Talk:The Fame/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Fame Monster Final Tracklist

Universal Music Japan has confirmed "The Fame Monster" Tracklisting. Here it is...

Disc 1: The Monster Side
01. Bad Romance (Prod. by RedOne)
02. Alejandro (Prod. by RedOne)
03. Monster (Prod. by RedOne)
04. So Happy I Could Die (Prod. by RedOne)
05. Speechless (Prod. by Ron Fair)
06. Dance In The Dark (Prod. by Fernando Garibay)
07. Telephone (Prod. by Rodney Jerkins)
08. Teeth (Prod. by Teddy Riley)

Disc 2: The Fame Side
Same as Japan Edition of "The Fame"

Rejected Tracks: "Filthy Pop" "No Way" "Fever"

• note "Fever" went to Adam Lambert and will be released on his debut album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandmwebshow (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Source:http://www.universal-music.co.jp/u-pop/artist/lady_gaga/uics9113.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.1.218 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

its tea not teeth like the drink tea cant anyone translate japaneese properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.63.54 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not Japanese! I am Indian. I used a Translator software to translate it and it showed teeth. Its not fool proof. Don't holla at me! People are very well welcome to make the corrections. I did my job!

Background

Quote:

As well as writing the lyrics, Gaga worked on the melodies and synth work of the album with record producer RedOne. According to her, the song is a joyous, heart-themed song which appeal to people going through tough times in their life.

Which song are we talking about there? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternate monster covers

Was it actually stated those were the regular and deluxe edition covers? I've looked on Facebook and Gaga's site and I don't see that..... ---Shadow (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Even I can;t find confirmation. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a feelign the one with the blond wig should go as its not difficult to visualize Gaga with a blond bod cut nowadays. The other one with black hair can stay as it is starkingly opposite from what she is portrayed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the one with the blond wig looks as though it is in the dimensions of a slipcase, meaning that it may be a special edition. I am tending to think that the one with the black hair is the regular artwork. It portrays a different image to what is usually known to most, therefore it would be more noteworthy. • вяαdcяochat 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So we can all agree that the third alternate cover (Gaga with black hair) is to be included while omitting the second? — ξ^xplicit 15:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Charmed36 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)==The Fame Monster is NOT a re-release, it is GaGa's second album== YES!!!, it is...and it should have its own article.....On October 27, 2009, GaGa was interviewd By Q100 Atlanta radio station, and she said that The Fame Monster is her sophmore album, not a re-release...she also said that she will release 4 singles from it...also, Pop Justice confirmed that The Fame Monster is no a re-release, but GaGa's second studio album indeed: "We know a lot of you are thinking that this is just a cash-in reissue of 'The Fame' with a few tracks chucked on. It's not that at all - this is a collection of songs in its own right. When you buy this you will not be buying 'The Fame' again in order to get at a couple of extra songs - you'll be buying a new album which just so happens to have a copy of 'The Fame' in the same box. If it helps make sense of things, imagine purchasing 'The Fame Monster' 2-disc set then throwing the 'The Fame' CD away. In fact that is what you should actually do when you get this. Throw 'The Fame' out of the window. 'The Fame Monster' is a real album with its own personality....'Monster' and 'Bad Romance' have elements of 'Just Dance' and 'Poker Face' but these seem like knowing nods back in the direction of 'The Fame', while other songs - 'Dance In The Dark', 'Teeth' hint at what lies ahead for the next, third Lady Gaga album".

Sorry the ref doesnot say so rather it speculates it to be a separate album. Gagadaily is a fansite and unreliable source. Untill an official announcement or the way Billboard considers it to be a sophomore release, it will stay as a part of this album. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The album is considered a re-release due to the fact that, if the album was not re-release it wouldn't have the original album as a second disc. It would just be a single disc album, which would feature all newly recorded 8 tracks. --Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you legolas and sticky...i agree with this user that this is her second album, becuase thats what GaGa said in this interview: "So, Here we are on Z100, i will say that The Fame Monster is a sophmore effort and its a new album , it has 8 new songs..and i will be touring just as long for this album as much as i did for the fame and i belive it will have four singles...".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.8.103 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Untill and unless an official confirmation from a third party comes, this will stay as it is. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Legolas. Looks like the Monster is in fact her sophomore album, or at least she considers it to be. Here's [DELETED] from a blog which features an interview with BET's 106 & Park where she confirms it (on part 2). I'm not sure what her label or press releases will be officially saying, but LG definitely considers it to be her second studio album. Any ideas on how you're going to proceed? (I know the link I provided isn't reliable, but the interview ITSELF is, so we could find another link soon). Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Press release denotes it as a re-release as well as Billboard. Hence the third party and commercial charting sources like that is taken into consideration rather than a primary source like Gaga herself. So this will be take as a re-release only. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that experienced on WP policy when it comes to this sort of stuff, but it seems silly to go by a label rather than the artist herself. At what point does it become what we know officially (through reliable sources), or what we know to be the real truth (Gaga calling it her second album)? I definitely know what you're saying, but shouldn't we go by what she says, rather than the distributers of the album? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not going by the distributors or the label, rather the publication which will determine its commercial reception ie Billboard. They consider it as a re-release and hence we don't have any choice rather than accept it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

THE FAME MOSTER IS THE SECOND ALBUM OF GAGA SHE CONFIRM THAT ON BET’S 106 & PARK

She also confirmed it on the German TV-Show "Wetten dass...?" on October 7 '09. --It's Flo (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

She said on Wetten Dass that there will be two versions of the album. One with only 8 tracks and another version including her previous effort, "The Fame", as long as the press, Billboard and her label consider it as a re-release it's still a re-release/repackage or whatever it is. I suggest we wait until major press talks about it or until the first week of retail, If it counts towards "The Fame" sales, it's a re-release (as it was before she announced this "standard version")... --Zefron12 (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a new album. Billboard will count it as a separate album, her manager confirmed it to me. COMPLETELY new album. Kirill, gagadaily.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.227.40 (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's too early for Gaga's sophomore album. But until this change, The Fame Monster sales would count towards The Fame sales, so it's a bit unfair to have The Fame coming as a second album on a deluxe version. Although I believe you, Kirill, We can't take that as a reliable source so far. --Zefron12 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Zefro12 says, "I think it's too early for Gaga's sophomore album." Gaga and her label releases a second album when they want to. If she said it's her second album then it is. Charmed36 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad what you "think" is too early for a sophmore album is what really counts Zefron12. (NYKenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.70.8 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it too early for a second album? Cascada released their first album in feb 07 then their second album in dec 07, GaGa has confirmed The Fame Monster as her second album, put the page back to how it was (a seperate album). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that to be taken in as relevant to not consider this a separate opinion. I just happened to have accidentally expressed my personal opinion. She can release a new album whenever she wants... I just think this is all a little messy... --Zefron12 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster album cover

The current cover art that is posted for the Fame Monster (with make up running down gagas face) is actually the art for the "Limited Edition Digipack".

