Jump to content

Talk:The Fame Monster/Archive 2

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

Mexican charts

The Fame Monster just reached second position on the Mexican album charts in conjunction with The Fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeldarkdreamer (talk • contribs) 03:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Singles from The Fame Monster *Update*

The next single to be released on behalf of Lady Gaga by Interscope, Cherry Tree Records, Kon Live and Streamline Records is "Monster" (as confirmed by a representative and as featured on The Fame Monster's video trailer [available on YouTube]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.112.65 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, its original research. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

rollingstone site updates all its reviews

and now the fame monster receives a four-star, and the fame three-and-a-half, can somebody change that?.. new reviews from rollingstone RainBell (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster has in fact received 3.5 stars, not four like stated earlier. Can someone please change this? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.135.123 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the old RS link. Its dead. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dance in the Dark is the next single

http://www.zimbio.com/Lady+Gaga/articles/KC6cdT_Wj6u/Lady+Gaga+next+single+will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearofthe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

+ Polish Year-End chart (2009), please add.

http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/top100/roczna.php 17th - Fame 2CD (a.k.a. The Fame Monster) 70th - The Fame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.120.87 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In Germany

The album is charting on its own and has reached only #6 not #1 http://acharts.us/album/52114 (Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

IS dance in the dark really being released?

IS dance in the dark really being released? it says it is on august 31..is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksandrewtrail8 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all fan speculation at this point. I've removed it. –Chase (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Russian certification

Can someone add that album reached 4x Platinum in Russia? It was the first time since Madonna's Hard Candy did so. source: http://2m-online.ru/news/detail.php?ID=5645 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.167.99 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Monster

"Monster" was sent to US radio. I heard it like 5 times today...Ahmedfarhat (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it had airplay, does not mean that it is a single nor deserve an article. TbhotchTalk C. 17:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
all songs on the album except monster and teeth now have pages. if someone is willing to create it, y deleet it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SexyBlondeGuy (talk • contribs) 07:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"So Happy I Could Die" also doesnot have any article on it. A song needs to pass WP:NSONGS for it to have an article, which these fail. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ultratop.be/en/weekchart.asp?cat=a&lang=nl

the fame monstr is number one in 1 Belgium (flandern) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hejhejdutch (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal

Here is the complete personal section below is someone wants to add it to the article. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 06:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 06:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Release date in Brazil

How has been obtained the release date of the album in Brazil? In the reference web "livrariacultura.com" isn't shown, as far as I have seen, any release date in that country. Thanks Amarill0 ¿Can I help? 10:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

cover

Which edition (standard / deluxe) has got which cover? That should be mentioned in the text. --84.147.106.106 (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Monster=Fourth Single?

Lady Gaga personaly said that she would release 4 singles in the album. And although there's still no real source of a 4th single, rumors say that "Monster" will be the 4th single. And it's suspicious that the Confirmed single and the 2 not yet really confirmed single and the rumored single are all in the fame mons†er trailer. YZJay 23:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YZJay (talk • contribs)

She did imply that Speechless would be a single. I have a sense that Alejandro (song) maybe skipped from some countries and we could end up with different releases in different countries. Who knows, it's speculation at the moment. We have only Bad Romance and Telephone for sure and it will likely be many months before things become clear. SunCreator (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Not to sound forum-like, "Monster" is not the third single Im afraid. Seems like "Alejandro" it is, although "Speechless" may be the fourth/fifth single. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the singles in order:
1. Bad Romance
2. Telephone
3. Alejandro
4. Dance In The Dark

Yes, Dance In The Dark is the fourth single. I think she posted this list on Twitter. - AndrewOne (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

it's kind of dissapointing since lots of people want monster to be the 4th single 120.33.24.74 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

^ i agree. I personally think Monster would have been a better summer song, but if that's what Lady Gaga's confirmed, then that's what we'll have! ...however, i can't find this post on her twitter :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.3.85 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please can we remember Wikipedia is not a forum. However it should be noted that nothing is 100% confirmed. there is currently no release date for 'Dance in the Dark' and i cannot verify that she posted that list on twitter.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard monster on the radio twice here in puerto rico! so I'm pretty sure it's a single already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.90 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because it has airplay is not a single TbhotchTalk C. 01:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 really? i never new that, wel now i know, but still having its own article wouldnt be bad idea, im just sayin

Release history

my English is bad, so I will be brief: The Fame Monster (deluxe) in November 18 was released (iTunes) in different countries as: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France and others. Must be put on the list? --Trivia harrypotter (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Monster Release

Monster has been released in Puerto Rico radio stations and is been played very often. Fans in the island of Puerto Rico are requesting the song and even though no video or any suggestion that this might me the fourth single of the album, the song is a single of it's own in Puerto Rico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndays24 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not strictly true. Radio stations can play songs whenever they like though usually its not allowed. However if a label wishes to release a song they can either send a promo disc to radio stations or make it available on a certain date (radio add date) via a mass database. Then stations choose whether it gets added to their playlist and subsequently if it recieves a lot of airplay or not. Also note that fans could choose to buy the song as a digital track (individually from the album) if the artist is touring in their country or if there was a major news report/event about the artist. A song chart doesn't make it a single. But agree with the above comment that the situation should be monitored. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I understand what you mean. The same thing happened with Dance in the Dark. Just thought it'd be nice to mention it. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably a separate section called other charted songs is necessary seeing that almost all the songs from the album charted in some region or the other. And Puerto Rico doesnot have any official chart as far as I know. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, that is probably a good idea. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It also has had an "iTunes Exclusive" release in NZ for one week only. It started around a week ago. The cover was uploaded to the "Monster" article and because someone said it made him vomit, it was then re-directed back to "TFM". The cover, I agree, is sickly and bad. But just because it makes someone vomit, does not mean it shouldn't be posted. It had high charts in NZ and I think it should have it's own article now it has a cover, and iTunes link, and a high charting position in the country it was released in. Thoughts? Btw, view the Monster Discussion Page about the cover.--Morgan3136 (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Having a separate article is different than accepting it as a single. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
True. I agree. I don't think it's a single. But it was a promo single for a week just like "Circle the Drain" and "Not Like The Movies" by Katy Perry. But, Speechless has an article. Maybe with a little work, "Monster" could have it's own too? Thoughts?--Morgan3136 (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Speechless passed every kind of notability needed to have a song article. Its extensive promotion is what made it notable. "Monster" fails badly in that respect. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Dance in the Dark was only promoted once by Gaga as a Melody to Telephone. Yet, it had an article. It also had the smae treatment as Monster with a "limited release" single on iTunes, and "Monster" had charted higher than what DITD did. Monster also was performed live as part of a melody. Details here. Before DITD was a single, it had the same amount of promotion as Monster has. Still think it can't have it's own article. I'm just checking.--Morgan3136 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) However, "Dance in the Dark" is already the next official single in Australia and France, as confirmed by Gaga's record label. "Speechless" is not only notable due to its extensive promotion, but its wide coverage in reliable sources. "Monster" is not notable. Plain and simple. And until there are refs to back that it was released to iTunes, it should not be regarded as a single, official or promotional. –Chase (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Monster is Gaga's 4th single in New Zealand. As mentioned with sources in the subject below.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian certification

