Jump to content

Talk:Lady Gaga discography/Archive 1

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

The Fame Re-Release(The Fame Monster)

The Fame lady gaga's debut album apparently is being set for re-release with the new title The Fame-Monster[1][2][3] Nbeau1989 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh Eh Nothnig ELse I Can Say

it has been officially released, with track listings and cover art, so don't delete it


Eh eh no.32 at Aus, not Canada!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.119.87 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. The charts for Eh Eh are shifted 1 space to the left. 65.94.113.22 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Aria charts

Could someone change the aria charts it now number 4 not 5. source http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_album.asp?chart=1G50 Dance-pop (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Music Videos

I have found a realable source for the directors of Eh Eh and LoveGame and have changed it.Do not change discuss it on this section if you want to change it. Dance-pop (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

New Album (EP)

Source-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/ I think she has a new album. It is cherrytree album with shortend, remixed songs. Should it go on the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 01:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Trre

I think it should go on the singles table. Bot be noted as a digital downlaod only. Her site says it has been released. Source-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/ Dance-pop (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone put a photo on the page. Dance-pop (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That photo is ugly and digusting take it off and put the old one. Dance-pop (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EP section

Someone put a EP section description. Dance-pop (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The EP is still not verified by third party. Don't, I repeat, don't put it up. "Legolas" (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
YES. here is a third party source

source-http://www.apple.com/itunes/affiliates/download/?artistName=Lady+GaGa&thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fa1.phobos.apple.com%2Fus%2Fr1000%2F056%2FMusic%2Ffa%2Fe0%2F95%2Fmzi.nakbcfdv.100x100-75.jpg&itmsUrl=itms%3A%2F%2Fax.itunes.apple.com%2FWebObjects%2FMZStore.woa%2Fwa%2FviewAlbum%3Fid%3D303282095%26s%3D143441%26ign-mscache%3D1&albumName=The+Cherrytree+Sessions+-+EP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.151.56 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


why no comment on the EP released in Canada on August 25, 2009 called Hitmixes? It charted on September 3, 2009 at #9 on the Canadian Album Chart. Limited Edition 20,000 copies only, pressed on CD.

Tracklist: cat# 6-0252715356-8 Interscope Records 2009

1. Love Game | Chew Fu Ghettohouse Fix | Ft. Marilyn Manson (5:20) 2. Poker Face | Space Cowboy Remix | (4:53) 3. Just Dance | Red One Remix | Ft. Kardinal Offishall (4:18) 4. Paparazzi | Motoblanco Remix | Radio Version (4:06) 5. The Fame | Glam As You Remix | Radio Edit Version (3:57) 6. Just Dance | Robots To Mars Remix | (4:37) 7. Love Game | Robots To Mars Remix | (3:12) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.30.251 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Album Chart Positions

Ireland - #2 Norway - #4 Germany - #73 Finland - #14

Just thought someone should update it.

Source: http://acharts.us/album/37558 then http://acharts.us/album/41289 for the finish position (i don't know why they've seperated it calling it fame not the fame, I assume it's the same album) NinjaChucks (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Certifications

Her album had been certified gold by Poland and had peaked at 6 on the Polish charts. It has also been certified silver in the U.K. Could someone please alter these. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.104.158 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Awards" section

Surely this should be in the main Lady GaGa article, as it is not part of her discography. If it remains I suggest this article should be re-named "Lady GaGa discography and awards". 12bigbrother12 08:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

LoveGame

"LoveGame" is a single, am I correct? It has a music video and is moving up on Canadian charts. Tcatron565 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Its release as a single has not been confirmed yet. We don't have any reliable source authenticating its release. --Legolas!! (talktome) 04:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Love Game" is a single!. It is at # 9 in Canada at the moment and I believe #97 in the U.S. The charts in both countries are compiled by Billboard. At Billboard, as song does not have to have a single released for it to chart. This was done away with some years ago as the single was at death's door. Many songs have hit number one without the help of a single. But now the single is back via downloads and greatly influencing the charts. "Love Game" should be listed as a single with the others as it does not have to have an official release in the US or Canada to chart on their Hot 100's. I can see not announcing chart positions in Countries where the charts require a single release. But that is a Moot point since it wouldn't chart there unless it did. If it is charting it should be included in the discography. For the person who keeps wiping "Love Game" off the single list, please quit the nonsense. The song is charting in several countries and should be listed as so. At least in The US & Canada. If you know anything about the Charts you know Billboard no longer requires a single to be released for the song to chart.(76.104.84.152 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh for God's sake!!! LoveGame IS a single, would they really shoot that hell of a music video for nothing? I don't think so. Plus, it is currently at #6 in Canadian Hot 100, which is, as far as I know, an official chart by Billboard. Stop removing it from the singles field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.82.222.66 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone has added LoveGame back to the regular single releases. Although I believe it should be there according to how songs are allowed to Chart in both the U.S. and Canada, I am not the one that added it back again. So please don't come pointing the finger at me again. (MoovieStarz (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

Since the article has been locked, can someone changed LoveGame's peak position to number 22 in New Zealand. It changed this wekk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.111.27 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Countries listed

OK, there needs to be consistency between the countries listed in the album section and the countries listed in the singles section. We shoul have no more than 10 countries. The US only needs one chart, not download charts/airplay charts as well. The countries selected should ideally be those that represent the largest section of the music industry. Note, that since we have no method of reliably sourcing sales in Japan, that's excluded. From this I suggest the following countries.

  • US (Billboard Hot 100 only)
  • UK
  • Australia
  • Germany
  • France
  • Canada

and 4 more countries. — R2 14:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My choice are