The art for the standard Fame Monster is the picture with Gaga wearing a shiny jacket that covers her mouth. Here's the link from her site that says so:

http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/

The first two albums show the art work for both editions of the fame monster. You should just identify one as "Standard" and the other as "Limited Edition" or something along those lines.

Blond hair cover = CD Black hair/eyeliner cover = Digipack

according to her website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.158 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.24.192 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster is Sophmore Album

Lady Gaga said it on American Top 40. How would I cite that and should if be its own separate article? 24.107.238.158 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be it's own separate article. She confirmed that The Fame Monster disc is being released on its own, with just the 8 new songs. The deluxe edition will include The Fame as a bonus. It needs its own article, its a new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.127.192 (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

First, not because it is/supposed to be a new album makes it a new article worthy, it can be easily merged to the biography, that depends of the amount of info we got.

Second, we still needs reliable sources covering this information. The only article covering this information by now comes from Examiner.com which is blacklisted. Sparks Fly 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What about from an official Twitter source? Like Cherry Tree Records? Or even a video of her announcement on Wetten Dass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.195.203 (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The video can not be used since videos are not allowed in Wikipedia as sources. And I'm not sure about the Twitter, can you post the link? Sparks Fly 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster has been made into a second article: The Fame Monster. It has been confirmed as a "sophomore" album. Please remove The Fame redirect link from The Fame Monster. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzHL8Z85SGs <-- the video of ...Wetten Dass? - Sdoo493

Well, I tried, so wait and see what happens now. Sparks Fly 23:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you guys actually payed attention to more then one of her interviews, she says she refers to it as her second album because she doesn't like the concept of releases. Also, it is being released as a stand alone disc so that those who already bought The Fame don't have to buy the album again. It is a re-release, plain and simple. ---Shadow (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Billboard already stated The Fame Monster is a re-issue of The Fame, not a separate studio albums and all singles and sales will be credited to The Fame. Chart 'Monster' Ask Billboard: Going Gaga For Album Re-Releases. I will redirect the useless second article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster is NOT a re-release. It was originally planned to be a re-release, but Lady Gaga stated in an interview on the German TV-show ‘Wetten Dass,’ that her record label is allowing it to be released as a totally separate album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burbscinates (talk • contribs) 05:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesnot matter what Gaga thinks, its the commercial receiving publication that matters. Gaga might think that her album should sell 700 million copies but that doesnot make it so. The fate depends on what BB thinks. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The billboard articles you posted are from Oct. 30 and Nov. 3 respectively. The twitter update from Cherry Tree records is from Nov. 7. Obviously this is a new revelation. Furthermore here is a new source about it being released as a separate CD: examiner.com/x-13907-DC-GLBT-Arts-Examiner~y2009m11d8-Lady-Gaga-fights-label-and-Fame-Monster-is-now-an-entire-new-CD-EP (Can't post as a proper link. Wiki has the examiner blacklisted for some reason). Also the standalone edition is being sold as "Standard Edition" on her website.[1] Now the examiner source calls it as an EP. So we still don't have a distinction for an outright album or EP. But I would refrain from re-directing an article in the future with out a proper consensus....especially when looking at a source published before a newer source was released. Greekboy (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)There is a good reason why Examiner is blacklisted. The site jsut writes about any crap it wishes. Again promotion of an album as being sophomore or an EP needs to be verified by official releases, not by tweets. Primary sources like the website are also not considered in these cases. Hence Billboard is the only reliable source for it. And it is still not confirmed whether this is a sophomore album or not. Hence creating a separate article going out of the way and against MOS for re-releases is also improper. Sorry but it will be re-directed and salted if created again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How can you say that Billboard is the only reliable source? If the singer HERSELF and her record label have confirmed it that's good enough for us to believe it's her second album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

--YourBadRomance (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Delete "The Fame Monster" out of "The Fame" albums page because on November 7th, 2009 GaGa said she was fighting with her record label about re-releasing the album was too exspensive and now she split it in half and will release it as an entire new album so her fans wont have to pay as much money. Therefore..."The Fame Monster" should have its own page because it it her second studio album and not included with the fame in any way.

How can the standalone disc of The Fame Monster still be considered as a re-release of The Fame? That makes NO sense at all. The standard edition doesn't include ANY material from The Fame. I guess you could still consider the deluxe edition as a re-release, but the standard edition definitely is NOT. Make a separate article for The Fame Monster, but to reduce "controversy" just keep some information about The Fame Monster on The Fame article, saying what it was originally intended for and that it is being re-released in the deluxe edition. --Sdoo493 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.3.47 (talk)

The Fame Monster album

--YourBadRomance (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Delete "The Fame Monster" out of "The Fame" albums page because on November 7th 2009, on Wettes Dass, a german chat show, GaGa said she was fighting with her record label about re-releasing the album was too exspensive and now she split it in half and will release it as an entire new album so her fans wont have to pay as much money. Therefore..."The Fame Monster" should have its own page because it it her second studio album and not included with the fame in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourBadRomance (talk • contribs)

The Monster disc is being released as a separate disc so that those who already bought The Fame disc don't have to buy it again. It's still a re-release either way since the standard edition features two discs. ---Shadow (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, The Fame Monster Standard Edition is a disc alone. The Fame Monster Deluxe Edition is the one with The Fame in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster Deluxe Edition has been said to contain the original Fame album as bonus tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster has been confirmed by HER and HER LABEL that it will be her sophomore album! It is not a re-release, since the MAIN standard edition will only include the new songs. Only the deluxe will include The Fame! Please remove The Fame Monster's information from this page and have it's own article. --Sdoo493 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.3.47 (talk)