4x Platinum http://2m-online.ru/news/detail.php?ID=5671 109.187.143.151 (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Myself and others have repeatedly tried to reinsert (yes since it was taken out without consensus time and time again) the link under the release date in the infobox bringing the reader to the release history table. I find the link very useful and it is in widespread use throughout articles. Having the date alone IMO is misleading as at first look the reader has no idea whether that release date is relevant to him or not. With the link, right away one can see that there is a history below that will help him find the date that means the most to him. Additionally, not having the link after so much time having it, one might think that there is no release history section in the article. I am only seeing one party against its inclusion and he has weak rationales such as "it's not useful" and it's somehow "not feasible". I am eager to see what others think in an attempt to gain consensus on the issue. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Internal wikiredirects shouldnot be there in the article. Check any FA quality article. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Other stuff exists applies, however, if there was a relevant discussion in an FA review maybe you would have a case, but regardless, FA does not write policy. Unless there is a guideline that explicitly states there cannot be a release history link, then you must have consensus to remove it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Singles

Hey, just thought I'd post this. We all know Bad Romance, Telephone and Alejandro are all singles. That's clear. But then you have Dance in The Dark and Monster which has confused everyone a little bit. But if you look here and here, you can see Dance in The Dark and Monster share both the same release in Aust and NZ. Dance in The Dark is the 4th single in Aus, Monster is the 4th single for NZ and fifth overall. To see the singles orfer, look at her singles discography on both sites. So how will Monster be listed? Would we list it at all? I'll see if I can find the official radio add for "Monster" in the NZ.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The singles should be listed in templates in the order that they were released regardless of market. Then on each page distinctions can be made regarding the "single number" for each relevant market. "Dance in the Dark" looks good, but "Monster" not having a cover and the article being mostly unsourced about its release leads me to think that it could just be charting because of sufficient downloads from the album. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

i think it should be made more clear that monster and ditd are only singles in au and nz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.107.39 (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned in the Dance in the Dark article where it's been released to, however Monster is not a single anywhere. –Chase (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Finnish certification

The Fame Monster was certified platinum in Finnish?. See The Fame (+Monster).--NicolásTM (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Poland Year-End Chart (2009)

http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/top100/roczna.php - Fame Monster is 17th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.57.112 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mmmonsterrr2010, 21 October 2010

{{subst:edit semi-protected}} Hello. I've noticed that the pages for "The Fame Monster", its singles ("Bad Romance", "Telephone", "Alejandro", "Dance in the Dark") and The Monster Ball have been calling the album an EP. It's her second album. Ads on her website, the trailer for the release and posts that were published around the time of its release (http://www.ladygaga.com/news/default.aspx?nid=23709) refer to it as a "NEW ALBUM". "Lady Gaga's new album THE FAME MONSTER including 8 brand new tracks, available now!" - Interscope Records (http://www.interscope.com/artist/releases/detail.aspx?pid=2448&aid=599), one of the labels the album was released through. It's even been nominated for ALBUM of the Year at the upcoming Grammy Awards. She herself considers it her sophomore album. "The Fame Monster" is both a re-release of the "The Fame" with eight new songs, but it can also be bought as a separate album with just eight songs. If you could, please fix the errors on the pages. Thank you.

Mmmonsterrr2010 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Mmmonsterrr2010

Not done: please read discussions above. It is an EP. Thanks. Yves (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, Grammy nominations aren't even out until December. Not like that matters anyway - EPs are eligible for Album of the Year. –Chase (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

German Release

The Fame Monster was released as an 8track EP on 22nd October 2010. Sources: Amazon Bravado Add that please to the release history. --It's Flo (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that one today, was surprised it's really available in that form. Does anyone know if this release is explicit, too? Or clean like the rest of EU releases? MakkeBernhard (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I got my copy some days ago, and is explicit. --It's Flo (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

colombia

can someone please correct the reference for the cfolombian release? its appearing all bolded. 122.167.212.58 (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

New Promotions

Not sure what or how to do this.
Can you Please add to promotions section
Performing Bad Romance & Speechless on The American Music Awards Nov 22nd 2009
Appearing as a guest & performing Bad Romance on The Jay Leno Show Nov 23rd 2009
Appearing as a guest & performing Bad Romance & Speechless on The Ellen Degeneres Show Nov 27th 2009

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fimjox (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Studio album vs. EP

Hate to bring up this issue again, but the previous discussion took place before the album was released and ended shortly after its release. Since then, several publications have referred to this album as an EP:

  • Allmusic: "Initially planned solely as a standard double-disc reissue in the wake of the blockbuster success of The Fame, Lady Gaga decided to release the new material as a separate EP called The Fame Monster in addition to the standard two-CD set, where it’s tacked onto a now standardized version of her debut."
  • Slant Magazine: "Originally conceived of as a bonus disc for the re-release of The Fame, the eight-song The Fame Monster is now being released as a standalone EP as well. Gaga probably should have tacked on a few more tracks (and if YouTube is any indication, she's got the material), titled the thing Monster, and released it sometime next year as her official sophomore effort."
  • Los Angeles Times: "The New York dance-pop diva is even selling the extra tunes as a standalone EP to avoid ripping off early adopters; by major-label standards, that's more value than you shake a disco stick at."
  • PopMatters: "The Fame Monster comes in multiple editions, but the main 'Deluxe' version houses not only the new Fame Monster EP, but also the complete original Fame album"
  • MTV (quote from Gaga herself): "In the midst of my creative journey composing The Fame Monster, there came an exciting revelation that this was in fact my sophomore album, [...] I would not add, nor take away any songs from this EP."

