaga.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakehottie (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

10.000.000 copies for the fame

Ok this is getting ridiculous - Lady Gaga HERSELF announced on twitter February 26 that the Fame had sold TEN million worldwide. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017944759 And even if you dispute this, how could her sales not move from eight million in the FIVE months since it was updated to eight million ? Her album has been charting in the Billboard Top 20 for FIVE months since then, yet her sales figures haven't moved from eight million? How is this possible??? I'm changing it BACK to ten million. The problem is, LGG announced it was 10 million in February, so it's even more now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.228.10 (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's time to add 10 milion at the previous 8 milion! AriandaGAGA (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

According to Times magazine, BBC.co.uk and many more sources, Gaga has sold 15 million albums to date. As she only has 2 albums (The Fame+The Fame Monster), counted together as one, I think we should use that source for "The Fame" sales. 213.0.38.34 (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No, The Fame and The Fame Monster are sold separately in many nations and it is wrong to club their sales together as one. If a source reports separate sales for them, then it can be added, else not. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitmixes EP and other missing releases!

Why is the Hitmixes EP STILL not listed? Why is The DJ Vice Megamix promotional single not listed? Why do the German 4-track "Poker Face" CD single, BOTH the German Lovegame CD singles and BOTH the German Paparazzi CD singles remain unlisted? This discography is hopelessly out of date and remains far too biased in favour of download 'releases'.

I have tried and tried to get these physical releases up and listed but in vain. Everytime I try 'someone' deletes them. Until they are, the discography remains incomplete. Maybe someone else should have a go? Davidkt 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I´m wondering too why the Remix-Album isn´t in the discography. 82.113.121.248 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The Remix has now been added and has a seperate page (finally). Let's hope it now stays put! Some of the other physical releases are still awol though... Davidkt 12:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The format of the single is irrelevant (CD, digital, etc). What's important is the single itself, as sales figures are compiled across all formats. It would also be useless and terminally impossible to monitor all the different issues of CD singles around the world. Today, there aren't that many around since they're only a stronghold in European markets like the UK and Germany, as you mention, but in the past they were very widespread, and tended to vary heavily from market to market. Imagine trying to track all the various CD single issues in foreign markets for international artists who've been around for decades? - That would be terminally impossible and valueless to Wikipedia. This is why the German CD singles you mention are rightfully omitted. Imperatore (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
they could have a place in the singles main article, but not the discography. Mister sparky (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is it listed as a compilation album? Its and EP. It should be with the Cherrytree Sessions. The Remix is the only album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpenguin23 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Thank you, for posting the Canadian Hitmixes in the discography, but I might add that as far as this release went, it was a Limited Edition release of 25,000 CD copies only, and was not issued as a digital release. Amazon.ca lists it as a limited edition release. thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.30.129 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair comment Mister sparky, and a valid point. I do wonder however, then what is the point of listing all the various country specific variations of the iTunes downloads? Surely physical releases should take priority? There aren't THAT many for Gaga. On a seperate point, 'another' editor (guess who) continues to delete both the Hitmixes EP and The Remix album, seemingly refusing to believe they are official releases, despite all the evidence to the contrary! This is getting tiresome and makes the discography continually inaccurate. Maybe someone can have a word? Davidkt 12:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Remix is certainly not a "bootleg" release as I've previously seen it described. It is for sale in Japanese retailers and on import internationally. It is even listed by Gaga's Japanese record company here at Universal Music Japan. As if that weren't enough, Japanese HMV confirm the release here as well as Allmusic. I actually own the remix album myself, and can comfirm with certainty that all four of Gaga's record labels are listed on the back of the CD, along with the Japanese catalog number UICS-19918. Dt128 let's talk 14:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
the remix is also on uk release schedules for may. definitely not a bootleg. hitmixes charted in canada and japan, bootlegs arent allowed to chart. Mister sparky (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} 

JAP -> JPN

in English, "Jap" is an ethnic slur. --211.16.220.76 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Writing credits

Shouldn't this be removed? This article is about Gaga's official releases, not random non-single songs she wrote for other people. –Chase (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally for it, but shudder at the edit warring that will happen. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I also think it should be removed it just doesn't fit the article, so I strongly suggest deletion no matter how much warring it may cause, it will make the article much better.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Studio albums' peak chart positions in Ireland?