I know things have changed a little since 2003, but it will still be rather accurate. WE should follow this. Which certainly discounts Ireland, New Zealand and Denmark. — R2 14:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok substitute Irish by the Netherlands .--Legolas (talktome) 14:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the charts be in the world's biggest markets? I would definatly discount New Zealand, and possibly the netherlands.Dt128 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes the biggest markets. Like I said, the 6 I mentioned are the biggest, we need to add the next top 4, whatever they may be, so long as sources are available for them (Wikipedia has no way of reliably sourcing Japan charts for example, as it has no archiving system). — R2 15:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, NZ(New Zealand) and the US elec also, should go on. And nine other markets. NZ is big for Gaga and is more accurate then probably Germany, its kinda like Oz.Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 04:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We only need one US chart/market, further US info does not add to a readers understanding of the singers worldwide appeal. New Zealand is a little island (no offense), and means diddly nothing to the recording industry. — R2 10:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, NZ is in the list of 30 countries that constitute 95% of the world market, even though it probably is one of the smallest countries on that list. I generally recommend its inclusion.—Kww(talk) 10:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
For what purpose? Sure it's on the list, like #28 or something. There are many more countries higher up. We are already including Australia, so that covers the Oceania region quite well. The only reason to include it would be it's easy to source positions and certifications reliably. — R2 10:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually that is also a point regarding references. For Germany i don't think we have valid references or archiving pages. RIANZ has them as well as ARIA. Both are present at Ultratop. --Legolas (talktome) 10:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Germany archived at A-charts? I simply cannot understand why we would take the sales of a small market over much larger ones. — R2 17:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the charts should reflect the overall album position.Dt128 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify that please. What do you propose exactly? — R2 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think what DT128 means is that we should only keep those albums and single charts where the peak is good, like 1, 2 or 3. Thats what he was doing and i reverted that. A Charts doesnot archive or present Germany charts at all. Hence we cannot use that for reference. I don't remember about Ultratop though. For NZ we have valid archives and its not that small also. --Legolas (talktome) 04:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NZ maybe small but contributes alot of artits, Savage and LadyHawke. The U.S elec helps the reader understand more about her genre--Electronic. How can you say Aus. covers Oceania, thats like saying the U.S.A covers N.America. And in the list of 30 countries which one would replace NZ, someone countries do not even chart her. So NZ should stay... and Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree Dt128 (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Dutch" is not a country, this should be NL for netherlands (Dutch Top 40). Dt128 (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think for Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible with it's discography sections we need to show how well these songs have done in countries around the world regardless of how big the country is. Although I can understand having to limit how many countries appear on the chart, I think it is important to let people doing a search know exactly how high a single peaked in other countries as well. For Instance Lady GaGa's Poker Face" has hit Number One in Belgum, Bulgaria, Curacao, Estonia, Latvia, Lebanon, Luxembourg, and the Ukraine among others (I know this because I do an online list of the Number Ones around the world every week). There are a few more she has peaked at Number One as well. These should be noted in some fashion in the discography even as a foot note. Also listing Both the Hot 100 and the Pop 100 is important since the Hot 100 is not the chart it used to be. It now incorporates music rankings from all radio stations regardless of format. The Old Hot 100 ranked only songs from Top 40 stations, not Country and R&B stations as well as many others. Personally I think the Pop 100 should be the Hot 100 and the Hot 100 called something else that refers to it's all inclusiveness. I think displaying both goes to show how popular a song was with people who listen to Top 40 radio stations and not have the accuracy ruined by throwing in radio stations from other formats. Seeing both goes to show how much difference there is between the two. If nothing else at least have a footnote saying the song peaked at such and such on the Pop 100 as well. 76.104.84.152 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Curacao? I assume you are talking about Dolfijn FM's chart. At some point, we have to say "who cares"? Dolfijn has a total reach of 155,000 people (we get it piped in on our cable system here on Bonaire, and it can be picked up on radios as well), and it is far from the most popular station because it tends to play music that European and American ears prefer, and that's a population of, at best, 25,000 people. Its chart is an airplay-only chart, not that that matters much because we can't buy from most online shops due to licensing issues (the market here is too small to bother to license) and most CD sales are bootleg "Best of ..." collections. Number one on that chart basically reflects the taste of one program director catering to tourists and foreigners ... completely meaningless.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That IP writes way toooo much. I didnt bother reading it, only put countries charts.Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are TOO MANY countries listed... some of which should be removed. With all my respects for Belgium or Denmark, but they are two minor markets. Besides, countries like Italy have a very local market. I think there should be 9 countries plus the European Hot 100:

  • US (only Billboard Hot 100)
  • European Hot 100Netherlands
  • Australia
  • Canada
  • France
  • Germany
  • New Zealand (minor maket, but Gaga is doing well there)
  • SpainIreland
  • Sweden
  • UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.149.66 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Spain doesnot count in any way nor does European Hot 100. Its an overall chart not a single country. Ireland and Netherlands are better substitutes--Legolas (talktome) 04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do we put US at the front then do the rest in alphabetical order, it may be the biggest market however you can't arrange countries in one list in two different systems, we have to do biggest market OR alphabetical. NinjaChucks (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess thats the consensus regarding the countries listed. I will remove the unnecessary ones. --Legolas (talktome) 05:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not the consensus. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#Total_Value_by_Country You've removed Spain, and it's a bigger market than other countries listed such as Ireland and others. I firmly think Spain should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.46.0 (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Spain is removed for the same reason Japan is not included, there is no discography page, the link points to the current chart only which is not a permanent link, and hence has to be removed. If somebody can provide a permanent link then it can go in the article, otherwise not. --Legolas (talktome) 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Lady GaGa has had huge success in Ireland with two #1 singles and a #1 album under her belt in that country. Shouldn't Ireland be included? It may be a small country, but it is not insignificant in the music industry. 83.71.60.208 (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreleased tracks

Do you think a section on this or her discography page for unreleased or leaked tracks. (examples-Vanity, Rock Show, No floods etc.) like britneys discography.Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 01:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from the discography wikiproject page on what shouldn't be included:
  • Leaked material.
  • Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases.
  • Un-released material unless notable enough to include.
  • Non-musical releases or works.

in other words, no :). Dt128 (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Legolas (talktome) 04:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should put up the unreleased material so long as it has been confirmed by ASCAP or some other such organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Other appearences

Please leave post for what you think of the new version. Please note that I did not put it up Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 03:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Add sources, i'll watch for two days, if no sources are added, I'll remove them. --Legolas (talktome) 05:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Album

I have 2 Q's in the album section:

  1. Sometimes the sales are according to certifications. Thus you can't find a citation. But since both of them means the same thing, can we delete one of them?
  2. Too many country is listed. It takes too many spaces. Can we delete 3 of them?

Langdon (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)i7114080

By the way, The Fame did not get certified. Please do not add certifications. Sometimes people will add certs according to the sales, and it is not correct. Langdon (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)i7114080
Well you can actuaaly, a country sales of an album or single acoording to its chart ratio can find a cert. Example NZ Album-15,000 = Platnium. How else would they find it?Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Certifications

Both just dance and poker face have been certified 3* platinum in Australia. Also, someone took the song "the Fame" off; which charted at no. 73 in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.33.75 (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no available reference for that position, hence it was removed. --Legolas (talktome) 04:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just dance and poker face have been certified 3* platinum in Australia.Why is kept on being erased?Andrew axd (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a permanent link for it. Once the song goes down the chart, that single cahrt link will be invalid. Hence it is being removed. --Legolas (talktome) 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is both single have been certified 3* platinum.However,the information that posted now is simply the out of date information.Although,the link is not permantent,it is still correct information and valid right now.I really don't get the point that keep removing it.Andrew axd (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We have the proof that they been certified 3* platinum. And we have the citation for it as well. Although its not permanent these songs r still on the chart and until they fall off we should use this site as proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.33.75 (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wait a few days. The ARIA certifications will be updated and we will have permanent links. --Legolas (talktome) 04:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Charts Around The World-German Charts

I saw above a mention about the German Charts. Now you must be careful what charts you are looking at. Some sights are no more than Radio station play lists passing themselves off as official Country charts.