–Chase (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Billboard tracks the album as an EP. –Chase (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I support Chasewc91 on this matter. I tried to bring up this same point earlier but was rail-roaded by mad-fans who claimed that because Gaga said it was her second album it must be her second album. At the very least the infobox should be changed to EP. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I TOTALLY support this as being recognized as an EP. I mean, that is what this work is, and every media has referred to it as. When I brought it up a while back an editor shot me down just because Gaga had referred to as an album, but an EP is an EP. Candyo32 (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! This can still be called the second album by Gaga if people decide that the case (with support in the references) but as a body of work it is an EP. It by definition is an EP because it is longer than a CD Single but not quite the correct length / composition to be called a studio album. This article misleadingly treats 'The Fame Monster' as an equal body of work to 'The Fame' qualitywise etc. it might we be if not better but based on technical aspects and its composition it is an EP. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Then Billboard is mistaken since in the US, if it is at least 30 minutes long, it is considered an album. This is her sophmore album and not an EP. (Cprice1000 03:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs)

It is still a studio album as per the EP guidelines, that's not Billboard's doing. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Anywhere that says EP is completely wrong! It is an LP and anywhere it says it on the article must be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the fact that this is an EP. For example, take Showgirl EP it is 45 minutes long, 8 songs, and considered an EP with no problem. I really think this should be changed from a studio album to an EP. As said above, all these places consider an EP, and even though Gaga herself says it's her second album (which it technically is, it's her second release.) The Time of Our Lives (EP) is another example, though it is under the 30 minute mark, a lot of her fans have said that it's her third album. I think that's what the problem is, the fans saying this and that. When her new album comes out next year, it would perfectly fine calling it her second full-length album, if we decide to consider this an EP. --Zacharee (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
IMO it is only a studio album in deluxe edition when released with her first album. But asa stand alone project in its original form it is essentially an EP. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Still doesnot change the fact that its a full fledged studio album per the EP rules, even in US and UK. Unfortunately in UK it wasn't released separately. There in lies the confusion. As I said before, by definition it is not an EP. If this is EP, then Madonna's first album is also an EP. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) When Gaga's new album comes out, I think we can revisit this discussion then. Most major sources will have made up their mind as to whether the new album should be considered the third full-length or the second. And whatever is the majority amongst reliable sources, is what we should go with. But that is quite awhile away. And Legolas, while my opinion on this is a little more neutral and undecided than it was back in June, there are several minutes' difference between this and Madonna. –Chase (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what it comes down to really. Miley's "The Time Of Our Lives" EP is in the same 5 minute period as "TFM" and it's considered an EP. Legolas, Madonna's first album isn't even within a 5 minute difference between that and TFM, it's within a 10 minute difference between lengths. So TFM could be an EP with Madonna's album also being an album still. Anyways, Billboard also list it as an EP. And there is another thing. With the release of "DITD", her record labels stated in the press release "Dance In The Dark is the ninth single to emerge from The Fame/The Fame Monster albums" stating that her labels consider "The Fame" and "TFM" to be one project, which would mean it would be that "TFM" would need to part of "The Fame" article like Rihanna's re-release of "Good Girl Gone Bad". So it's considered an EP by Billboard, and considered a "Re-Release" by her labels. That is what we have to choose from I guess. Neither her label, or any other reliable source (more reliable than Billboard and her label) have stated that this her 2nd Studio Album. Thoughts?--Morgan3136 (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above. It's just a matter of choosing which to go by. They are both really reliable sources. We should really have a vote to see which should be used. The record label or Billboard. I think the record label would be more accurate. But Billboard is also reliable. It's hard to choose. But yes, no official source more reliable than those two sources say it's a second album.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree too. This is kind of a late reply, I know, but still. I still don't get why this is still called a studio album. I mean, Usher's EP that was released in August is 3 minutes longer than this album, and is considered an EP. With sales, The Fame & The Fame Monster are mostly combined. I think Billboard is more reliable then the label itself. I mean, they could release a 4 song EP that lasts under 20 minutes, and call it an studio album, would it be considered one? Billboard is who makes the rules for the sales and whatnot. And the argument about Madonna's album, that was back then, things are different now-a-days. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 23:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Billboard is just a charts provider and music magazine. RIAA would be the authority if you believe there is one. As you can see, The Fame Monster was certified as an album by RIAA [2]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
By the RIAA's definition many albums that are considered EPs by reliable sources are full-lengths. And we have to think about other areas outside of the US, even though Gaga is American. Billboard may just be a chart provider/magazine, but they are one of the top reliable sources in the music industry, and if they go with EP (along with Allmusic, MTV, Rolling Stone, etc. and the artist behind the album herself) we should as well. –Chase (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are already starting to refer to Born This Way as Gaga's "second full-length studio effort" (MTV) and "the follow-up to Gaga's star-making debut album The Fame" (Rolling Stone). I think that multiple reliable sources calling BTW the second studio album (also see the ones calling TFM an EP at the beginning of this section), plus Gaga stating herself that this album is an EP, is more than enough to justify the change. It is inappropriate for us to continue to refer to this album as a studio album, no matter how much some of you want to, when the majority of reliable sources simply do not agree. Boldly changing. –Chase (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed in you Chase for this move, as the situation here continuously demands scrutiny. This was an unnecessary and premature move. Gaga never called Monster as an EP, rather her second studio album. And Born This Way has not even been totally confirmed yet. I believe it was you who said, that the onset of the release of Born this Way should conform our discussion towards the EP or album status of Monster. And believe it or not, Monster is still considered an album, per Billboard as well as RIAA. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Gaga has never called it a studio album. In fact, she explicitly refers to it as an EP here and despite your comments, Billboard classes it as an EP. As well as the other sources I've provided (Slant, Rolling Stone, etc.). Those comments I made from August when it was still dubious as to what reliable sources would consider Born This Way. And indeed, MTV and Rolling Stone have already referred to it as her second full-length studio effort since the new album was confirmed just a month ago. And I'm not sure what you mean by the album not being totally confirmed: Gaga has announced the title, many reliable sources are already discussing the album, and it already is set for release next year.
None of the editors who wish for this to be called a studio album are providing sources to back it up, rather, arguing Billboard and RIAA's "rules" (which are not even specifically referred to, and despite Billboard actually calling this album an EP), even though Wikipedia is not supposed to be America-biased. –Chase (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I do get the points now and have reverted my edits, but why was it reverted back to the album version? — Legolas (talk2me) 04:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The last discussion on this topic, as seen in archive 1, was where we decided to list the release as an album. Gaga called it her "sophomore album" in an interview [3]. There has been no consensus to call it an EP and it will therefore be changed back until one is reached. If the official recording body of the US calls it a studio album as well as Gaga (though there is evidence that she has called it both), I don't think there is really a valid reason to change back. Some sources that we consider reliable are saying EP, but that is just their opinion. In a case like this, I believe we need to weigh more heavily on sources that have the "right" to classify it as an album. As for the sources in regard to BTW, they are borderline synthesis as they are not directly referring to this release. In countries where this was only part of a deluxe edition, the new album is the second, but not for everyone. Writing on a worldwide basis, this is her second and BTW is her third. Think about when different singles are released in different territories for example, "the second single and third single in country", etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
In that same article you linked, she explicitly calls the album an EP. And no sources have been posted backing up the claim that this is a studio album. Are you honestly willing to go against what Slant Magazine, Allmusic, Rolling Stone, MTV, PopMatters, LA Times, and Gaga herself have called the album? –Chase (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
And btw, there is no synthesis violation when Rolling Stone plainly calls Born This Way the followup to The Fame. –Chase (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me quote it for you: "In the midst of my creative journey composing The Fame Monster, there came an exciting revelation that this was in fact my sophomore album." I said she was inconsistent and called it both above if you read closely. Consensus has not been reached to redesignate it as an EP. So stop jumping the gun and let others chime in. You and Legolas discussing it and deciding what it should be overnight (at least for me) is not considered community consensus. As for Rolling Stone, I also offered a second explanation which is that in some countries it is her second studio album. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me quote something for you: "I would not add, nor take away any songs from this EP. It is a complete conceptual and musical body of work that can stand on its own two feet." Please stop trying to overlook this when it's plainly in the article. Gaga only called it her sophomore album, she nowhere said it was a studio album. The terms are not equivalent. And maybe she is inconsistent, but multiple reliable sources have gone with the claim that it is an EP. Where are your sources that say it is a studio album? You aren't posting any. –Chase (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Stephen chose to remove a comment I left on his talk page, I'm posting it here - my take on the so-called "consensus":