Is there some reason the peak positions in the Republic of Ireland are missing from the studio albums box? Nearly a hundred thousand more people live there than in New Zealand (which I'm not saying should be replaced). Ireland's GDP is also very substantially greater, although I'm too lazy to compare sales. DinDraithou (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason why Ireland's peak was removed is because we should not have more than 10 peaks in the table, see MOS:DISCOG#Per-release. After I inserted Japan's peak into the table-as Japan has the second largest music market in the world after US (platinum-award at 250,000 for singles, albums, videos), and I felt it's important to have their peak-I was immediately notified of the 10 peak policy. Therefore, I suggested to remove either Ireland's peak or New Zealand's peak, since those were the smallest markets in the table, both representing markets of the same exact size, platinum-awards at 15,000 units. --Harout72 (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well in that case Ireland should have remained. New Zealand belongs to the same region of the Anglosphere as Australia, while Ireland a cultural island. I don't know how to make the change myself and would appreciate it if you would. DinDraithou (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all replacing New Zealand's peak with Ireland's as it make no difference to me, but I believe, the same could be said about Ireland since we already have UK's peak in the table.--Harout72 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've had only brief access to the internet for the past two days, I've had more time to think than I've had in months. But being not all that intelligent to begin with, the best argument I've been able to come up with is "Yeah, but she's Catholic, and drinks Jameson too. Which means she's got some Irish in her. Check her twitter. She's a drunk." DinDraithou (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that New Zealand is not part of Australia. And if you think thats the case Ireland is part of the UK to then. Canada is part of the US. And the list goes on. So NO New Zealand is not part of Australia and is happily not (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.26 (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There should be a column added to the right of the "US" column (which would make it the second column) titled "US POP" It is only fair to Lady GaGa that someone viewing the single discography chart will see that she has had 6 #1's on this chart to date.
It must be added to Lady GaGa's page because it is added on Alanis Morissette's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alanis_Morissette_discography). Since it is on Alanis's page, out of fairness it must be put on Lady GaGa's. Lady GaGa deserves the showing of this chart on her page just as much as Alanis does.
Again, no. A longetivity is required for a genre chart to appear alongside the main chart. See Madonna singles discography. She has 40 Dance #1's. Hence the Dance Club chart forms a part of the main discogrpahy. Hardly, anything Gaga did has such achievement (not telling that she can't), but its WP:RECENTISM to suggest anything. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If some some editors feel that US dance chart is important to be included than it should be replaced with currently the smallest market in the table (that is New Zealand). Removing Japan (the second largest market in the world) or Germany (the fourth largest market in the world), immediately make it apparent that those editors are at all familiar with the sizes of music markets. Perhaps it would be best to discuss beforehand which one should go and which one should stay.--Harout72 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for market orders

With this proposal, I feel that this will create consistency throughout the article, while satisfying User:Harout72's concerns that the German and Japanese charts are being neglected and my concern that with Gaga as an American dance-pop artist, the US dance charts should remain.

Year Album details Peak chart positions Sales Certifications
(sales thresholds)
US US Dance AUS CAN FRA GER JPN NZ SWE SWI UK