But I have three links for German Charts:

http://www.prosieben.de/music_cd/charts/singles_alben/

http://www.viva.tv/Charts/Detail/id/6/part/0/name/VIVA+TOP+100

http://top40-charts.com/chart.php?cid=12

Now I am not quite sure where Top 40-Charts gets the information for the German charts, but I have found they usually use the best know charts for their sight. But it seems their chart info for Germany at Top 40 charts is the same as the chart info at the second sight I shared. According to both "Poker Face" is the Number One Single this week. I have a long list of charts from around the world for a lot of countries and am always looking for new ones. I Hope this helps you all (MoovieStarz (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

The ones to use are at www.musicline.de and www.germancharts.com. WP:GOODCHARTS contains the consensus on best sourcing for international charts.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately it only shows the Top 5. Both of the charts I shared show the Top 40 songs. They are the same charts featured on www.musicline.de. The German Charts data is also dated. They also show that the peak position of "Just Dance" is it's current position of Number 15 not Number 8 as the chart on the Discography page shows (MoovieStarz (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
Sources that you provided fails as bad source. We have to be content with musicline and germancharts only. --Legolas (talktome) 04:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay please explain to me how they fail as a bad source. Who determines this? I looked at some of the charts listed at WP:GOODCHARTS and some of them are anything but good. Especially the German charts when all they include is the Top 10. Two of the charts I offered are the same chart, but expanded. A chart limited to 10 places is not a good source when you can find the same chart with The Top 40 or Top 100. I just wonder if their are other reasons for not liking some of these sights. Well I do an online chart watch at the #1 songs around the world. I put more stock in the charts I have for Germany than what is listed here at Wikipedia. Sorry but I question who put together the list at GOODCHARTS. There's more to that list than someone looking for the official charts or the most accurate charts. (MoovieStarz (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

Take it to the WP:CHARTS project page, not here. --Legolas (talktome) 11:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, we don't need this sort of stuff crowding the disscussion page.Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 04:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Italy

It just looks bad in the table due to peaks, can we not remove it? NinjaChucks (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No --Legolas (talktome) 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Only one song has charted; at 15. There are a lot of other countries where she is charting higher. Why should Italy be there in place of them?It does look make her look bad. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.134.27 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Its not about which country she is doing good. Only the biggest music markets are added. Wikipedia is not a fansite where all the good statistics about Lady Gaga are presented. Its an encyclopedia. If she hasnot charted in that country, that's how it is. No second thoughts. --Legolas (talktome) 10:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The countries listed are not the countries agreed upon by the majority in the discussion above. NinjaChucks (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Because we have LAdy Gaga fans from different nations adding their own countries in the list. *Shrug* --Legolas (talk2me) 04:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Fame (Song)

The song official charted at #73 in November 2007, and the link i provided from an Australian Archive, which features all ARIA reports from 2001-Present, was called "un-reliable". Does anyone have another link that shows it peaked at #73? Billy4kate (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt called unreliable, rather non-permanent. In a week's time it would have been removed. The next reference that you added was called unreliable and failed WP:RS. --Legolas (talktome) 10:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.


Certifications

Please move the certifications back where they belong. They are too large to fit in the singles chart. Countries have also been removed and should be put back; seeing as they peaked no. 1 singles there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.134.27 (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It should be like it is now. All countries are not supposed to be listed. See the discussions above. --Legolas (talktome) 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It is really tiresome that one or just a few people make these decisions. The Certifications looks tacky placed on the end of the singles chart. There are too many countries there to place all the certification information on the end, which only works if only one or two singles get certifed. This should be kept separate from the Singles. This way it looks more professional and gives more room for other countries. Sorry, but this looks like crap and only works this way if the artist has had few charting singles. To remove countries because someone believes they are not important, speaks of an arrogance that doesn't need to be found here. If there is going to be an insistence on doing it this way then more countries should be removed. Give me the peak positions in more countries and keep the Certifications elsewhere where they take up less room. Keeping them in a seperate table makes more sense. I think most people come to these tables to see the peak position of songs, not the certification. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and offering as much information as we can should be the norm. Removing countries takes awy from that. I hope the countries that were removed have been added to the chart info on each songs page. That would make the most sense. But there seems to be little sense here. I'm sorry but as I said this system looks Tacky!! (MoovieStarz (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
Go take it with the concerned people, don't blab here. --Legolas (talktome) 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The people that are concerned are here. I agree with you SineBot and MoovieStarz it looks pretty awful and stretched now, and in the above discussions there is nothing about moving certifications to the table. I agree with the discusion on cutting down the number of countries listed but definately not the certs. NinjaChucks (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, Here is an idea. rather than placing the certifications in a box of it's own which takes up too much space, why not place an asterick or other symbols by the peak position. This would indicate gold or platinum certification and another number could go by that if it was multi-platinum. It's just an idea, but I am tired of some people around here thinking that anyone with a different idea is to be ignored or told to shut up. Also another idea is if the number of countries are going to be limited on the main discography page, then will a full ist be found on the page for that single, including countries not mentioned in the main discography. This way you would satisfy the people who want to know how a song did in say Portugal and not have it appear on the main discography. Be open too other people's ideas and don't reject them just because they don't fit in to your idea of what this article is about. It is getting tiresome that a certain individual keeps editing out the comments made on this discussion page. There are rules about that. But the problem is that we seem to have some petty little children running these articles and they don't want to do anything but their way. Keep your ears and minds open and listen to different ideas. It does no good to blow off anyone who has a differing opinion from yours. (76.104.84.152 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
Legolas you can't just ignore people because they don't agree with you, you're making the article look awful. The majority want the countries listed to be the countries agreed upon above and the certifications to be seperate. You don't own this page you know NinjaChucks (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh but he does own this page, don't you know that? It gives him the right to treat anybody here like dirt and to tell them to shut up. There needs to be an across the board rule that says there is no more than a certain number of countries listed, where the certifications are placed etc etc. But unfortunately anyone of us who has searched Wikipedia for chart information knows that's not the case. Each of these discography's is created and maintained by different people. Unfortunately some think that gives them ownership of the article and discography. In the process they get rude with people and try to tell them how to do things frequently getting rude with them accusing these people of trying to cause trouble when it is them instigating the trouble. If you read Legolas response below in another question you can see the arrogance and how much he thinks he owns this page. I just wish he and some others here at Wikipedia would realize that many of us are here to help. Unfortunately he seems threatened by us and thinks if he let's us put our two cents in, that he somehow loses control of this article. I just say grow up and realize the people here are here to help and not here to take from the work you have put in. Take the time to listen to others ideas and stop thinking your ideas are the only ones that are important. In the end Wikipedia suffers from that sort of arrogance. (MoovieStarz (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