Consensus is based in reliable sources and proper arguments, not counting heads. I see no sources backing up the claim that The Fame Monster is a studio album (sophomore album ≠ studio, sorry to say) and I have posted a large count of reliable sources calling TFM an EP (including a quote from Gaga herself) and BTW the second full-length from Gaga, and I could probably find more. Unless you and other users in favor of TFM being studio are willing to post your sources, there is no consensus to refer to it as that. –Chase (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

–Chase (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus takes time. I am perfectly fine if you want to change it based on your sources, however, this notion that the two of you can just decide on your own within a few hours bothers me, especially when many people participated in the last discussion to come to that consensus. Btw, here are two studio album links, there are more, but I'm busy right now.[4][5]. I probably will not reply again on this matter as I've said what I wanted to, but my point is, hold you horses, the release has been listed as a studio album for months, a few more days is not going to kill anyone. Give others a chance.Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No bit of that last discussion had anything to do with proper sourcing, just taking the term "sophomore effort" and wrongly assuming that it means studio album. The Omaha article calls it an "album", not a studio album (EPs are albums). As for Tulsa Today, that's only one source among the many others that claim EP. –Chase (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In the UK the phsyical album was issued as a repackage of The Fame. TV adverts even said The Fame has been repackaged to include a new eight track EP. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the UK. This article needs to present information with a worldwide view. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Then where are your sources that it is considered a studio album in all other countries? –Chase (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought I made this clear. Since this is worldwide, we need to present the information without being biased towards one country. The album was released in the US as a studio album (according to RIAA) and elsewhere it was an EP, part of a deluxe edition, etc. Like when singles are released in different orders in different places or have different singles altogether, we note that in the article. By simply just changing the designation to EP, we are taking the non-US view. If RIAA calls it a studio album, I really don't think we can just disregard that. Call it an EP, but you need to say "is an EP as well as the second studio album in the US", "is an EP and studio album", or something to the like. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
RIAA is not the single definitive source, as you said, we cannot be biased towards one country (the US). Furthermore, there are multiple reliable sources calling the album an EP (including Billboard, who provides the US charting info) that you are disregarding which is unacceptable. Furthermore, by the RIAA's standards, many albums that are widely considered EPs are not (Miley Cyrus's The Time of Our Lives and Usher's Versus come to mind as recent examples) and Billboard also labels those as EPs. –Chase (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I said call it an EP. I am not the one you need to convince. I just want there to be enough time for others to comment. Look through the archives and see how many times we've discussed this. As I just said, RIAA is not the only source we should use, but its information certainly is not false, which is why we should note that it is also considered her second studio album. I'm not going to look through all of the discussions and gather the numerous sources for that statement for you. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not widely considered her second studio album. It cannot be both. Reliable sources are mostly going with EP. And I'm pretty sure several users have contributed to this discussion saying that it should be changed. There is consensus, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. –Chase (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, I have looked through the archives, and none of the EP vs. studio debates provided any sources other than where Gaga calls it her sophomore effort (despite the fact that she calls it an EP in the same article) and various sources that simply call it an "album" (which EPs actually are, just shorter). –Chase (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I said several times that I didn't mind if it was changed, I just wanted to give it some time so we can settle this and not have another discussion later on when someone else tries to challenge. You don't need to prove anything to me. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If you, I, and several other editors who have contributed to this discussion are in agreeance that the album should be regarded as an EP, there is no point in leaving it as a studio album (when RSes and Gaga contradict such claims) for a few days. The matter is basically settled and of course it will be challenged, but we can point users to this discussion. –Chase (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you feel it is time and you are confident defending it, then by all means go ahead and make the changes. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe I missed this discussion about it. But yes, everything Chase said was true. She never said this was a studio album, she said it an EP and her sophomore effort. No where did she call it a studio album. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 21:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I STRONGLY DISAGREE if someone call The Fame Monster is an "EP". The Fame Monster is normally considered as an EP just because of its somewhat short length. BUT it widely acts like her sophomore album with 4 official singles, 3 music videos, 1 massive tour supporting for it. I can declare that there is no EP which can be heavily supported as an album like that! We called it an album, then left it! I can't believe we switch it back as "EP" status just because people call it an "EP", instead of considering how it worked. – †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers – 05:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I can see your point of view, but that is simply original research. Many reliable sources and even Gaga herself have called TFM an EP. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
...Then we should have called "The Fame Monster (EP)" before changing that status again and again.... =__= I've read some MTV News' articles, seeing that they usually call The Fame Monster an album. Can we count 'em? – †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers – 12:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Listen guys. "The Fame Monster" is an studio album. According to the RIAA, albums (and EP's) are judged by how long they are. Under 30 minutes is an EP. Exactly 30 minutes or over is an album. I see most people are arguing about the two because of the amount of tracks. But nobody had a problem with Madonna's album, that was 8 tracks, and only a little bit longer than "The Fame Monster", and that's ALWAYS called an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOne (talk • contribs) 23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources call the album an EP. Not many sources call it a full-length studio album. So no, it will not be changed. Having this continually brought up is rather annoying - Wikipedia just reports what reliable sources say, and if we were to call it a studio album based on users' opinions, we would not be reporting what reliable sources say. Deal with it already. –Chase (talk · contribs) 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/detail.aspx?pid=2412 This site (her official one) states that it is an album. She has referred to it as her sophomore album. Numerous links refer to the following album as her third. How is it not an albumm???? Mrmoocow (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
EPs are albums. Gaga has called the album an EP, and never explicitly called it a studio album. Provide sources calling Born This Way her third studio album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
          This is from ladygaga.wikia.com:Lady Gaga mentioned at multiple occasions

that "[She] would not add, nor take away any songs from [the] EP." (Note: the 8 track standard edition is her second studio album, not an EP.) End of dispute. Iamdjk (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)iamdjk