Order shall remain the same for the singles. This leaves ten slots for individual countries as well as one for the American dance chart, for a total of 11. If there are no issues with this proposal, I would be glad to implement this structure throughout. –Chase (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Or since the New Zealand market is rather small, it could be replaced with Austria. –Chase (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I would personally prefer to have the main charts only, but then as far as the larger markets are included within the table, the smallest market (New Zealand, not Austria) could be replaced with US Dance chart. After all, it's Gaga's home market and at the same time the largest market in the world.--Harout72 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Year Album details Peak chart positions Sales Certifications
(sales thresholds)
US US Dance AUS AUT CAN FRA GER JPN SWE SWI UK
Is this better? –Chase (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That'll do it, thanks for discussing. --Harout72 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: After discussing with User:Harout72, we reached an agreement that the Japanese charts should be replaced with the Italian ones as they are more easily verifiable. –Chase (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Major concern. Gaga's status as a pure dance-pop artist is still not established. She has just released 1.5 albums. Unlike someone like Madonna, who's prowess in teh dance chart area is undeniable, Gaga's is still not established as such. So we cannot use the dance charts for now. May be later, in years when she establishes her ouevre in it. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Gaga has released two albums, both of which have charted on the U.S. dance chart, and she has another album coming out this week that will, as an album consisting of dance and electronica-based remixes, almost surely chart there too. The majority of her singles have also charted on the dance singles chart as well. A look at at some other FL-class discography articles: The M.I.A. discography includes the dance chart even though only three albums have charted there, and the Taylor Swift discography includes the country chart even though only four albums have charted.
Gaga is widely regarded by many music critics and sources as a dance-pop musician. In fact, Lady Gaga: Behind the Fame, page 88, even cites her as a pioneer for females in electropop, one of the dance subsidiaries: "She was seen as the new leader of a group of female singers that was taking over the previously male-dominated field of electropop, a role she was only too happy to assume." I highly doubt she will be deviating from that area anytime soon, as leaked snippets of new songs are showing. But of course, things can change, and, in the future, if she strays away from where she began, and she stops appearing on the dance charts, perhaps then we can revisit this issue. But for right now, I think it's safe to say Gaga is a very prominent figure in the dance music field and for now the chart should stay. –Chase (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL, chase, don't cite Lady Gaga: Behind the Fame. That book has plagiarized so much of my work on the Gaga articles, that I'm indeed Speechless after reading it. For me, the major point of disagreement comes from the fact that Gaga's versatile. She might change up her genre in the coming years, might go and do R&B as well as others. Same for TS, MIA etc. Hence, adding a genre chart at such a young stage of their careers, seem premature to me. Also, FLs always have the total number of charting regions as 10, which I believe again needs to be addressed. And woohoo, leaked snippets? PM me please :) — Legolas (talk2me) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Maybe we can discuss the addition of the dance charts at a later time, perhaps when one or two more albums appear on the chart? –Chase (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
One thing, smalling of certifications results in a big big frowning at FLC. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
See, Japan in the second largest music market in the world. Why does Japan need to be eliminated?--58.89.209.138 (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That's nice, but it doesn't need to be included only because it's the second largest. Single peaks are hard to verify and including it for albums but not singles would be inconsistent. Nothing's wrong with the way it is currently. –Chase (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

9 singles

I know "Chillin'" has to be placed under singles but when it mentions how many singles she has had, it should be 9, not 10, because "Chillin'" is a feautred single, not a single by HER. 74.105.208.27 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to speak technically, none of the singles were released by her. All of them were released by her record label. "Chillin", like Gaga's singles from her albums, is a single release that includes her as one of the credited artists. So the single count should not be changed. –Chase (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to get even more technical. The other nine singles feature Lady Gaga as a LEAD artist while "Chillin'" only includes her as a feautred artist. Oh c'mon, I'm assuming you are in some a way a Lady Gaga fan and you don't REALLY consider Chillin' one of the Lady Gaga single masterpieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.208.27 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether she is the lead or featured artist, it counts as one of her singles. The infobox count will remain such even if her featured credits grow to a length where we have to split the singles table. –Chase (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Per Billboard, featured singles are counted towards an artist's discography, its an equity share between the two or three artist that feature, including the commercial reception. How the hell do you think T-Pain got so many #1's ? — Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
If your using the "Billboard" logic, then Video Phone is a single too.74.105.208.27 (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, "Video Phone" remix was not released as a single officially. "Video Phone" original was released as a single, but Gaga does not feature in it. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-katy-perry-christina-aguilera-1004100889.story?page=2#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-katy-perry-christina-aguilera-1004100889.story?page=2 Not according to Billboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.208.27 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As consensus at Talk:Video Phone (song) has shown, "Video Phone" was not released on a CD single as the A-side nor was it serviced to radio. It will not be added to Gaga's discography. Remixes count towards the original song on the charts, and Gaga was not part of the original song. –Chase (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Red And Blue EP