Oh. I didn't see this whole discussion here. The reliable source is MTV [2] and Interscope [3], both published today. There is no reason to not have the page now. The page should be recreated once again since there is no consensus to merge the album page, only the page about the new edition. It's a small technicality, but works in favor of those wanting the new page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it is clear that the album is separate now by today's publication by MTV, not to mention her statement and the Cherrytree tweet. I support Grk1011's bold recreation of the page since there was no consensus to redirect in the first place. Legolas decided to on his own (see above) despite the concerns of several source wielding editors. Lady Gaga's website has now been updated as well to say "new album" at the top of the page (banner), instead of "re-release" as it said before. "New album" promotion is also embedded into her "Bad Romance" video on her label's official youtube. It would be hard to argue against these facts.Greekboy (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I also support the creation of a new page, as there is now a reliable source to confirm it is a new album. What you have to remember, Greekboy, is that Legolas, too, wants the best for this page, and was trying to follow protocol as close as he could. He was merely what was best for the page until a reliable source could be found. Now that we have one, I'm sure there will be no problem. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(To Bookblade19) Really? Geesh, all this is causing way to much confusion. I thought the deluxe edition was the one with the artwork and lock of hair, etc. Anyway, Gaga and her label have merely said they are releasing the new songs solo so that those who already bought the Fame don't have to buy it again. No where did they say "second studio album". Also, the redirect to this page was discussed right here ---Shadow (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That was before it was announced as standalone (which was today). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that it was discussed. And just because it will be released this way, doesn't mean it is a new studio album. It's just an edition of the re-release. ---Shadow (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Interscope ref in my response above shows that it is in fact a new album: "new album The Fame Monster". Also the further I look at these sources, it seems that The Fame Monster is the new album like i said, and the deluxe and super deluxe editions are edition of the standalone new album, not The Fame. It says The Fame is a bonus, not the other way around.[4] Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)In response to your posts, her e you go MTV, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone all label it as a re-release not a standalone album, doesnot matter what a first party source states. Next time if you continue reverting the articles and introducing such factual error against teh previous consensus you needto be reported I'm afraid. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get that it was just announced in the past day. I'm sure there hundreds of articles calling it a re-release, but plans have changed and we need to update our information in response. Reliable sources have been provided, so please stop being so stubborn and disruptive. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And what reliable source is calling it a new studio album or EP could you please point it out? As I can see, other than a vague article on MTV and a primary source Interscope, no-one is calling it a new EP or album. The articles I stated above were also jsut announce today. Billboard had decided to include Monster as the re-release. One of the criteria for being included as a re-release is that Billboard takes into consideration that the name of the album issued is not significantly different from the original parent album. Since they consider The Fame Monster as not being significantly different from the parent album, hence it is considered as a re-release. The standalone CD will be considered as part of the re-release. Not only that all singles and sales will be credited to The Fame. Chart 'Monster' Ask Billboard: Going Gaga For Album Re-Releases. I don't think we need any more clear proof than that is present here. As I said before first person source doesnot matter at all. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your links are outdated as I've been saying. New information has come to light and I don't see why you are so against updating the pages to reflect it. Now that it is announced as a separate album, how can you be so sure that they won't now track sales in that way. The thing is you don't. It's a form of original research to take one source and apply it to something else to prove a case. Regarding sources, when have I ever added information without a source? Checking the history I see myself adding reliable sources, while you are removing them because you don't like them/don't believe in them. Billboard is not God, it does not get to decide what type of release something is, it only has a say in how it is tracked and certified. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No source has specifically stated that it is the second studio album by the artist. "The Fame Monster" still shares relations to the original album at this moment. I suggest you wait until a greater variety of sources come along clearly confirming an entire new album. For now, it is best to claim it as a re-release. • вяαdcяochat 05:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever source you have provided is shaky and doesnot explicitly state that the CD is a new release or a sophomore album or EP. Hence why the hell do you feel the need to re-create teh pages continuously? As you say that my links are outdated, so are yours - they donot suport the argument that you are placing. I have reverted such additions because of this. None of them state that its a separate re-release. Standalone CD doesnot imply so. And yes, Billboard is kind of god when it comes to such things as re-releases. Do you think you can create a separate album page and then add its sales to the total of The Fame? How ridiculous would that be? Hence if any of the other third party sources confirm the standalone CD as being tracked separately, Im fine by it else not. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

All of Legolas2186's sources are dated November 10th, the same date the standalone CD was announced. Also, Billboard is the official charts of the United States's albums and singles, so yeah, they kind of are "god". ---Shadow (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First link is dated November 3, second is dated October 30... Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are newer sources beneath it. Read please. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My sources are not shaky at all and you have no idea how they will track the sales of the album. My sources support everything I am doing. They say that it will be released separately and it does say that it is a new release. If you don't want to read the sources and actually understand what they say then it isn't worth having this discussion any longer. You are obviously incapable of seeing anything from anyone else's viewpoint and think you are right all of the time. Well you know what, you aren't. As Bradco suggests, we might as well wait for a few more sources since the information is brand new and it will take time to get around. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As Grk1011 has been stating, all this was just announced. And all those sources from today are 3rd party. Just like you are calling MTV. I would put Interscope above them all though. They are 1st party basically. Your biggest source is from Billboard. Which is from Oct. 30. As other users have suggested we should prob. wait for more information/sources. But regardless, I would suggest splitting The Fame Monster into a sub-article, even if it turns out to be an album, EP, re-release, or what ever, as the article is already 77kb long. Wikipedia suggests an article should be split if it is above 60kb. Greekboy (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Greekboy that we should all wait to see how Billboard is indeed tracking the 8 song release. Lets discuss about the slipping later and keep teh article as it is untill further shource regarding its commercial aspects come along. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should for sure wait. Anyway Grk1011, MTV posted two articles yesterday about the album, yours says new album, yet the other says re-release. So obviously MTV is not helping. Also, Interscope is a good source, but that article makes no mentions of the other versions of The Fame Monster, so saying new album really does not mean anything for that page. ---Shadow (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why wait? It is confirmed that it is her second album!! This is really pissing me off... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharee (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gaga has now canceled the re-release all together and the new songs will only be available through the purchase of the new album. source NY Post. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've think we have talked about this topic enough an obviously the album is NOT a re-release according to her label,Cherrytrees, and GaGa herself! Please remove all the Fame Monster information on this article and please move them into the article I just started that has the right information because the two links are getting connected together sending me back to this article because it has a topic entitled "The Fame MOnster"....here is the new albums page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fame_monster_(album) --YourBadRomance (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster (album) NEW PAGE ON WIKI!