Listen, Gaga herself has called "Born This Way" her THIRD studio album. If "The Fame" is her debut album, where's the second album? It obviously is "The Fame Monster". I don't see why we must keep arguing. It seems quite immature. Gaga has called it her sophomore album, which means her SECOND album. It is an album. Sophomore album would not equal an EP... 75.34.181.186 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
EP = album second album does not make it a STUDIO album. TbhotchTalk C. 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
A studio album technically means it was recorded in a studio. If it's called an EP, how is it an album at the same time? They are not equal. "Born This Way" is her THIRD STUDIO ALBUM, Gaga has said it herself. If "The Fame" is her first studio album, what the hell is her second studio album? It's obviously "The Fame Monster". 75.34.181.186 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
See WP:SYNTHESIS. Better get a source of Gaga calling TFM her second studio album if you want to get a point. TbhotchTalk C. 04:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Until you provide reliable sources, your claim has no worth. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's something. Donna Summer's album "Love to Love You Baby" was 6 tracks long, and lasted 36 minutes. Not much longer than "The Fame Monster". Why should this really be classified an EP, and "Love to Love You Baby" not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.212.24 (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because we have sources calling this album an EP. It should be noted that this Donna Summer album was released in the '70s, when full-length albums were shorter than they are today due to technical restrictions. That album as well as others of its time were considered LPs then (and are considered LPs still due to their release date) but would likely be considered EPs if released today. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Aren't we over and over and dead and gone off this discussion? Geez IPs, why don't you read what is written beneath the talk header for a change? Wasting others times. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Recently, people have been fighting over if The Fame Monster is a studio album or an EP. I think a big part of the people fighting for Studio Album is because they think if it's an EP, it's technically not Gaga's sophomore album. That is incorrect. An EP is an album, but not a STUDIO album, despite the fact that many are studio recordings. By studio album, I mean a full out LP. A majority of the people fighting for EP are thinking this because of the length of tracks (8), but that is untrue... It could consist of 8 10-minute tracks, which would make it a studio album. I, Emma, think it--, no, KNOW it-- is an EP: The length for an EP maximum is 40 minutes, exactly. Most EP's are under that, and the Fame Monster is no exception. It is 34 minutes (ish), and is an EP. Also, Gaga herself has called it an EP, among telling us how many tracks it will have, and other information. THOUGH it is an EP, it is STILL GAGA'S SOPHOMORE ALBUM. This differs from other EP's she's come out with, or remix albums, etc. The Fame Monster acts, and has been called, Lady Gaga's sophomore album, so this supports that fact. Sequence: Debut album (studio album): The Fame. Sophomore album (EP): The Fame Monster - EP. Third album (studio album): Born This Way. Some of you may disagree with me, some of you may agree 75.26.254.185 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ep?

Ok, TFM has only 8 new tracks...but why is it an EP? Lady Gaga has always talked about it as her second studio album (That's why she said "I'm really excited about my third album..." when talking about Born This Way), because she also released it as a stand-alone album, without The Fame. 8 songs is less than on a normal studio album, but I don't think it makes it an EP...in the '80s many artists released albums with 8-9 tracks, and we talk about them as studio albums... --Sricsi (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not based on what the difference is between a studio album and extended play, it is based on what a certain reliable sources are calling it. We can't self-assign it a type based on what we feel it should be after considering the descriptions of studio albums and EPs, that would be original research. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, Gaga's never called the album a studio album. However, she has called it an EP. –Chase (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, however, although TFM is indeed referred to as an EP, it is also her second album, studio or not. Therefore, it needs to be listed in the discography section under her page. I would understand if she referred to Born This Way as her second album, but she herself has referred to it as her THIRD album. Frankly, technicalities and terms should be ignored in this instance and we should go off what she has said; yes she has referred to TFM as an EP, but she has also indeed referred to it as her second album, along with Born This Way as her third. Jpagan09 (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
EPs are actually albums, just as compilations or studio albums are. Technically speaking, The Fame Monster would be her fourth album, as she released two other EPs between The Fame and TFM. Gaga has never referred to TFM as a full-length studio album and thus we will not refer to it as such. –Chase (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It is NOT an EP. Lady Gaga intended it to be an extension of "The Fame", but decided that "The Fame Monster" was strong enough to be its own creature. This came from her own mouth. It's an album. 34 minutes = album, per the RIAA's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.122.109 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually an album is over 36 minutes, either way, we follow what sources states, and above are many sources which call this, including Stefani herself, as an EP. TbhotchTalk C. 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Stefani stated that it's an ALBUM, not an EP. This is not up for debate. Also, the RIAA records it as a studio album. 23:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowayjoesay (talk • contribs)
"Originally conceived as a bonus disc to accompany a reissue of The Fame, her four million-selling debut album, Monster is now being released as a record in its own right. "In the midst of my creative journey composing The Fame Monster, there came an exciting revelation that this was in fact my sophomore album," the Lady herself explains. "It's a complete conceptual and musical body of work that can stand on its own two feet." [6]

Are you sure that she called it studio album? TbhotchTalk C. 23:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lady wikia is not a reliable source. TbhotchTalk C. 23:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)]
IT'S HER EXACT QUOTE. WHAT CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND??! Here is the official press release: [7] Now, please, can we stop this nonsense? Nowayjoesay (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
DO NOT SHOUT is disruptive. Second "sophomore" does not mean exclusively "studio album" it means the second of something, she never called it an studio album, but she called it an EP. More sources above state the same. TbhotchTalk C. 23:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
""In the midst of my creative journey composing The Fame Monster, there came an exciting revelation that this was in fact my sophomore album. I would not add, nor take away any songs from this EP; it is a complete conceptual and musical body of work that can stand on its own two feet. It doesn't need The Fame.

The end. I have proven it. Now, get over it.Nowayjoesay (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sophomore.- is a term used in the United States ... is also used as a synonym for "second", -> Nowhere states that "studio albums" are only sophomore. Anyway it prove that a video, EP or other kind of album are sophomores.
Album.- An album or record album is a collection of related audio or music tracks distributed to the public. -> nowhere is a "studio" only. An EP, Remix, video, compilation, greatest hits are albums.
Studio album.- A studio album is an album made up of tracks recorded in the controlled environment of a recording studio.
Extended play.- is a musical recording which contains more music than a single, but is too short to qualify as a full album or LP.
The problem here, you are a fan, and like I always say, fans are never satisfied. Many sources state it an EP, including her, the argue "RIAA called it album" does not prove anything. TbhotchTalk C. 23:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"I would not add, nor take away any songs from this EP". Until she backtracks and explicitly calls it a studio album, it's not changing. –Chase (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not hard to do a quick google search with key words like "lady gaga" and "third album" to find numerous quotes by her in which she calls TFM her second album and BTW her third. Here's one of them: “The Fame Monster really is a new album, so I guess it’s kind of my second album, and then I’ll put out a third album I guess next year.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.167.244 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that TFM isn't her second album. You don't seem to understand that an EP is a type of album. The source you need to find must say studio album. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe she cares for such technicality when giving a promo interview? You and I both know that a 'studio' album is exactly what she implies. You cannot argue with this because if Gaga did want to get technical about it, she would have stated in that interview that TFM was her 4th album and BTW to be her 6th album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.167.244 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
She called it an EP in the article you are sourcing. While studio album could be left to interpretation, she clearly calls it an EP in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The article I was sourcing actually does not call it an EP but I'm aware of the interview she gave in which she did. However, she's been very inconsistent with her terminology. One thing she is consistent of is calling BTW her third album (studio no doubt) which would mean TFM was her second studio effort. In any case, the edit is premature. You guys should have at least waited until BTW is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.167.244 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
We're going with what reliable sources - and Gaga - have said, at the moment. Please provide sources where she calls Born This Way her third studio album and it can be considered. –Chase (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"The singer’s third studio album Born This Way is set to be released early next year." This is sourced from http://gagadaily.com/ (third picture down) which is run by people who personally know and have contact with Gaga herself. This was also the same site which first confirmed that Alejandro was going to be her last international single from TFM.110.33.179.232 (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