(Outdent)As I said below, I don't care what you think about me. It's not a fanpage to list all the certifications. Go to the single page if you like but only the major markets will be listed (Aus, UK, US maybe Canada) and for that we don't need separate section. It can go in the singles table making it look compact and not a directory. Also countless of the certifications had only the charts for reference, they have been removed as a chart reference will be temporary. you can look in the countries listed. Spain is there but will be removed once the single goes down the chart. Before you blame somebody learn how to do add information productively and not just junk. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And learn how to treat others here with respect, instead of talking down to them as if they are stupid or some little peasant. People are asking questions here as to why things are being done the way they are being done. Giving then attitude because they question how things are done is unproductive. Telling people there are certain rules where there is no consistency at Wikipedia, seems to be more of an excuse rather than an attempt at valid answer. It's obvious from your reply that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote or even tried to listen. I see countless variations on how discographies are put together with numerous artists. Each of these discographies is controlled by various people who seem to put them together according to their own whims. Even the article pages for the individual singles vary with many containing the peak positions on other charts from various countries and styles of music. So please don't treat the people here as if they are stupid. It's disrespectful, And is unproductive for these pages. In the end it turns these pages into the JUNK you seem to rail against. (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
The only attitude and bad mouthing I see is from you and Ninjachucks. Anyways it is evident from your talk page and contributions that you have a history of hostile way with everybody in your WP:NPA ways. Yes I read what you wrote and I can hardly agree with you in turning this disco page into a fan page with a whole bunch of directories. This is not a paper encyclopedia you think it is. Also I don't want to compare with other articles but these are far better referenced. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Legolas it is obvious from this page and your own talk page that you do not have a right to point a finger about WP:NPA ways. It is filled with you getting rude with people left and right. At least my prior problem with someone was just one person. You can not say the same. It was someone just like you with that same arrogant attitude who is simply a control freak! If I was the only one saying anything that would be one thing. But it's more than just me or Ninjachucks. We have come on here trying to contribute or ask questions. Instead what we have gotten is to be treated as if we are dirt. Told to shut up. I don't care if you don't agree with an idea of mine. That is fine. We are not all going to see eye to eye. But don't treat me or others like dirt, because we made an edit you don't agree with or one that may go against Wikipedia rules. The best thing to do is to write a letter saying, you made this change to this page which goes against Wikipedia policy. Don't send letters telling people in a hateful manner to stop making edits or not to add something at all. There is a way to talk to people here that you obviously don't know how to do. Don't treat the people here as if they are some sort of peasant not worthy to shine your boots. Because I am sorry Legolas, it is obvious from this page that you are the one creating the hostilty. Start treating the people here with decency. These people are just asking questions, offering ideas and sometimes adding information. They don't deserve your attitude. (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
More strikeouts. Please don't deviate from context. Provide link where I have told someone to shut up or get lost. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Legolas, I simply do not see the point in striking out MoovieStarz comments. You are both coming across as extremely immature but I do not see how striking what someone wrote is helping! As much as I do not want to get involved in this dispute, I have to agree with her point of view. I don't recall you telling anyone to shut up or get lost, but I have recalled you giving people attitude, which isn't going to help or solve anything. You continue to say you have not shown any signs of vulgarity, but you have called someone a 'dick' on the mediator page, then say it is in the rules to say such things. Please stop! 83.71.60.17 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well whoever wrote this above I appreciate your time. But first, I am a Male, not Female. Second I was only voicing my opinion at times and you see what happened. I am now just waiting to see what happens with mediator. I have no idea how long these things take. Nonetheless, I have been keeping to myself. Just been watching how well Lady GaGa has been doing and what she does next. Thanks again for your comments. (MoovieStarz (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Predictable Legolas2185 behaviour... Tikkuy (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Eh Eh

Eh Eh has just been certified gold by Aria.

And both just dance and poker face have been certified 3*platinum.

Someone please change these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.156.249 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See above."Just wait a few days. The ARIA certifications will be updated and we will have permanent link." said by Legolas.I have been waiting for 3 weeks and the situation haven't changed. Whatever I editted were being removed and not for the reason without correct links, but for the reason without a permanent link.I appreciate Legolas efforts organizing the page.However, It is way over done.I just don't care anymore now.I decide to wait and see how many "DAYS" it will take to make the page without out-of-date informations.Andrew axd (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I have updated the page. Let's see what else you can do now. I added citation tag for Just Dance since it has fallen from chart hence no way it can have the 3xPlatinum certi reference. Thats why I said wait a few days. *rolls eyes* --Legolas (talk2me) 11:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing.114.45.64.10 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Certifications

I dont understand y no one has put the certs back where they used to be; below the singles charts. It is imperitive that we do this as her singles get more certs from other countries. Because she is an international star and her singles are being released in many countries we cannot fit them all in one box and therefore need to make a special section for certs. All the other international singers have their certs postioned in this way such as beyonce and mariah carey and kelly clarkson and britney spears. To legolas; please change the certs back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.156.249 (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the singles have been certified in many countries, and having it in the discography is useful, and shows how much of a hit the song was/is. Billy4kate (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think everyone agrees but for some reason the all holy Legolas doesn't. And of course this page is a dictatorship so fat chance the majority will prevail. NinjaChucks (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeh me too. Legolas tell us why you put the certs like this. I mean really; who is it benefiting? It seems that you are the onyl person who wants to have it this way, but the rest of us don't, so please understand that majority should rule and change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.156.249 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a discography page not a fansite for celebrating how popular a song is. Put it in the single page then. Only major music markets and their certifications will be listed. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you call the United Kingdom and Canada; aren't they major music markets? We're not trying to make a fansite or whatever. This is just the way certs should be displayed. As i said before why do you think singers like Beyonce and Britney Spears have their certs this way; because they release their songs internationally, just like Lady Gaga. Please explain why you're doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.156.249 (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
United Kingdom and Canada can definitely be included if a proper reference is provided, which I must say was not the case when I removed them. Not one of them had a proper reference for certification, and yes adding current charts won't do any good for certifications. You need to find permanent links or else the certification goes off. Check out Rihanna's discography(FL) page for further reference on how to modify a discography page. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with certain countries being listed in the discography, especially when songs like "Just Dance" and "Poker Face" are going to Number One in practically every country they are being released in. As I said before we should probably list the peak positions in the countries not listed on the article pages for these songs. This way you keep the discography clean and satisfy those people who want to how well the song has done elsewhere, Also placing the Certs in a seperate Chart looks better and kepps the discography from looking and getting cluttered. Putting the certs with the chart peaks of each songs limits what countries can be displayed. And Legolas yes this is a Discography, Lady Gaga's Discography! It is not your own personal webpage or blog!. If that is what you want, then create a Lady Gaga page elsewhere where you can control what is displayed and said. Otherwise realize everyone's opinion here counts and that this is not YOUR page to control like a totalitarian state.(MoovieStarz (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
:As I said previously I don't care. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

See People! This is exactly what I mean. He doesn't care because he wants to do everything his way. He obviously thinks this is HIS page! It doesn't matter if anyone of you has a good idea on how to make things better, because if Legolas doesn't agree it won't see the light of day. Wikipedia is set up for numerous people to contribute. It is not there for one person to control as if it is some dictatorship. I really think we all need to report Legolas to the people at Wikipedia. This behavior needs to stop. This is everyone's page, not just his. We don't need bullies like this controlling articles and discographies like this. People out there simply don't get all the information as a result. And is that what an encyclopedia is about. Giving people the full and accurate information on any subject? But I know "You Don't Care" do you Legolas. And that's the problem! This page suffers as result of this attitude. You should care what everyone has to say whether you agree or not. Your failure to care is hurting the accuracy and validity of this page. (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
Perhaps I should make it clear that I don't care what you guys say about me as long as you can put on valid info on the article. However you are deviating from the discussion going on and writing down your own angst against me. Try your own talk page can you? The main concern is the countries listed and certifications. Yes, I am the one who took it off because not every country or certification needs to be listed. As I said before also if you people want to add certifications, add it with a proper reference to the singles page (which I have observed you people badly fail to do and I have to remove such edits countless times). As for the Gaga discography or any other disco page, only hte major markets are to be listed. And yeah don't start comparing with other discography pages. Instead concentrate on improving this one. I have striked out hte previous conversations as they deviated from the point in consideration. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Look Legolas; it's not like we have a personal vendetta against you. We just really care about this page and want people to appreciate the worldwide success that Lady Gaga is experiencing. And i do agree that we need proper references for certs. But this can be done in a separate section for the certs. By placing the certs next to the single peak positions we are overcrowding the disco. Understand that we are just trying to keep the page clean and informative. --Love.Game (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohh so you think that having another table or list in the aricle won't crowd the discography page? By the way your statement "and want people to appreciate the worldwide success that Lady Gaga is experiencing" refers to the fanpage that I have explained above. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No i don't think another table is going to overcrowd the discography page. By doing this, things can be more clearly read. Tell me, why do you think singers like Beyonce and Britney have their certs in another section? Do their discography pages look messy? --Love.Game (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Definitely they are cluttered. The Britney disco page doesnot even have a proper reference for the certifications. Its just a bunch of lists and nothing else. Things can be clearly read as of now itself. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well i don't think that it's up to you to decide this. You are the only person who has these views, while a majority of the people want the certs back where they used to be. Why should you have all the power if you're not going to listen to other peoples views and endeavour to make the best possible discography page that it can be. --Love.Game (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No Dance-pop. Its not for majority to decide something wrong and cumbersome. Believe me when I say that we are trying to move the article for GA or maybe FL and it will badly fail if we have every country or certification entailed. I have listened to others views and yours also. You are not providing a valid reason. Cite guidelines if you can, but I need valid reasons. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well what's your reason for moving them in the first place. I have already clearly stated my reasons; because with the many country certs that Lady Gaga's singles have the single charts will become too packed with information and everything will look untidy.
If I go by your point regarding the singles pages, then the problem for the disco page will be worse!! The first reason I moved them was becasue the certifications for other countries didnot have a proper link at all. Directing to the certification website is of no good (which the Britney disco page has). We need a direct certi link stating the type of certi, date etc. If someone can add it with proper formatting of the reference, it can be added otherwise certifications will be removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovegame, I and others appreciate what you are trying to say and fully understand what it is you are saying. But it will do no good to say anything because he will just refuse to see where you are coming from, because he sees things entirely different and refuses to see things from anyone's perspective but his own. It's best to bring up your concerns in the Informal Mediation below and direct the person who will judge this to look at the things he has said and how he refuses to listen to anyone. As you said other artist discographies are formatted differently and look much better.