Please remove all the information on The Fame Monster in this article and place it onto the new Fame Monsters albums wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fame_monster_(album) All of the information on there is correct and I will be checking everyones information they are adding to the page since I am the creater of the article and I would like to keep it unlocked for the freedom of wikipedia. But if this gets out of hand I will have no hesitation in locking the page from editers and if you want something changed, the talk page will be where it is discussed. Thanks! --YourBadRomance (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You may be interested in reading WP:OWN and WP:PP, our policies on article "ownership" and protection. Cheers, Fribbulus Xax (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that there are some editors who are willing to be bold and stand up for what they know is right. There is a disagreement here, but that doesn't mean no action is okay when there are so many sources going both ways. I might even support taking all mention of The Fame Monster out since we have conflicting reliable sources. Who is to say that one is better than the other. The best thing is to wait it out, but not necessarily waiting while presenting false/outdated material. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course Grk is right, if you're able to fix something that's wrong, you can do it. If you're not sure about how to go about moving content, see WP:MOVE and WP:MERGE (and the Wikipedia pages they lead to). Fribbulus Xax (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the rush, big fella?

Wikipedia:There is no deadline: "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." Gaga is clearly at odds with her record label over this, but as long as she is under contract, it is ultimately at their discretion as far as the war over New LP vs. Re-release. Billboard is also a major factor: Gaga can scream bloody murder all she wants, but if Billboard chooses to consider The Fame Monster a re-release (thereby adding all LP and singles sales to The Fame and not separately), there's next to nothing she can do about it. Until there is an unambiguous confirmation from Gaga, Interscope and Billboard (links in the new article only have statements from gaga, no new info from Billboard or Interscope and Lady Gaga's official web site still says The Fame + 8 new tracks) it is premature to move everything to a separate article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you did not take the time to read the discussion. Lady Gaga's site as well as Interscope list it as a new album. Both sites DO NOT say "The Fame + 8 new tracks" anymore. It was changed. In fact, on Lady Gaga's website, the standalone album is called "Standard Edition". Also looking at Interscopes site about the deluxe editions, it seems to imply that the main album is "Fame Monster" with "The Fame" being the bonus. Not the other way around. As for you Billboard comments, who is to say that the WILL count the sales with "The Fame"? I have yet to see a source that says that. The fact is, no one knows how it will be handled until it charts.Greekboy (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The album will be re-released in expanded form as "The Fame Monster" Nov. 23, and its newest single, "Bad Romance," this week bounds 38-25 on Pop Songs. Four days after the album's re-release, Lady Gaga will kick off her 38-date Monster Ball tour in Montreal.

Ask Billboard: Going Gaga For Album Re-Releases "Billboard has many guidelines about the merging of so-called special edition albums with their original parent albums. Generally speaking, two or more versions of an album will not be merged if the title of the special edition version is substantially different from the original. For Lady Gaga's 'The Fame' and 'The Fame Monster,' we feel that the change was in line with what we've allowed in the past (a la Rihanna's 'Good Girl Gone Bad' and 'Good Girl Gone Bad Reloaded').

Additionally, for our chart purposes, there is no limit as to how many audio tracks or songs can be added to an original album, as long as the additional audio content does not extend beyond one additional CD (or digital equivalent) and the content of the standard edition remains intact.

Thus, the reissue of Lady Gaga's 'The Fame' in a deluxe version ('The Fame Monster') with additional songs will have its sales combined with the original 'Fame' album. The same goes for the 'Platinum Edition' of Taylor Swift's 'Fearless'." The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Book is right. Gaga needs to resolve her debates and discussions with her record label to make a final announcement whether The Fame Monster will be a re-release, then Billboard factor has to be taken in to consideration. Untill then why don't all concerned editors just wait and see what happens? Why there is such a murderous rush to create an article? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Billboard story linked above is dated 3 November. The situation has changed since then. Billboard now shows two upcoming releases on Lady Gaga's artist page: "The Fame Monster" and "The Fame Monster [Deluxe Edition 2-CD]".[5] MTV has reported that the new songs only will be a "less-expensive, 'standard edition' album."[6] Interscope describes it as a new album with "2-disc deluxe edition...also available."[7] Gaga's website, in the shopping section, lets you preorder "Standard edition CD with 8 new songs from Lady Gaga."[8]; Gaga's page plugs the "new low price 8 song album."[9] Based on the new evidence, it's looking like Fame Monster will be an album unto itself; it would be nice to see Billboard revisit the sales question and indicate how the single-disc Fame Monster will be treated. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We are just waiting for BB and Interscope only to formally announce teh treatment metted out towards The Fame Monster. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Article #1: [10] Article #2: [11]

Per Article #2, the disc will feature a stand-alone album. Per Article #1, there are the tracks on the album. Per Article #2, that new disc will be distributed with The Fame [2009 Edition] as The Fame Monster Deluxe Edition while the disc by itself is The Fame Monster.

This should sum up the debate on whether a new page is needed; the name of the album is The Fame Monster and refers to the new 8-track disc. It's like the other disc is a bonus. Lady Gaga recognizes the current economic turmoil, apparently. We'll see how it's packaged, whether Disc 1 is still the original album. That should finalize the debate. For now, leave the page alone...and hopefully someday Gaga will stop rereleasing old material in new forms. CycloneGU (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should hope EVERYONE stops issuing re-releases... its annoying dealing with all these technicalities. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Too bad that won't happen. I agree that we need to wait and see. However,I would also like to point out that The Fame Monster is being released in three additions, and two of those three include The Fame. That should count for something. ---Shadow (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, if a page is created, can we stop merging it citing the AfD. That is unrelated. The AfD was for the page when it was solely about the re-release, not about a separate album. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This was in one of the articles: "Says Lady Gaga, "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."