She may call it an "EP" but anything over 30 minutes in length is officially considered a LP. She is mistaken in calling it an EP, as it is officially a studio album. --Cprice1000talk2me 20:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Source? Yves (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The UK considers it a studio album. Also see The Fame Monster on Amazon and The Cherrytree Sessions on Amazon. Notice how on the Cherrytree Sessions' info, it says "EP" but on The Fame Monster, EP is not present. --Cprice1000talk2me 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Same thing on iTunes. Cherrytree Sessions has EP on it;The Fame Monster does not. --Cprice1000talk2me 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no format field for The Fame Monster. And Amazon.com and the iTunes Store are just retailers. You can't prove something by not having something. Fundamental principle of science and logic. Yves (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
All the info is entered by the companies. I just proved that it is not an EP as The Cherrytree Sessions is labeled as "Cherrytree Sessions (Live) - EP" on iTunes but it is just "The Fame Monster" for TFM. Also, on Amazon, format is only specified if it is an EP, Single, or Max-Single but it is unecessary if it is an album and therefore not shown. See The Fame and Telephone - EP for more examples. Format is described as EP in Telephone, not specified on The Fame. iTunes is the same see how Bad Romance (Remixes) is specified as an EP but The Fame Monster does not have it. --Cprice1000talk2me 15:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you know what sythesis is? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was an EP, iTunes would have it tagged as one. Since it doesn't it's not, as iTunes information is entered by the record companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That does not mean anything... iTunes does not tag "The Time of Our Lives" by Miley Cyrus as an EP and it's obviously one. Decodet (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the company's word. Hollywood Records may feel 7 songs is too long to be called an EP, so they did not label it as one. --Cprice1000talk2me 18:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
They did label it as an EP but did not tag it as one on iTunes. That's my point. Decodet (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Where? --Cprice1000talk2me 19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not the point of the discussion but feel free to read Cyrus' article and you'll see sources labelling it as an EP although iTunes tags it as an album. All I want to say is that we can't use retailers as sources - they are not always correct. AllMusic and GaGa herself are definitely more reliable than iTunes. Decodet (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Must I always repeat myself? iTunes gets there information from the record companies! They enter the information into iTunes. GaGa's and Cyrus' label thought TFM and TTOOL were EPs, they would be tagged as so. --Cprice1000talk2me 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question, "No." And source? Yves (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, iTunes only tags things as EPs to differentiate from a single. Eg [8] is not tagged as an EP, but clearly is one, while [9] is more of an extended single than an EP. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The only reason Gin Wigmore's EP is not tagged "- EP" is because it is called "Extended Play," and I'm sure iTunes and her company feels that that's redundant. Also, the thing about "Choose You" is unrelated to this discussion. --Cprice1000talk2me 12:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure is not a reliable source, we can search many EPs that are not called EPs and you'll find many excuses for why are not tagged as EPs. If I were you, I would drop the stick (essays, but I would recommend you to read them). TbhotchTalk C. 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ke$ha's new EP, Cannibal, is on iTunes. It doesn't say "- EP" at the end, but it is called an EP, and classified as one without a problem. Does this mean it's a studio album instead, and we've all been lied to? Gosh. TFM is an EP, get over it. 75.26.254.185 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But if by "Album" she meant both albums and EPs, then Born This Way would be called her sixth album. She calls it the third one though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.205.41 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Recently, people have been fighting over if The Fame Monster is a studio album or an EP. I think a big part of the people fighting for Studio Album is because they think if it's an EP, it's technically not Gaga's sophomore album. That is incorrect. An EP is an album, but not a STUDIO album, despite the fact that many are studio recordings. By studio album, I mean a full out LP. A majority of the people fighting for EP are thinking this because of the length of tracks (8), but that is untrue... It could consist of 8 10-minute tracks, which would make it a studio album. I, Emma, think it--, no, KNOW it-- is an EP: The length for an EP maximum is 40 minutes, exactly. Most EP's are under that, and the Fame Monster is no exception. It is 34 minutes (ish), and is an EP. Also, Gaga herself has called it an EP, among telling us how many tracks it will have, and other information. THOUGH it is an EP, it is STILL GAGA'S SOPHOMORE ALBUM. This differs from other EP's she's come out with, or remix albums, etc. The Fame Monster acts, and has been called, Lady Gaga's sophomore album, so this supports that fact. Sequence: Debut album (studio album): The Fame. Sophomore album (EP): The Fame Monster - EP. Third album (studio album): Born This Way. Some of you may disagree with me, some of you may agree 75.26.254.185 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not true. The maxinum length for an EP is 30 minutes, non 40 --Masónico (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's 30, then The Fame Monster would be an LP. But it's an EP. The max length IS 40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.135.101 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what i try to say: The Fame Monster is an STUDIO ALBUM --201.231.174.183 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Vote on EP or LP

I want a vote on whether this should be considered a studio album or an EP. Similar to a deletion discussion, place EP or LP below and then (optionally) add a reason why it should be an EP or an LP. I am aware of WP:VOTE, but this has become a major issue. Whether it should be considered an EP or a full-length studio album in the article will be decided in a week. (Monday October 25, 2010 at 11:38 AM Central) --Cprice1000talk2me 16:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's only a "major issue" to those that make it so. Personally, I do not think it is so, and voting isn't going to help (see above; all arguments for studio album have been shot down). Yves (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It has been already discussed, there are a lot of reliable references (not retailers or fan sites) and the concensus was reached - The Fame Monster is an EP. I don't see a reason to vote for something already decided. Decodet (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Could've just said EP