Legolas we all appreciate the time you have put in to this page. But that doesn't mean that you are the only one who can determine how the page is formatted. You don't understand the issues we bring up and don't seem to care. You not only misrepresent the issues I have brought up, but do it also to others here as I read Lovegame's comments differently than you. I think I understand him far better than you do. Stop taking differing views as an insult to the work you have done here, and start listening to people. It will only make these pages better as a result. (MoovieStarz (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

The discography

There are several problems and they are pretty big. Langdon (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)i7114080

Albums

There are no references for sales. Some editors tended to add sales according to the certifications. That is not right. For example, The Ultimate Hits by Garth Brooks is certified 5× Platinum, but it haven't sold 500,000 copies yet. Langdon (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)i7114080

Strongly agree. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
yes there is. If it goes platium--a number sales have been made according to the countries popualtion.I am Rorschach (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


RIGHT NOW IT LISTS US ALBUM SALES AT 1,026,000...BUT IT SHOULD BE 1,126,000 IF YOU READ THE SITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.216.30 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Singles

  1. I suggest we can use acharts.us as a general reference just like what we did in the album section.
No. Becuase many of the charts in acharts fall under BADCHARTS. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. I think Ireland positions should be put back. It doesn't matter if the market size is smaller or what. It's an encyclopedia on the internet so we should provide as much info as possible.
No again. Its better to put it in the single page and inclulde the bigger markets here only.
I diagree with Legolas. All countries should be listed so that people know which countries the singles have been released in. And some people might think that this will crowd the singles table, but if make a separate section for the certs then everything would be neat and orderly. --Love.Game (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. Certification is a big problem. It is becoming politics now. There are many ways to present single certifications, and we don't need to stick to the examples here. I don't really like put certs in the main single table, because it will squeeze the table. I believe separate list or tables is better.
Only if all the certis are properly referenced.
  1. For cert references, only information from recording industry associations and official artist website can be used. Sometimes the updates are very slow. Just wait. However the certs on current chart page (like ARIA charts) is OK to use.
Agreed.
  1. Please don't add future singles to the main table without a reliable source.

Langdon (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)i7114080

Strongly agree.
Use Acharts I find it highly reliable.I am Rorschach (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. The fact of the matter is, that if the discography is to be improved to a higher class-level, there needs to be just 10 charts in each table, maximum, but for now I think there should be a few less charts in each table.Dt128 (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

btw: theres a wrong position for "Just Dance" in germany... the highest position was 10 not 8! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.234.204 (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Other appearances

This area is a mess. Notes are not needed, and writing credits should not be included. Only duets or songs that appear on other albums should be included. Langdon (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)i7114080

Strongly agree. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Extremely strongly disaggree. It is called other appeerences for a reason.I am Rorschach (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

I was looking on YouTube.com and it features a new song called, "Silly Boy" By Lady Gaga feat. Rihanna, it's just a demo, but they have both already recorded it and "Silly Boy" should be put under the "Other Appearances Singles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamontl (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Paparazzi?

why does paparazzi keep being removed from the singles section? it IS the next single in the UK, gaga confirmed it herself, there isn't a more reliable source than that. it is played on british radio stations as the next single all the time, the premiere for the video and will be on channel 4 (will find source), and is on record label upcoming releases lists (will also provide source in due course) awaiting mass disgust and ridicule from a certain user.... Mister sparky (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you wait till the video comes out and the song goes for spins? Then we will have more concrete proof. At present it fails for recentism because it may be scrapped later and LoveGame maybe released again. So just wait untill the video comes out. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
NO, sources were provided reliable and notable, you keep playing the gudieline card, its not notable, blah,blah,blah. Just shut up legalos, your really anonying cant you just agree. I think it should stay. I am Rorschach (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Maintain civility Dance-pop. You have been warned 1000 times before for thiese things. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dir. Paparazzi

Here is the source for the DIR. of the video will someone please add it.http://gagadaily.com/2009/04/audition-advertisement-for-the-paparazzi-music-video/ Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga PCD's Elevator

Here is source t back it up.http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=9998219&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkIDCloverfield Monsta (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry bad source. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay.Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a good source, trust me, BMI is used by artists to deposit theirs song, it's a good source :) --Smanu (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Then added it. Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

as usual its only a bad source cuz legolas says it is. the only good refs are the ones he puts in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.243.255 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cannot agree, with you I will get in trouble but off the record I would ... I think you know my answer Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but a website used as a deposit for songs cannot be considered RS. Try something like Billboard, Rolling Stone, allmusic, slant magazine etc. If its notable you will find source, otherwise there's no point in cribbing about me. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly Boy Single

Has anyone heard anything about the release of the Duet between Lady GaGa and Rihanna. I have read that they are releasing it in Australia this week. The song can already be dowloaded on sights online and I figure these are all probably demos. The song is called "Silly Boy". I read that is supposed to be off the New Album. But whose album? Everything I can find online has it listed as Lady Gaga Featuring Rihanna. So does that mean Lady GaGa has a new album coming out? Any more information? (MoovieStarz (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

Nothing concrete at present. The released version was a demo which didnot feature either artist's voice. There is no confirmation for Gaga or Rihanna's upcoming albums, however it has been confirmed that Rihanna is in recording studios but that is not enough to warranty a new article. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I have heard the demo and thought to myself that although the track might contain Lady GaGa's voice, I heard nothing that sounded like Rihanna. I guess we will have to see what happens. Like I said I read that it was being released in Australia. I'll try to see if I can find that information again. Thanks for the Information Legolas. (MoovieStarz (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
NP. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