There we have it; Lady Gaga says this is her sophomore album. We ought to treat it as such. CycloneGU (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, she doesn't get to decide, her label does.

This discussion is going nowhere and I suggest it stops here. In a week, Monster will be released; can't we wait until then to see what Billboard considers it? This debate is wasting time and energy. Different sources say different things... Let's just wait, there is no rush.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Her label already did decide. DId you miss the source from Interscope saying "smash single “Bad Romance” from Lady Gaga’s new album The Fame Monster available 11.23.09!"? [12] Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's add to the confusion even more. MTV as a source loses all credibility ATM, as their newest article about holiday shopping this year refers to Gaga's album as a re-release, but links to the exact article where Gaga says she ripped the album in half.

As for those saying wait on the label...the label has decided. Lady Gaga's official site, managed by - guess who - the label. The label has decided. The only thing we need is the track order on the album, as different sources have different listings. The album by itself is a definite at this point, this cannot be disputed. CycloneGU (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MTV loses no credability. There is still a re-release in addition to the separate album. Why can't MTV suggest the reader buy the re-release? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a re-release. The Fame is a bonus disc with The Fame Monster. One could say that The Fame is being re-released as a bonus disc on The Fame Monster. CycloneGU (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. However, the combination of the two is currently considered by the media and pretty much all sources to be a re-release...at the moment. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already been announced @ Gaga's official website that "The Fame Monster" is a brand new album (second studio album) that will be available in 3 editions. I think that there's no need to look for another "more reliable" source (it would be really stupid to ask for something more reliable than the official website). What do you want? Do you want Gaga and her manager to record an exclusive video for Wikipedia requesting a page for her second studio album? The Fame Monster deserves its own page. --DanV (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster an EP

As verified by Gaga herself on MTV News today. I'll be unprotecting the article and The Fame Monster in hope that the editors of this article will do what's best fit. I'll be leaving for school after the unprotections and will resume sorting out this issue once I return. — ξ^xplicit 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently fixing this page to refer to the article but not contain that article's content. Please withhold any edits until I get this part sorted out, then any edits for The Fame itself can take place. I shouldn't be long. CycloneGU (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'm done. If anyone wishes to reword or move the section "The Fame Monster", please do so. I've created the reference to the new album, and I'm now just adding the new album as the next album in the infobox. CycloneGU (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to the intro

The fourth paragraph of the article is currently:

The album will be re-released as The Fame Monster on November 23, 2009 and it will contain eight new tracks including "Bad Romance" which was released as the sixth single from the album and peaked the Canadian chart.

Given the multiple editions, I think a revision is in order. I propose:

The album will be re-released as part of the deluxe version of The Fame Monster on November 23, 2009, along with eight new tracks. One of the new tracks, "Bad Romance," has been released and charted in Canada.

That hedges the wording on the Fame Monster versions. Reasonable? —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is rediculous! READ THE SOURCE FROM HER OFFICIAL SITE http://www.ladygaga.com/ "THE FAME MONSTER" TO BE RELEASED IN 3 VERSIONS

(Santa Monica, CA) Lady Gaga announced today that she will release her next album, The Fame Monster, in three different versions – a standard version of the new 8-song album; a deluxe version which includes both The Fame Monster and her massively successful debut album The Fame; and a collector’s edition super-deluxe art book version, which includes both albums, fanzines, 3-D glasses, paper dolls, a puzzle, pictorials, a lock of Lady Gaga’s hair and other surprises. Therefore it is TRUE! good day wikipedia! --YourBadRomance (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Settle down, your the only one being ridiculous. You guys are acting like this article is life or death. Everyone just wants to make sure that Wikipedia is correct, to ensure that discussions need to be made. Anyway, that is an official statement by Gaga and Interscope, so I am sold. The problem comes the week after Thanksgiving. What if Billboard includes the 8 song album as part of The Fame sales? --Shadow (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, that's Billboard's problem, not ours. We have sources that it's an independent album. Gaga and Interscope have said it. Billboard has been forced to backpedal on future editions, so if they first try to put The Fame Monster with The Fame, then I'm sure they'll be called on it and future editions will properly list "The Fame Monster". Hopefully they read Wikipedia! =) CycloneGU (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Billboard isn't the only reliable source for this. Maybe the Deluxe Edition sales will be counted with both The Fame and the sole The Fame Monster standard edition. Who knows. --PlatinumFire 23:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

CRIA certification

The CRIA website cited for the album's Canadian certification contradicts itself. When you search for Lady Gaga, it shows The Fame as diamond certified for sales of 200,000 copies.[13] The view link takes you to the June certification listing, which shows the album earning triple-gold certification for sales of 240,000 copies.[14] Additionally, the certification definitions say that an album, to be certified platinum, must sell 80,000 copies; to be certified diamond, it must sell 800,000 copies.[15]

Accordingly, this statement in the article is currently contradictory:

The album has been certified two times diamond by the Canadian Recording Industry Association for shipment of 200,000 copies.

It should be corrected one of these two ways:

1. The album has been certified triple platinum by the Canadian Recording Industry Association for shipment of 240,000 copies.
2. The album has been certified double diamond by the Canadian Recording Industry Association for shipment of 1,600,000 copies.

Since it's barely sold 1.6 million copies in the US, I think the double diamond certification is unlikely. Further, CRIA says elsewhere on the site that the album sold 240,000 copies but not 1.6 million. Obviously, I favour going back to wording #1. Is there a case for wording #2? —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer going back to the former as its more logical but what can we do if the database itself shows something like this? I will ask User:Kww's opinion as he knows about the charts more than anyone. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the search page is miscomputing the award (using the wrong multiplier for platinum). I'm trying to find a news story or some other corroboration for the amount of sales. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The overall situation looks pretty nasty, and I agree that the CRIA database looks screwed up. The search for "The Fame" shows a really strange set of certifications. I'd stick with triple platinum, but I think a footnote needs to be included to explain that the source is murky.—Kww(talk) 05:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps add a line to the current reference footnote saying "The CRIA database search for Lady Gaga indicates that The Fame has won double diamond certification, but this is inconsistent with the sales figures and certification rules"? —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it accordingly. Let me know if you find anything further; I will likewise. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

UK certification (or lack thereof)

An IP editor added triple-platinum certification in the UK to the article. I searched the BPI website, and I don't find any indication that the album has been certified at all. Has anybody got a source saying it has been certified? —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UK SALES!?!?!?!