She released an EP called Red And Blue before she became Lady Gaga, still not sure when it was released. It should be added to the Extended Plays section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.81.4 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source to show that this was officially released? –Chase (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Why should it be included if it was before her becoming Lady Gaga? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, and if I'm correct, that EP was released by her band, Stefani Germanotta Band, which would be a different matter entirely. –Chase (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. So then it's clear, it has nothing to do with her being Lady Gaga. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Countries listed

The 10 countries should be: US / AUS / AUT / CAN / FRA / GER / IRE / SPA / SWE / UK Spain is a much bigger market than Switzerland, if there is no objection Spain should replace SWI. Nympho wiki (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Countries should not be replaced only because they have a larger market. The countries have been changing around enough as it is over the past week. This needs stability or it won't pass as a featured list. –Chase (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Nympho wiki, you have been through this same discussion over and over again. Spain won't be listed as, being a similar market to Swi, Gaga's chart trajectory is poor there compared to Swi. Same reason why Ireland was listed over Italy. So, please in the politest way, knock it off. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Singles

I don't think "Chillin'" should be grouped with Lady Gaga's solo singles. I think it detracts from the fact that she's had SEVEN top 10 songs in a row. I think "Chillin'" should be under its own category such as "Featured singles" or "Collaborations." It appears that most people would agree that "Chillin'" be separated. Who is making the final decision here? The majority should get the say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D bovair1988 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is "Chillin'" listed as one of Lady Gaga's singles? It technically is not HER single, so it should be on a separate section--"Featured Singles" which should also include Beyonce's "Video Phone." —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosKARUROSU (talk • contribs) 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to separate the singles section in my opinion. "Chillin" was an officially-promoted single by Wale that featured Gaga so I think it should be listed with the rest (much like Britney's "Me Against the Music" is included in the main table at Madonna singles discography). Also, "Video Phone" is a solo Beyoncé song. Gaga was only featured on the remix, which was not issued to radio or included on any of the official singles (except the remix single, which featured several other remixes). –Chase (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph about TFM music videos gives a negative impression. "Telephone"'s reviews were mostly positive and "Alejandro"'s mixed, however only the negative ones are stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.152.70.12 (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that the single 'Chillin" should not be placed under her singles. Video Phone and Chillin should be put in a seperate section. Other than that everything looks pretty good except the main paragraphs where the singles should have had more focus on rather than the music videos.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Chillin' should not be listed under her singles, mainly because it ISN'T one of her singles and every other artist on wikipedia has a seperate section for featured singles. This single was also not very successful and only gives a bad outlook on Gaga. GOPTeen1995 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree too. Put Chillin' and Video Phone in another area. Also, Video Phone (Remix feat. Lady GaGa) was a single because it reached 65 on the Billboard Top 100 and 1 on Top Dance Club Charts. I heard it on the radio too. Zpenguin23 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Zpenguin23