US Sales

815,652 is an accurate figure for The Fame's total in the US. Platinum means that 1 million copies have been shipped, not that 1 million copies have been sold. The fact that The Fame is platinum means that there have been 1 million copies shipped, not that they have all been sold so whoever is changing the figure - stop it, 815,652 is the accurate figure. NinjaChucks (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And from where are you getting your figure may I ask? I assume pulsemusic. Let me remind you that the data there is for 2009 only. That means 815,652 is the amount reported to be sold in 2009. You need to add the amount sold in 2008 also. Certifications are a sure way to ensure the sales and WP is still not clear about this policy. I'm directing you to Music recording sales certifications page. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The sales are from the Billboard 200 threads, they include both 2008 and 2009 in the total column (last figure), the yearly sales are not seperated. Certifications are not a sure way to ensure sales as certs = shipped NOT sold. NinjaChucks (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Legolas, read your comment on this talk page under the section Discography, that is the exact same situation and you said you strongly agreed so why have you changed your mind now? NinjaChucks (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
you are right. But at that time I haven't read Music recording sales certifications page. Now I have. Hence I'm sure that you will get your questions answered. Also RIAA have changed it to include the sales only. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Aggreed/ Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 04:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If she has sold 1mill why do you think the figure on the Billboard for The Fame's total is 857,070? NinjaChucks (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
...NinjaChucks (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea, you asked the question who should no the answer or was it rhetorical(?) Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 08:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason is that she has only sold 857,070. That's why that figure is it's current total in the Billboard 200. Why do you all find this so hard to believe?NinjaChucks (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification 'More recently, Sony was roundly criticized in 1995 for hyping Michael Jackson's double album HIStory as five times platinum, based on shipments of 2.5 million and using the RIAA's recently adopted practice of counting each disc toward certification, while SoundScan was reporting only 1.3 million copies sold. [3] A similar discrepancy between shipments and sales was reported with The Lion King soundtrack.' 'The audit is conducted against net shipments after returns (most often an artist's royalty statement is used), which includes albums sold directly to retailers and one-stops, direct to consumer sales (music clubs and mail order) and other outlets.' 'This system has allowed, at times, for record labels to promote an album as gold or platinum simply based on large shipments. For instance, in 1978 the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band soundtrack shipped platinum but was a sales bust, with two million returns.[2] Similarly, all four solo albums by the members of Kiss simultaneously shipped platinum that same year but none of them even managed to crack the top 20 of the Billboard 200 album chart. ' You see? SHIPMENTS NOT SALES NinjaChucks (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give the source for your updations? LEts see if it is a valid source or not. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Billboard 200, I think that's pretty valid. It gets posted on PMB by users with access to the info; http://pulsemusic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gmn&action=display&thread=85303 NinjaChucks (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, a forum, so an extremely unreliable source. Secondly who is bks? How do you know that the person is correct? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
What is your source on 1mill sold, because as I've proven certifications are shipments so I don't know where this figure of 1mill sold has come from... Also, PMB is highly reliable for sales figures as users who post the charts have access to them and most likely work for music labels who get the sales off Billboard. bks is the only person on the internet who regularly posts the hot 100. NinjaChucks (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that is not a reason for including a number from an unreliable website, please go and read WP:RS. Untill you find a reliable source like billboard or others, the sales should be kept based on the certification. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I proved certs are based on shipments not sales, so again - where's your source for 1mill SOLD? NinjaChucks (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Since we don't have a RS for sales, then we have no choice than to use the certification amount, but a citation tag can be added on it. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Legolas, I advise you to read the page as it says 'their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.' - bks and others are regarded as trustworthy and as I've said before, are the only people on the internet which post the charts weekly as they have access to them. The only place where it says forums are un-reliable is for 'as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.'Otherwise, it does not mention them as a bad source NinjaChucks (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Please provide a link where it says that the author is trustworthy, sorry I couldnot find it in pulsemusic. I understand that you might be right, but we simply cannot use data from a source which fails reliability. If you want, you can talk about pulsemusic at the talk page of WP:RS. I think that will eb better. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when did anywhere say 'hi i'm trustworthy', it is people's actions and throughts towards the user/site that defines if they are trustworthy, in this case the fact the charts being c/ped from PMB to all other forums etc is an indication of the charts being trustworthy. I also notice you have failed to find one source, no matter how reliable it may be deemed to prove sales of 1mill+ NinjaChucks (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes it needs to be, otherwise taht source fails as RS. And nowhere I can see anything that tells me that this guy is trustworthy. Do you know that this can lead to copyright violation? Something whcih Wikipedia is totally against? ADding numbers from that site is a big copyright vio which is absolutely unacceptable here. We are all working here to make it a collaborative effort, not to add some random citations. This is not a paper encyclopedia. And i did explain before that since we don't have RS for both the cases, we have to have the sales based on certification but a fact tag can be added.
I find it very strange of you to defend the 1mill+ to the death as the sales are higher, however you don't make a fuss over the accurate UK sales which are above UK Platinum (300k)? Can you explain this? Also, what do you think deems someone/something as trustworthy? NinjaChucks (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the UK Sales. You are free to remove it as UK the certification is not there at all. Come to think of it I myself will do it. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, here is a reliable source for this weeks american sales http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/charts/chart_alert/e3i23722e25472e38b4401416735bcdef7a, which has stated the sales every week, long since before platinum so I guess in your books these sales should be added to the 1mill and the sales should become even more false? NinjaChucks (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
About the UK figures, maybe you should remove them all together seen as I got them from a forum too, posted by those who are members of music week. The fact it has no plat certification clearly shows it has sold less than 300k [/sarcasm]You see how ridiculous your certification based sales arguement is? Taylor Swift's Fearless has no certifications in the USA but has sold 3mill+, does the fact of no certification mean no sales? NO NinjaChucks (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you get a mediator, this is going nowhere. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I advice you to assume good faith while responding to talk pages. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can I ask you what made you strongly agree to the comment about certifications in the Discography section on this talk page? Now that we've established that US certs = shipments. NinjaChucks (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to delete the whole sales for whichever country there is no RS for the sales. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Which are there RS's for? NinjaChucks (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is The RIAA's page that sets the criteria for what gets certified and when

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=criteria Hope that helps some. (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Moovie. But since there is no RS for the actual sales I think we have to delete that column altogether. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Leg. was that comment to me. I do not think I was harsh, was I. I only suggested a mediator befor this takes the whole page up. As this needs to be resolved. All in kind words. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 07:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That was not directed to you at all. That was for User:Ninja chucks. He was toiling around making little amount of personal attack like comments hence warned the user. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Where did I make personal attacks? NinjaChucks (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a question for Legs. talk page (not to be rude--I can see how it can be read, and it does sound a bit know-it-allly) we should talk about the sales. I think we should go with the most reliable sources. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 05:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I think that the Billboard 200 is pretty reliable, if anyone has other sources with different sales please post them. NinjaChucks (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Its the boldiong of words which leads to users believe about personal attacks. However, I have a more ready solution for the links. Initiated a discussion at here. Please give your comments at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Pulsemusic. Thanks! --Legolas (talk2me) 12:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

US SALES NOW AT 1,300,000 http://www.billboard.com/#/news/lady-gaga-the-billboard-cover-story-1004001347.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.247.27 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Silly Boy.