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE UK SALES/CERTIFICATION?...IT HASN'T BEEN ON HERE FOR AGES. 'THE FAME' HAS SOLD MORE COPIES IN THE UK THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER COUNTRY!...http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92578 IT HAS SOLD MORE THAN A MILLION COPIES! http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Susan-Boyle39s-album-is-200939s.5933546.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Striblaay (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE ADD THE CERTIFICATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.51.94 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic Rating Mysteriously changed

The allmusic review for the fame has been changed from 3.5 to 4.5, and also the actual review was changed. arbie (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC) i noticed this too. sounds like a hacker or someone who wants to change lady gaga's favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.156.240 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC) No its not a hacker, its Stephen Thomas Erlewine arbie (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

End of the decade, this is the time when allmusic upgrades ratings and change reviews from some albums. Some 4.5 stars album are upgraded to 5 stars, and other like The Fame (3.5, 4 stars) are upgraded to a 4.5, this happened in the 90's and sure is gonna happen again this decade. Eguinho (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WORLD WIDE SALES FOR THE FAME

someone needs to update that the fame has sold 8 million copies.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zkqFj8i3lg&feature=player_embedded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.197.193 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't use youtube as a source. I've been looking around for sources and all I can find are fansites, youtube videos, and other unreliable sources. There should be something out sometime within the next week with the updated ww sales, if this info is indeed correct. Chase wc⁹¹ 19:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well i found 2 sources. The first is from daily mail, the second is from an brazilian magazine: "Quem", part of the Globo Organizations. Both of them have pictures of gaga receiving a plaque for selling 8 million copies. The info is correct, she even broke down, you guys should update that information. Link 1: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1238307/Lady-Gaga-singer-breaks-presented-plaque-selling-8-million-records-worldwide.html Link 2: http://revistaquem.globo.com/Revista/Quem/0,,EMI112973-9531,00-LADY+GAGA+CHORA+AO+RECEBER+PLACA+PELA+VENDA+DE+MILHOES+DE+DISCOS.html (Eguinho (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Boston.com also corroborates it. [16] I think we can go ahead and state it in the article. I'm making the change now. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster Tracklist

Standard Edition:

CD1 / The Fame

1. Just Dance 2. LoveGame 3. Paparazzi 4. Poker Face 5. Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) 6. Beautiful, Dirty, Rich 7. The Fame 8. Money Honey 9. Starstruck (feat. Space Cowboy & Flo Rida) 10. Boys Boys Boys 11. Paper Gangsta 12. Brown Eyes 13. I Like It Rough 14. Summerboy

CD2/Monster

1. Monster (Fear of Death Monster) 2. Bad Romance (Fear of Love Monster) 3. Don't Call My Name (Fear of Men Monster) 4. Speechless (Fear of Loneliness Monster) 5. New York (Fear of Heights Monster) 6. Bloody Mary (Fear of Alcohol Monster) 7. Take It Slow (Fear of S*ex Monster) 8. Kiss & Run (Fear of Commitment Monster)

Limited Edition

CD1 / The Fame

1. Just Dance 2. LoveGame 3. Paparazzi 4. Poker Face 5. Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) 6. Beautiful, Dirty, Rich 7. The Fame 8. Money Honey 9. Starstruck (feat. Space Cowboy & Flo Rida) 10. Boys Boys Boys 11. Paper Gangsta 12. Brown Eyes 13. I Like It Rough 14. Summerboy

CD2/Monster

1. Monster 2. Bad Romance 3. Don't Call My Name 4. Speechless 5. New York 6. Bloody Mary 7. Take It Slow 8. Kiss & Run 9. Again Again [Bonus Track] 10. Disco Heaven [Bonus Track] 11. Retro, Dance, Freak [Bonus Track] 12. Just Dance (Stripped Down Version) [Bonus Track] 13. Poker Face (Piano & Voice Version) [Bonus Track] 14. LoveGame (Acoustic Version) [Bonus Track] 15. Paparazzi (Classical Rock Version) [Bonus Track] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.1.217 (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but pulsemusic is blacklisted anyways. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Alejandro, not Don't Call My Name.--Diforeverf (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Boys Boys Boys Wikilink takes you back to this article

The Boys Boys Boys Wikilink takes you back to this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Boys Boys Boys has been released as a single in Spanish iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/es/album/boys-boys-boys-manhattan-clique/id345078899) I don't know if it should be mentioned in the discography page as a promo single or whatever Nympho wiki (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That wikilink should be removed. As for "Boys, Boys, Boys" an official representation from the official website or the record company needs to be there for this to be confirmed as a single. iTunes link doesnot exactly validate its release as a single, except for a tracklisting. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the link for the global track charts which shows that her album sold until now 5.9 millions of copy. http://www.mediatraffic.de/year-end-albums.htm

This is the official global track charts, reference official for worldwide sells. There u can check the 2008 end of year charts too, where you`ll find out that she didn`t sell albums that year. She started selling albums in 09 after just dance and poker face hit number 1. Unfortunately it is true her sells are 5.9 millions behind of Susan Boyle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxic84 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Might wanna consider taking a look at WP:BADCHARTS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

SALES

SALES NOW AT 1,997,000 http://www.billboard.com/#/news/ask-billboard-how-tik-tok-winds-up-at-no-1004054542.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.247.27 (talk)

New certifications from Mexico -> Gold (40,000) , Spain -> Gold (30,000) january 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.4.192 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The fame is platinum in sweden

The Fame platinum in Greece

The album of Lady Gaga has officially become platinum in Greece http://www.ifpi.gr/chart01.htm Contain this award of Lady Gaga in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teo628957 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S certification