(←) "Video Phone" was a remix and counted towards the original, solo version on the charts, therefore it will not be added. "Chillin" shall remain with everything else regardless of how unsuccessful it was; there is only one single Gaga has featured on and that's unnecessary to split it up. In a few years, if she's featured on more than several singles, I'll be willing to revisit this discussion. But right now? Absolutely not. –Chase (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now...like Christina Aguilera Discography or other discography. 1 or 10 featured singles, it's such. Chillin is a featured single and not a single...And for Video Phone, i'm not agree with the consensus, the remix and the originaly are both singles, so "Video Phone (extented remix) feat. Lady Gaga" is a single...--Raphael99 (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree: one or ten featured singles, it doesn't matter. The article on the discography of the Black Eyed Peas is a featured article and it has only one featured single, in a separate section. "Chillin" should be put in its own section, just like it is in the navbox, along with "Video Phone". Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There is WP:CONSENSUS that "Video Phone" was not a single for Gaga, so no. And Madonna singles discography is also a featured list, which has Madonna's one featured single with the rest. It's unnecessary to split the singles table up. –Chase (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
But i mean... come on, Chillin' is such a terrible flop and it looks terrible on Gaga's singles discography when it's not even one of HER singles. i mean, when i use to look at this page the chart looked brimming with success, now it looks terrible. All thanks to Chillin (And Italy for adding a "-" to just dance and a "2" to poker face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.208.27 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Chase regarding the stance for "Chillin" and "Video Phone". Chase, forget the rest, I think there are two points that we need to address. First, is the "Telephone" review line in the WP:LEAD, next is the inclusion of Italy over Ireland (Italy is minor to Ireland). — Legolas (talk2me) 04:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with having the "Telephone" review? The lead is a summary of all of Gaga's releases thus far, which includes her albums, singles, and videos. It's not like any of the videos are discussed at great lengths. And I'm all for having Ireland over Italy, but you'll just have to convince User:Harout72, otherwise s/he will edit war and declare everyone of bias towards English-speaking countries. –Chase (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with having the Telephone video review line, just that the line is actually giving the minor negative interpretation of the video, which received positive feedback majorly. It was actually the "Alejandro" video which received the flack. Even I am also for having Ireland, and if User:Harout72 uses "biasness" and such trivial things as his/her point, then I can't consider it. There are four non-English speaking countries (AUT, FRA, GER and SWE), what else does he/she want? I'm sorry, but we are reaching a consensus here amongst editors who feel that Ireland is better suited than an almost negligible market like Italy. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the main points are that "Bad Romance" was highly acclaimed and "Telephone" and "Alejandro" were mostly controversial. I think the articles explain everything else nicely; we can't list everything about the critical reception here. And per consensus, I shall replace the Italian charts with the Irish ones. –Chase (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) There's the glitch that the IP points out that, saying they were controversial is not bad, but you need to point out the general review whether it was controversially accepted in god faith like "Telephone", or was rejected like "Alejandro". — Legolas (talk2me) 03:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Legolas, please do explain what you mean by this statement of yours above next is the inclusion of Italy over Ireland (Italy is minor to Ireland), why you think Ireland is a more important market and why Italy is a neglected market, are you even familiar with which market generates what portion of the sales. You need to familiarize yourself with the certification-award-levels of each market at least, if you are going to pick and choose which market goes first. Italy's certification-award-level is: Platinum=70,000 and Gold=35,000, as for Ireland, the Platinum=15,000, Gold=7,500. --Harout72 (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL, certifications don't determine which one is an important market and which is not, rather their market share. Italy's certification level might be high, but on market level, its below Ireland since Italy only incorporates digital download as official sales source per FIMI. IRMA, whose inclusion factor incorporates digital as well as physical, reports a considerable decrease in their sales level while keeping their market value, hence I am not surprised that their certification levels are actually pretty less, which SNEP and FIMI should actually follow tbh. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not to be rude, Harout, but is it really a big deal which countries get included? The countries in a discography are going to vary by artist, and more often than not they will vary based on an artist's success in certain regions. Gaga has achieved more success in Ireland than in Italy, so it seems that the latter should be the chart used. –Chase (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Legolas2186, I think you are innocently misinformed about the market share. Yes, certification-award-levels do not determine who goes first on the list, but what each market generates determines their certification-level. And no, Italy's not below Ireland when viewed from a market level. Yes, Italy as many other markets largely depend on digital downloads, but that doesn't mean physical sales doesn't play an important role in their market. Chase, that's ok, I understand that you guys are used to seeing Ireland in every discography page, my main focus is to cover the larger markets first then the medium size ones. And with limited 10 slots, smallest markets should be left out. Let's leave Ireland in if that's what most editors want to see.