I personally think that this needs to removed. It has been confirmed by Gaga herself on an Australian radio interview (click here for source), that it is not her nor Rihanna's vocals in that track. • вяαdcяochat 08:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Is Spain really necessary? It maybe a major market but is it a major market for the artist? I don't think so. Hence it has been removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For once I agree with you Legolas :) NinjaChucks (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Lets see what other editors have to say. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a fan page, it's an information page. Spain is a major market, and Lady Gaga's sales should be reflected in that country. Besides, she's not doing bad there.. "Just dance" is certified Platinum. It should definetely stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.62.69 (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Rub rb please stop using your sockpuppets. And Spain is not that major a market to be listed when other major markets like Germany, Italy, Canada, Oz are listed. Also the link is not a permanent link and needs to be updated every week. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The link I gave (Spanishcharts) is a permanent link, check before you talk ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.62.69 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, spanish charts are not acceptable see WP:BADCHARTS. Also not to be added here as stated above. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Spanishcharts now is a valid link... since 2 weeks ago, because it posts both physical singles and the official Top 50 Songs. So WP:BADCHARTS has to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saviour09 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The IP blatantly attacked my talk page. Perhaps an ANI is needed. Please see WP:GOODCHARTS why spanishcharts cannot be used. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
According to both the BADCHARTS and GOODCHARTS the Spanish chart can be used for anything released after January 2009, so I reckon it's perfectly permissible to have a column for the Spanish chart and leave the cells empty for any release prior to Jan 2009 and populate the cells for anything released afterwards. On the other hand as has been stated it's not a particularly big market and relatively inconsequential to this particular artist. So all things considered there isn't an overpowering reason for the Spanish chart to be included, even though there are no rules saying it can't be (apart from the above-mentioned proviso). What it comes down to is purely the requirements of consensus --WebHamster 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

so basically there's no point having spain in the singles table at all. whenever its added it will be removed Mister sparky (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I insist.. you don't seem to understand that since Jan 09 "Spanishcharts" IS A VALID LINK! "Spanishcharts.com/acharts.us should only be used for charting information after Jan 12, 2009".. that's what WP:GOODCHARTS says. And Spain is the 9th market in the world according to this year's IFPI inform. "Just Dance" is Platinum, and "Poker Face" is already #8 and going up... I really can't see the point in removing it again and again. Nympho wiki —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

WP:GOODCHARTS clearly states Spanishcharts.com/acharts.us should only be used for charting information after Jan 12, 2009 if the song did not chart on Promusicae. Please read before you comment. Also as I see a consensus is there between editors regarding not adding Spain. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:GOODCHARTS isn't updated. Since a couple of weeks ago, Spanishcharts provides the Top 50 Canciones, which is the official single charts made by Promusicae. Now there is no need to give links of Promusicae, because Spanishcharts provides the official information about single. It must be updated so that people like you won't be mistaken.Nympho wiki (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga 1st Album Pre- "The Fame"

Theres an album available for download on some sites that seems to be songs penned and sung by Lady Gaga before she was actually Gaga its called "Red and Blue" and I don't have all the details but here are some sources.

http://mog.com/blog_post/content/978/1246672 http://www.smokinnewmusic.com/2009/03/stefani-germanotta-band-lady-gaga-red.html http://www.boomboomchik.com/2009/03/lady-gaga-red-and-blue.html http://themusicinferno2.blogspot.com/2009/03/lady-gaga-red-and-blue-unreleased.html http://www.ladygaga.com/forum/default.aspx?tid=322679&cid=594 http://www.purevolume.com/stefanilive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.223.175 (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. All are unreliable sources. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This is true, when she was kicked off her record label Def Jam as a demo album made of 5 songs. Under the name of Stefani. I will try and find a source. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 08:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't an album as it wasn't released anywhere, just an EP made to get her name out there I think. It just randomly popped up on the internet one day due to leaking. Either way it wasn't commercially released so I don't think it has a place in EP/Album tables but maybe a mention in the article. NinjaChucks (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If we can find something that can barely pass RS, we can add it to the prose of the article, but a table is not needed. --Legolas (talk2me) 14:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Paparazzi

this song peaked at number twenty-seven on the Australian Singles Chart so it should be changed in the singles table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.26.160 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

singles table

two points to discuss here: 1) why is the US at the front but all other countries are alphabetical? 2) why can't ireland be included? and are there any others which should be included/removed? please can we have some opinions people? and a discussion, not just one person saying no. thanks guys Mister sparky (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the USA then alphabetical thing, we should either have the table arranged alphabeticaly or by market size, not both. NinjaChucks (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Discographies should be arranged based on the artist's market. Gaga's home market is obviously US, hence thats the reason US is in the beginning. For eg. For a French artist SNEP should be the first column followed by the others alphabetically arranged. And Ireland cannot be used because there is simply no discography page in IRMA. There has been discussions already regarding this before. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the discographies should be arranged alphabetically, but the peak position in the artist's native country should be the first one, please see: MOS:DISCOG. I thought Ireland was alredy there, since apparently is one of her biggest markets, altouhgt Ireland isn't that big, but well neither is New Zealand or Italy. About the source the same page that have the discographies of Australia, Austria, France, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland, also have the Irish Charts, [1], you can't see the positions week by week, and the updates take a bit longer, but you can see the releases, the peak position and the number of weeks on the chart. Hope this helps. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Woww. Thanks then. It really helps. Ireland is then ready to go in the discography page then. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
oh, yes...first "oh, no...only the biggest market should included", then "I like more Ireland than Italy! Let's change" as usually, only what Legoas says is right --♫Smanu! 09:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
First: the sources used in this article state that Italy is a bigger market than Ireland in both albums and sigles; second: even if Italy isn't a big market for Gaga, "Wikipedia is not a fansite where all the good statistics about Lady Gaga are presented. Its an encyclopedia. If she hasnot charted in that country, that's how it is" (this is a quote by someone) --♫Smanu! 11:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Statistics from IFPI show differently that Italy and Ireland are almost similar markets in terms of sales value and revenue. Hence In this case teh market value of the artist has been taken onto consideration, which shows Ireland to be a popular market. The biggies like US, AUs, Canada, UK are kept irrespective of chart positions but for smaller markets this is how we determine which goes up in chart. you are right, since it is not a fansite, Italy had to go. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

and why do not keep IRE and ITA happily together in the same table? --♫Smanu! 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Becaue max allowable is 10 and we already have 12. Hence having two simulataneous same markets is of no point when one precedes over the other. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
where did you read that the max. is 10? --151.81.148.107 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Italy only has a Top 20 Downloads, and its market is mainly Italian.. I agree with Italy being removed. Plus, I would also remove Austria from the table, leaving it with these countries: US / AUS / CANADA / FRANCE / GERMANY / IRELAND / NETHERLANDS / N.ZEALAND / SPAIN / SWEDEN / SWITZERLAND / UK (Nympho wiki (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

hey guys, thanks for the input. i had no idea that the artists home country had to go first so thanks legolas its always puzzled me! i really didnt want to cause an arguement or a mass edit war i was just curious because i had noticed that quite a few people had been trying to add ireland to the table and it kept being reverted so i just wanted to know why. no i do :) i also agree with italy and austria being removed. so the tables fine as it is now. everyone agreed? Mister sparky (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As for me, agreed! It represents the 12 major markets. Nympho wiki (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Spanishcharts cannot be used for reference now. And Spain has been removed as per consensus before hand. If you want to, get it confirmed at WP:CHARTS otherwise it will go. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

please Legolas, reply to this: "where did you read that the max. is 10?" --♫Smanu! 08:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

look at all FLs. Every discussion allows only 10 max charts. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've see,so we need to remove one country for album and two for singles --♫Smanu! 09:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus ASAP

The edit warring here is not cool. As editors involved here are established, a semi-protection will do no good. Therefore, I will put a full protection on this page if a consensus cannot be reached. The back-and-forth is disruptive and ridiculous. To all who are arguing about the inclusion of specific countries: please compromise and come up with a reasonable solution. Continued edit warring will result in a situation where only admins can edit the article and people will be blocked for 3RR, and that will suck for everyone. Please and thank you! - eo (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A Few Things...