The claim being made is that she sold 10 million Copies in the U.S alone. That's not true. The album isn't certified for 10x Million sales in the U.S..perhaps World Wide but not in the U.S. The RIAA link doens't prove anything either. and the Certification isn't listed under the RIAA searchable database for diamond albums MRGQ (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, there's no certifying body for worldwide sales, so even though the album may have sold 10 million copies worldwide, it can't be described as "certified diamond" until RIAA, IFPI, or a similar body gives it the award. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fame CORRECT Certification

The fame is now certified 3x Platinum in the US as of Febuary 2010, and the Fame Monster Platinum. How come nobody updated this? Last time I checked it said the Fame was 2x Platinum and Fame Monster was Gold. Do your research guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwritingkeepdreaming (talk • contribs) 05:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As of the last time I checked the source, The Fame was only listed as 2× Platinum. So if it's changed, it's been in the last 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the certification was posted to the database, but it's dated 3 March. So, the certification was only awarded within the last 72 hours. At any rate, the RIAA database does now say 3× Platinum, so the article should say it as well. —C.Fred (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Update the sales!

The Fame sold 8 million copies until December. MediaTraffic reported +1.000.000 copies of THE FAME (MONSTER) on this 2010, plus 300.000 of the EP released only on the US. The Fame has sold 9.5 million copies to date.--HC 5555 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Media-traffic is an unreliable source with dubious methodology. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/beautifulyoungthings/2010/03/11/lady-gaga-goes-diamond-now-akon-is-ready-to-retire/ is this the moment to put over ten milion copies? AriandaGAGA (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

No, the article cites a twitter report. Grossly unreliable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Diamond certification

Given the parade of IPs adding the bogus diamond certification to the article, is it time to semi-protect the page? —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please! This page should be locked. The amount of vandalism is just getting ridiculous. BionicExperiment (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous Album

It may not be worth its own article, but she did have an album as Stefani (before she was Lady Gaga) called "Red and Blue". Should this be added to her album chronology?--Arathun (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No. What would the normal readers get from it? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Uk top spot again ...

control here ... we must add incumbent on uk n one album http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a209894/lady-gaga-reclaims-uk-album-top-spot.html AriandaGAGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre Update

I found an article on Nu-Soul Magazine that states "Lady Gaga" would be more in the Dance-pop and Electronica genre rather than just Dance genre by itself. Here is the source -- http://blog.nu-soulmag.com/?p=987 Sprite7868 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

10 milions of copies ...

http://www.ncbuy.com/news/20100226/0-lady-gaga-sells-over-10-million.html WTF is this? 8 milions? this referrence is 2009 now we are in 2010 whit more sales sold and the fame has sold more than ten milions of copies! AriandaGAGA (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

The problem is that, fundamentally, that's a self-published source. "Her debut album, 'The Fame,' has sold over 10 million copies worldwide, she announced today on her Twitter."^{[emphasis added]} While the sources for 8 million cited in the article might be old, they're independent. If Billboard, MTV, or the like state she's sold 10 million, then I'm all for updating, but not on the basis of a tweet. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Twitter and other unreliable sources Cannot be used for the article. Neither can assumption of speculation. If you have a reliable source stating 10 it will be added.--PeterGriffin • Talk 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3iceae27f23a68f24bec91f733983f384c european hot 100 album the fame number one and european hot 100 singles telephone! you must add this european top 100 albums! http://www.rnbjunk.com/the-fame-disco-di-diamante-per-lady-gaga-191/ can this be ok to say she sells 10 milion of copies? AriandaGAGA (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

On the surface, I'd say no. Anything that repeats the false "diamond certification" claim is suspect in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/ohnotheydidnt-THE-FAME-SELLS-10-MILLON-COPIES-A-major-2116166.html and this?AriandaGAGA (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Nope. Blogs are not reliable, and the source of the celebrifi.com article is a LiveJournal posting, which cites Gaga's tweet. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.zimbio.com/Lady+Gaga/articles/-V9rsvHFdTX/Lady+Gaga+sells+10+000+054+Album+Copies+Certified and this? AriandaGAGA (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA
http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/The_Fame_(album) and this? AriandaGAGA (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

http://www.interscope.com/artist/news/default.aspx?nid=24795&aid=599&cmnt=1 This comes frome the official interescope site ...AriandaGAGA (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)AriandaGAGA

"Combined, The Fame and The Fame Monster have sold 10 million albums worldwide." It doesn't address how many copies The Fame has sold. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

yes sure ... but think that the fame and the fame monster in a lot of countries are the same album (Uk,new zeland,australia,...) this means the fame has sold 10 milions of copies AriandaGAGA (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)AriandaGAGA

Quite the contrary: The Fame Monster is a separate release in a lot of countries (USA, New Zealand). The combined total can't be disaggregated into separate totals for Fame and The Fame Monster. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

http://popawesome.com/music/music-news/lady-gagas-the-fame-goes-diamond/ and this?Is this the right article? I have to work now so I'll not search something until tomorrow ... please say me yes!AriandaGAGA (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Well, it's got the same bogus diamond certification, so I don't see why that will work. Plus, it's not clear that popawesome has any sort of editorial structure in place as described by WP:RS. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Awards and accolades

I have an Idea ... why don't we create a box of accolades that The Fame have received (ex ... Grammy awards for album of the year and best electronic album ... premio Oje for album of the year american music awards for favourite pop rock album (nominated) billboard year end chart award for best europian top 100 albums?... AriandaGAGA (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

German charts

It was preceded by the album Schall & Wahn, but it's not a Peter Maffay record, but a Tocotronic album. --92.104.33.44 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception

The chart which lists reviews for "The Fame" incorrectly lists Entertainment Weekly's grade as an "A-". Entertainment Weekly gave the album a "B-". If you follow the link, it even says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.48.169 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Yep, the EW review was a B−. The prose said that, but the table was off. That's fixed now. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Paper Gangsta

Paper Gangsta was left out of the track listing. It is track 11, between Boys Boys Boys and Brown Eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hschweinlin (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On the original US release? Do you have a source for that? —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Loss of worldwide sales in article.