LP 1. GaGa called Born This Way her 3rd studio album 2. It's not marked as an "EP" on iTunes or Amazon, which get their info from the record companies. --Cprice1000talk2me 18:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Where and when? 2. Again, you can't prove something because something doesn't exist. You can't say there are no living dinosaurs because you can't find any. Yves (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Close this poll Wikipedia is not a democracy. TbhotchTalk C. 18:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree; it's not gonna do anything discussion isn't going to do. Yves (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:VINE --Cprice1000talk2me 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:VINE is an essay while WP:VOTE is a guideline. Yves (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Either way, voting is not forbidden. --Cprice1000talk2me 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Is forbidden because you know that many fans will start adding that is a studio album, see all people above. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. TbhotchTalk C. 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yet, it never states that all polls must be closed and voting is never an option. --Cprice1000talk2me 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is if you can't successfully argue your view and back it up in the section above, a poll isn't going to change anything. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes I can and did. 2. Discussion is in the section above. --Cprice1000talk2me 19:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If it was successful, people would no longer disagree with you. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
A vote is inappropriate considering that a consensus was reached. Lots of opinions were discussed and the decisions to change it to an EP were made based on the quality of relative arguments. The numbers in agreement/disagreement are of lesser importance. Having a vote/poll is only necessary when there is no clear conclusion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting can not replace proper discussion (see WP:VOTE) and I see no sources from the people who want it changed to studio album. I keep seeing "Lady Gaga said this" and "Lady Gaga said that", yet no sources explicitly calling it a studio album. Whereas, many reliable sources and Gaga herself have called the album an EP. –Chase (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you'll actually look above, this has been discussed and all people providing proper arguments (ie, using reliable sources to back their claims) are in support of calling it an EP. Start a new discussion if you don't like the consensus, not a vote. –Chase (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? Cuz it's only you 5 who have shown they want it as an EP. You have only replied more than all the others combined so it seems everybody wants it as an extended play. --Cprice1000talk2me 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not about "[wanting] it as an EP"; it's about verifiable evidence. Personally, I don't, but after seeing the sources presented above, it's hard to admit it's not an EP. Yves (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem completely averse to the fact that a discussion took place where reliable sources and evidence were presented showing that the recording in question is an EP. So far you've screamed and shoted quite a lot but you havent actually presented a counter argument. WP:Consensus has some useful information on how one should decide on whether a consensus has reached. An outcome of the discussion is not determined by the number of votes or who screams loudest. It is the quality of arguments presented with supporting evidence. Now if you came to this discussion with a counter-argument with X, Y and Z sources saying this is why I think its wrong then everyone would be happy to discuss and debate further. But trying to substitute that with a vote because you don't have a counter argument doesn't wash. Why are you so against this being called an EP? No one is devaluing EPs, they are an extremely important part of an artists discography, and as Gaga did with The Fame Monster, Usher with Versus and Kesha with Cannibal they're a way of releasing more content without beginning a new chapter so to speak. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this an issue outside of wiki? Are there sources discussing whether it's an EP or album? Christopher Connor (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup: #Studio album vs. EP. Yves (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant sources specifically covering the dispute, say a source saying "Gaga considers it an EP, but others think different", rather than sources saying it's an EP/studio album, at conflict with each other, and without acknowledging the other side. If there are, we can add this to the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so; I mean, I haven't found any. I don't think any newspapers or magazines would spend time arguing this kind of thing, especially when it's pretty much agreed everywhere it's an EP. Yves (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's referred to as an album on her label's website See. GaGaDaily also called it a studio album as they call Born This Way her third studio album here. MTV also called it an album here, here,and here. Also, look at all these websotes that call Born This Way her third studio, which makes The Fame Monster her second album. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Gaga announced that her third studio album is titled..." is a sentence written by GagaDaily: a well-written website, but not a reliable source. You have to realize EP's are albums. It has to be specified that it's studio. And "Born This Way her third studio, which makes The Fame Monster her second album" is a great example of WP:SYNTH. If Born This Way was ever called her third studio album, that is not a source that The Fame Monster is her second studio album. Maybe she was referring to The Remix. You don't know this. Yves (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Gagadaily is a fansite
All sources states that TFM is an album (read the concept), none of those say that it is a studio album. Also assume that TFM is her second album just because BTW is her third album is Original research, The Remix could be her second album, remember that this was her deluxe edition. TbhotchTalk C. 01:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An EP is an album. It's not called a "studio album"—which after all is what you want the page to be—in any of your linked articles. In one of them, it does refer to BTW as her third studio, but doesn't say that TFM was her second. remember WP:SYNTHESIS as stated above. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What else would be her second, as The Remix is a remix album and deluxe edition are not studio albums as studio albums are new material. MTV also never even mentions EP in any of their articles on The Fame Monster. They would call it a stand-alone EP not stand-alone album.--Cprice1000talk2me 01:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaga has called the album an EP. Until she backtracks and explicitly calls it a studio album, it will not change. –Chase (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What GaGa says is not official and is not what her label feels. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And what does the label feel? Sources? –Chase (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • sigh* Please, please, read this that I have had to repeat ten times: iTunes gets their information from the record labels that distribute the music on their store. All the information is entered by the companies and then tagged as such on iTunes. If it was an EP, it would be labelled as an EP, like "The Cherrytree Sessions (Live) - EP" or "Telephone (Remixes) - EP." --Cprice1000talk2me 01:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What Gaga say is not official? Did not you say GaGa called Born This Way her 3rd studio album. You need to re-organize what you say if you do not what to contradict yourself. TbhotchTalk C. 01:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
First of all, you need to provide sources saying that record labels tell iTunes to label albums as EPs. Second of all, neither Versus by Usher nor The Time of Our Lives by Miley Cyrus are labeled as EPs on iTunes - like The Fame Monster, they are widely considered by reliable sources as EPs. –Chase (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, The Time of our Lives is an EP iTunes called it EP? No? It is officially a studio album because iTunes didn't did it? TbhotchTalk C. 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not official. The record labels just feel that Versus and The Time Of Our Lives are long enough to be considered studio albums. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Source? Yves (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

iTunes is the source as th- no read the above. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, as above, you can't prove something by non-proof. Yves (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You need an explicit comment from the record label, not a retailer listing. A general retailer listing says nothing. And Wikipedia was not being used as a source for Versus and TTOOL - reliable sources call those albums EPs.
This discussion really needs to be closed for good. It's the same invalid, original research/synthesis arguments popping up again. It's an EP until we get an official, explicit statement from Gaga or her label saying otherwise. –Chase (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And Cprice1000, you might wish to look again at this discussion, where several sources much more reliable than retailers like iTunes call the album an EP. One such source includes a quote from Gaga herself where she calls it an EP. If you do not wish to argue your point without restating previous arguments (all of which, frankly, have been invalid) or providing sources, I will be more than willing to close this discussion and any other discussion regarding the matter. –Chase (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have proof of what Chase is saying and for why was Cprice is saying is wrong. see below... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Practical example of why iTunes is not reliable