Here are just some improvements I thought we might want to add to the article...I would have done them myself if I hadn't been so bad at using tables!

  1. The Fame: Part 1: Should this be added to the music video section? It's an official release by Gaga, as it's featured on her web site, but I'm not sure where exactly to put it.
  2. Chillin: Maybe someone could put this under the music video section. Again, I would, but I really don't understand tables, haha.
  3. Honest Eyes: Considering this has been performed live by Gaga on several occasions, should it go in the other appearances section along with Future Love?
  4. Elevator: Gaga wrote this song for The Pussycat Dolls. It should probably go in the other appearances section, too.

Tell me what you think! :) Tikkuy (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Part I really hasnot got any notabolity but since a released video can be added in the music video section. The other three fails notability yet. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
And why Quicksand is notable and Elevator not?--♫Smanu! 09:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Because Quicksand is supported by reliable sources where as Elevator is not. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
agreed, but -chillin' sources http://www.theinsider.com/news/2264162_Lady_GaGa_Goes_Street_With_Wale_In_Chillin http://www.complex.com/blogs/2009/06/03/wale-talks-media-hate-charles-hamilton-celebrity-women/ http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1613240/20090603/lady_gaga.jhtml http://www.examiner.com/x-12319-SF-Streetwear-Examiner~y2009m6d5-Wale-and-Lady-Gaga-Chillin-on-Bodega http://www.examiner.com/x-12319-SF-Streetwear-Examiner~y2009m6d5-Wale-and-Lady-Gaga-Chillin-on-Bodega http://www.interscope.com/artist/news/default.aspx?nid=21756&aid=611 http://www.interscope.com/ladygaga Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Let it chart atleast somewhere. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Why? If it's been released as a single, it doesn't matter whether or not it's charted. Oh, and I'm pretty sure Elevator is supported by reliable sources (e.g. BMI). Tikkuy (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
no, it's sourced so it should be added, even if it hasn't chart yes --♫Smanu! 09:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
None of the sources confirm its release as a single. Hence it cannot go in the singles table. Every source states that a music video is being shot but doesnot confirm a single release. Its simple as that. Addition of Chillin to the singles table will be reverted untill confirmed, like "LoveGame" was a few months ago. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

--♫Smanu! 10:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand both arguements, I am not the one to say, but a charting wold br good but we have soures... Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Honest Eyes included, whereas Future Love is, when it has been sung live many times by Gaga? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.207.210 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

11 -> 10

Hi all, its time that we make the discography more FL compatible. One of the FL criteria is to make the no of columns as 10 as we can see here. But at present we have 11 of them. My question is which one should go? My vote is either one of Sweden or Switzeralnd. Reason being, IFPI report wise both are similar markets and the least markets among all the other nine. Hence add your comments and lets reach a consensus before removing anything randomly. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand is a minor market, Australia and NZ are the only country with a music market in Oceania and Australia covers a big part of it, so NZ is uneeded. I propose New Zealand --♫Smanu! 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
i vote to get rid of switzerland. i didnt understand why it was added to the table in the first place tbh Mister sparky (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think New Zealand should stay, after all this is the English Wikipedia and the 6 biggest English markets should be in the table. Altough I really think that it could pass with the 11 countries, the Rihanna discography have 11 columns in the singles, two for the United States, and nine other countries. The only thing is that I see is that the countries are not consistent, we have Denmark in the album table, and Sweden in the singles table, it should be the same one. Frcm1988 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
i definitely agree that the albums and singles tables should have the same countries listed. it looks better and it makes more sense to have consistency. i keep new zealand :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I live in NZ, so I want it to stay. Please I beg (with knees on the ground) Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I vote for Switzerland to go. Plus, in Sweden is one of the few countries where "Eh Eh" has charted. Nympho wiki (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Switzerland to go, NZ, SWE and IRE each have atleast one single that's been released there and not everywhere (Eh, Eh & Papa). NinjaChucks (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Hmmm, Switzerland seems like a worthy candidate to go. LEts keep this discussion open for some more time to reach consensus. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove Switzerland --♫Smanu! 19:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll just wait 2 more days, hence giving 2 weeks from the time the section was oened, if still no other claims, I'll remove it. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I remove it --♫Smanu! 09:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources

People, sales figures need sources. This is not a new Wikipedia rule and it's pretty elementary. Adding a "+" symbol after a number is not a source, and citation tags are not preferable. Neither of these should be used as an excuse to just throw any number into the tables. Unsourced sales figures and/or certifications should be removed (not just from this article, but any discography page). - eo (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the figures and the fact tags. Jimbo himself has said that unsourced content should be removed, not tagged. — R2 12:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes...the page looks much better now...
WW source: http://worldwidealbums.blogspot.com/2009/06/worldwide-estimations-update-120609.html (the site has a real URL however it's spam blacklisted so I'll link to the blogspot) --> click 2008
US source: Billboard 200 however they don't post the numbers on any websites deemed reliable, by Legolas, just forums.
UK source: music week but you have to be a member http://www.musicweek.com/ NinjaChucks (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The number of times I put up sources for the sales, each and every week they were put down by IPs and fans. *shrug*. I stopped bthering about it at all. Its better this way. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I'm sorry, I know this isn't of epic importance but ... can someone please change the picture of her. It's less than flattering and I know there are several other pictures of her where you can see her face and she looks a lot better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.165.126 (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture is recent and good as it is Dance-pop. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't Give Up

This song has been confirmed by both Gaga and the Midway State. It is sourced by [2], which is the Midway State's official web site, and [3], which is linked to by their official web site. I don't understand why this information was removed. Tikkuy (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources fail WP:RS.--Legolas (talk2me) 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
An official web site isn't a reliable source now? Tikkuy (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The first one fails for being a primary source, the second one can be used. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That would lead me to ask why you deleted it to begin with... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 08:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please get your facts straight. I didnot delete it but User:Pokerdance and he has a good enough reason to do so. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really. There isn't really a 'good enough' reason for the deleting of properly sourced and verifiable material. Tikkuy (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Yes there is. Unofficial releases of any kind are not included, this is a discography not a songography. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what you were arguing. And at any rate, it is an official release. Oh, and a discography and a songography are the same thing. Tikkuy (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly what me and Pokerdance have argued. And a discogrpahy is not a songography. Check MOS:DISCOG. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really. You never said you deleted it because it was an official release. You deleted it because it had 'unreliable sources'. But whatever. :) Tikkuy (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.wearepopslags.com/2009/lady-gaga-to-re-release-the-fame/
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXtSJM588So&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zimbio.com%2FLady%2BGaga%2Farticles%2FviXxXi1FRDc%2FLady%2BGaGa%2BTalks%2BFame%2BRelease%2BKanye%2BTour%2BMore&feature=player_embedded
  3. ^ http://www.zimbio.com/Lady+Gaga/articles/viXxXi1FRDc/Lady+GaGa+Talks+Fame+Release+Kanye+Tour+More
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga_discography/Archive_1&oldid=1190131907"