--Harout72 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is not being left in because of other crap. You can stick with your arguments on which markets are bigger and which ones are smaller, but that's frankly irrelevant. We are listing Gaga's best-performing markets, and Italy is not one of them compared to Ireland. United States might be the biggest market in the world but if an artist hasn't charted there or hardly performed there while performing well in almost every other country, then it should not be listed in a discography. –Chase (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, if an artist doesn't chart in a market, then inclusion of it wouldn't make sense. But such is not the case as Gaga has charted in Italy with almost all of her materials. We are covering information about sales and chart performance, how is the sizes can be irrelevant? Anyways, you and I chose Italy only because Japan's peaks are difficult to locate. Let's just hope the certifications of Japan and Germany do not mysteriously disappear with Legolas2186 claiming now that they are below Ireland on a market level.--Harout72 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You could have commented without throwing that shade at me Harout, to be frank I DGAF though. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What's all this talk of "Speechless" being a single? Unsourced, so i took it down. GOPTeen1995 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that her features should be separate from solo singles. Although the Madonna singles discog uses this format, it is basically the only one that does as other FL discogs do not. Also the Madonna format is most likely like that because of her rare features and comprehensive discography it wouldn't be necessary to, but with Gaga that is different. Candyo32 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Not all discographies will be the same. Gaga only has one featured single so splitting it is way unnecessary. If we were talking about someone like Kanye West or Lil Wayne, who have many featured credits to their name, that would be a different story. But making a new table just for one song? I don't think so. –Chase (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, for a single featured release, creating a separate table would be pure WP:RECENTISM. Let Gaga feature in atleast 3/4 singles, then we can split it up. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I was unaware Video Phone remix isn't a single anymore (I didn't understand why it was considered one to begin with), and I retract my previous comments and it needs to be included with regular singles until is on 4+ or so. Candyo32 03:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
to pick up on an earlier point regarding certification levels, they are based on % of population. nothing to do with market share. so of course italy's thresholds will be alot higher than ireland's, bigger population. Mister sparky (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"Monster" debuted on the New Zealand Singles Chart at #30. Can it please be added? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.150.238 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It hasn't been released. Songs can chart off of high downloads or airplay without being released. –Chase (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence or reliable source that Dance in the Dark is a single. And it's ridiculous to leave it there. And Chillin really looks silly where it's at because it's not a single off of either one of Lady Gaga's albums. It just looks stupid there.: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.5.193 (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a reliable source. "Chillin" wasn't a single from either of Gaga's albums but it was a single that she featured on. And that is currently the only featured single in her discography. When she gets a large amount of features (say, maybe 5 or 6), splitting the table can be considered. Not now. –Chase (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Chase, next time don't even bother to reply to these pesky messages. These uber fans repeat the same things over and over again. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b "allmusic ((( Lady GaGa > Charts & Awards > Billboard Albums )))". Allmusic. Rovi Corporation. Retrieved 2009-03-16. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help); Unknown parameter |GAGA&sql= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference aus was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference fra was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference ger was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference ire was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ [3]
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference nz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference swe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference chartstats was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference ww was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Trust, Gary (2009-11-03). "Lady Gaga Sets Latest Billboard Chart Record". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved 2009-11-03.
  12. ^ "Lady Gaga - The Fame RIAA certification". Recording Industry Association of America. May 7, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-11. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  13. ^ "Platinum Europe Awards 2009". International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2009-08-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  14. ^ "2009 Album Accreditations". Australian Recording Industry Association. Retrieved 2009-03-04. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference criasales was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/Lady_Gaga
  17. ^ http://www.ladygaga.com/forum/default.aspx?tid=322679&cid=594
  18. ^ http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/Red_and_Blue_(EP)
  19. ^ http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/Lady_Gaga
  20. ^ http://hitparade.ch/showitem.asp?interpret=Lady+GaGa&titel=Alejandro+%28Don%27t+Call+My+Name%29&cat=s
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga_discography/Archive_2&oldid=1136263644"