If you look at Commander (song) by Kelly Rowland, the list the digital EP as an album as shown in this iTunes url: http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/commander-feat-david-guetta/id375158557, even though its clear that the the release in question is an EP release of single and remixes. now are you seriously suggesting to me that Universal Motown told iTunes to sell the digital EP of "Commander" as an album? and also can you then explain why "Commander" charted on the singles chart if it was released as an album? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also don't get me started on iTunes release dates! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, cuz I see "- EP" at the end meaning that is is tagged as an EP. --Cprice1000talk2me 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Which part of /au/album/commander-feat-david-guetta/ in the URL can you not see? You were the one who said... The uRL even says album... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The main point, above anything, is that iTunes is not the only source available. There are many sources more reliable than a retailer that call the album an EP. Same reason we have Miley and Usher's albums labeled as EPs, because reliable sources call them such. –Chase (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice one Lil-unique. Its been confiirmed that this is an EP. Why the whole fuss I don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.212.58 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? Where's your source autosigned IP? I don't get why this is being brought up again. It has already been talked about several times. It sounds like to me mostly her fans are upset over this. It makes no sense to me and shouldn't be tolerated. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It is definetly an album!!! It says explictily in this info page on her labels offcial site: http://www.interscope.com/artist/releases/detail.aspx?pid=2448&aid=599]</ref>. Under format, it says studio! And it even says "her new AlBUM." IT specifies E.P. under The Cherrytree sessions page: [ttp://www.interscope.com/artist/releases/detail.aspx?pid=2082&aid=599 http://www.interscope.com/artist/releases/detail.aspx?pid=2082&aid=599] I vote for the fact, which is, that its a STUDIO ALBUM! PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not say "studio" for the format, but "album". An EP is a type of album. Yves (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
GAGA herself called the album an EP. On TV Interscope promoted the album as an EP. In light of recent releases by Usher (Versus) and Kesha (Cannibal) the composition of the two latter the releases is the same as The Fame Monster yet both are clearly labelled EPs. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Whered you watch that, User:Lil-unique1back it up! PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Plus My World 2.0 is an studio album by Justin Bieber, and its only 37:37 long! TFM is 34:09 long!!! PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What's your point? Yves (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A better point is that we should defer to the primary source as to what is and what is not considered an album or extended play or even a single. If Lady Gaga and Interscope refer to The Fame Monster as her second album, then by all means use the "studio_album" qualifier in the infobox and refer to it as an album throughout Wikipedia. What a bunch of newspapers say should not change what is and is not considered an album.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

An EP is an album, so it is her second album (or second major release) anyway. They never claimed The Fame Monster as Gaga's second STUDIO album. Decodet (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Now you're splitting hairs. If they call it an EP and it has 15 tracks, we call it an EP. If they call it an album and it only has 5 tracks, then we should call it a studio album.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
An EP is an album. Yves (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but this was never promoted as an extended play.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
neither as a studio album. TbhotchTalk C. 20:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it wasn't promoted as one, but it was referred to as one by the artist herself. Link in the message box at the top of this talk page... –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/34692/Lady-Gaga-The-Fame-Monster/

http://top40.about.com/od/albums/fr/ladygagathefamemonster.htm

http://bubblegumway.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/review-lady-gaga-the-fame-monster/

http://music.ign.com/articles/104/1049183p1.html

=> I guess my examples proving The Fame Monster is the sophomore album will NOT be supported. right?! :( – †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers – 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

First link is user-added content, third link is a blog. Second link does not support your claim. The fourth link is the only one that does. However, there are many more reliable sources that call the album an EP, and Gaga has called it one as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Sophomore release doesn't mean second studio album. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 01:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


LP Lady Gaga made it very clear The Fame Monster is her second studio album. Many albums released in the 80s had about 8 tracks and Born This Way is going to be Lady Gaga's 3rd album. Israell (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, EPs are albums. And where is your source for this alleged clarity? Yves (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is... The Fame Monster IS Lady Gaga's second studio album. She made it very clear in interviews. Born This Way is gonna be her third studio album. Right now, the Lady Gaga studio album chronology on Wikipedia says: "The Fame, Born This Way" and it isn't correct. It should say: "The Fame, The Fame Monster, Born This Way." Israell (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And where are these interviews? She has never stated The Fame Monster is her second studio album, but has stated it is an EP; you can see the sources at the top of the page. Yves (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I found this quote: "I have a really big announcement to make tonight," Gaga said on the show. "I have been fighting with my record label because my album as a re-release was entirely too expensive for my fans. So last night I ripped it in half!" http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1625933/20091110/lady_gaga.jhtml

Here, Lady Gaga says The Fame Monster is a body of work on its own and a complete finigshed editing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9amwRpxNK_8

So, an EP and a sophomore album can't be a studio album? Hitmixes is an EP and a remix album. The Fame Monster, whether seen as an EP or LP, is a studio album as well. It's okay to label The Fame Monster an EP but The Fame Monster shall be listed amongst Lady Gaga's studio albums as well, otherwise it's kind of misleading. Many studio albums had 8 tracks in the eighties (Madonna's first album, for instance). So now, just because an album has 8 tracks and is labeled an EP, it can't be a studio album?Israell (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

All EPs (excepting compilations) are recorded in studios, yes are studio albums, but by its lenght they are cataloged as EPs. "because my album as a..." if she would say "because my studio album as a..." would be a different topic. TbhotchTalk C. 04:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd note that she does indeed call Born This Way her third studio album in this video, but I'm not changing anything right now as this requires a good bit of discussion, since we have many sources calling The Fame Monster an EP (and we still have that quote from Gaga). Opinions? –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Here's what I think. Madonna's 3 first albums, Madonna, Like a Virgin and True Blue only had 8 or 9 tracks (until they got re-issued) but were always considered studio albums, LPs, not EPs.

I see that Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster and Ke$ha's Cannibal are considered EPs. Following that logic, a proper studio album should comprise a minimum of 10 tracks... And all albums that were considered LPs and studio albums that have less than 10 tracks should now be considered EPs...

Do you see how illogical it is? It's okay for The Fame Monster and Cannibal to be labeled and considered EPs but I still see those records as studio albums.

The Fame Monster has 8 tracks. Cannibal, 9. Those records ain't compilations, soundtracks or remix albums. They are complete ensemble of brand-new material. That's why both records should be included in the studio album chronology on Wikipedia, not just the EP one.

Now that Gaga herself called Born This Way her third studio album, I vote that The Fame Monster is listed on Wikipedia as a studio album, whether or not it remains in the EP category. Israell (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If she seriously calls it her third studio album, why should we say there is only 2? I was just beginning to adjust to it being an EP and now there is her saying third album. --Cprice1000talk2me 22:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fame_Monster/Archive_2&oldid=1222734365"