Honestly, there's been an on-going dispute about the actual worldwide figures of "The Fame;" some say that we must be reliant on the previously mentioned eight million sold, while others point out that the figures are more than ten million. Thus far, the only reliable source is the one stating that the album has sold eight million worldwide. I bring this up because, like other major albums, it should be mentioned how well the album has done commercially. So, I think it should be mentioned that "The Fame" has sold at least eight million copies worldwide. Though the source is dated, it's one of the only credible sources providing the evidence of worldwide sales. Drakehottie 12 June 2010, 13:48

Source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1630704/20100128/lady_gaga.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakehottie (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Weeks on Top

The "Chart Performance" section of The Fame indicates that, in regards to Billboard's Dance/Electronic Albums chart, it has been at the pole position for seventy-five non-consecutive weeks. I have brought this up to show it's contrast to the mentioned figure of the section, which is sixty-plus weeks on the chart. I would've changed it, but the source below indicates that this was from a question by a user on the Billboard website. However, the editor did not seem to change that figure when answering the question. Overall, I think the sixty-plus figure should be changed to what Billboard seems to have recorded, which is seventy-five non-consecutive weeks. http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-katy-perry-christina-aguilera-1004100889.story?tag=hpfeed#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-katy-perry-christina-aguilera-1004100889.story?page=1 Drakehottie 26 June 2010, 12:46 —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

12 millions?

Sorry for my english, but The Fame don't has sold 12 million albums. Why? Because she has sold 13 millions (total) and The Fame Monster don't has sold just 1 million. --Trivia harrypotter (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What your saying is true, The Fame probably really only did sell 10-11, but remember on Wikipedia, we follow reliable sources, not truth or mathematics. She hasn't sold 51 million singles either, if you add up her certifications I doubt it would reach 37, but we have to follow sources. Maybe she has sold 15 million albums? We can only go by what the sources say.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sertification? Don't you think it's fake to add 'cause you may sold 1.999.999 singles in the US and it's still 1 time platinum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.64.137 (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Europe

Acordding IFPI, The Fame has sold 6 millions in Europe, and it's 6x platinum: click here. --Trivia harrypotter (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Question, does IFPI have separate certifications for years? The Fame is already certified at 4 platinum, so only certification of 2 platinum more would lead to 6× platinum. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I retrieve my comment. After checking I see that both The Fame and The Fame Monster are only two times platinum in Europe. That 4 times platinum award is an IP crap. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. In July 2009 was certicaded platinum.. so it's 3x platinum.--Trivia harrypotter (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No its not. You have got the basic definition and method of certifications wrong. Albums are not certified yearly, they are certified cumulatively. Meaning, The Fame was certified Platinum in July 2009 for shipment of 1,000,000 copies. Now from July 2009 to August 2010 it has shipped another million copies, bringing its total to 2,000,000 copies. Hence its certified 2× Platinum. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's ok. Sorry, --Trivia harrypotter (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster in Chronology

It maybe an EP but for some artists it is appropraite to have more than just studio albums in the chronology. The Fame Monster was a huge mark on her career and should be included in the chronology. --Cprice1000talk2me 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in support of including the EP The Fame Monster in the chronology. Per the instructions for Infobox Album, it does say for most artists to only include studio albums (or the same type depending on the situation), however it goes on to say "For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain". I feel as though this is one of those cases since The Fame Monster contains new material. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Compilations often contain new material, does that mean we should include them? Including all album types in the chrono is generally only acceptable in certain cases. For example, if an artist or group has not released much material and they are deceased/broken up and no new albums have been released for years. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Compilations can sometimes be a big mark on their career and should be in the chronology. The Fame Monster was a huge mark on her career and spawned its own worldwide tour and three #1 singles. --Cprice1000talk2me 20:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, but it's not a full-length studio album and has no business being in the studio album chronology. The impact the album made speaks for itself in this article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Here "For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain." --Cprice1000talk2me 13:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"For some artists". Not all. Explain why Gaga must be one of the exceptions? –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And no, I do not see the "huge mark on her career" as a reason. That's POV. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It was promoted like it was an album. How many EPs get their own worldwide tour and have 4 singles? Also, she has not released much material aside from some live EPs and a remix album. --Cprice1000talk2me 15:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That still does not explain why Gaga must be an exception to the rule. Several EPs have been successful and spawned hit singles - why is Gaga any different? –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And please note that if we were to include TFM in the chrono, her other EPs and The Remix would also have to be included. The template doc says "For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain." So please do explain why the rest of Gaga's discography should be present in the chronology as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, doesnot make any sense untill a solid ground for stringing them together can be explained. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Certification in Germany

I'm a little confused which certification we should use to include in the certification table. I read many times that we should only include the official infos (www.musikindustrie.de), than I edited the official numbers in the text (5x gold = 500,000) and it seems like it would be wrong again.

Well, which certification should be included now: The paper one (which says 4x platinum = 800,000) or the official one (which says 5x gold = 500,000)? --79.216.207.183 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Always use the one as per the musikindustrie source, not something that a paper says. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Arguably the paper—assuming it's a reliable one—is a preferable source because it's a secondary source, while musikindustrie is primary. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the point was that since it is the awarding body, musikindustrie would be preferable. Normally a secondary source would be preferred, but since musikindustrie is the one that actually certifies the album, it would always be the most accurate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In case of certifications, the certifying body is always the primary, and the only acceptable source. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Information for 'chart history'

In Germany, The Fame is the third most downloaded album of all time and due to the fact, that the two most downloaded albums are German, it's the most downloaded non-German album there .

Please add that! --79.216.161.125 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Certification

the album was certificed 7× Platinum on Canadasource —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.70.101 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Year-End chart 2010

The album is No. 1 in Europe source

Please add! --79.216.184.54 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Year-End-charts

The Fame was the 3rd best-selling album in Germany overall and the best-selling foreign album source.

Please add it! --79.216.178.163 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital Sales

Digital sales of The Fame have increased to 884,000.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110106006565/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2010-Music-Industry-Report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.105.66 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Certification in USA

the fame has 4 platinum in usa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.250.132.35 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry according to RIAA the album has only been certified x3 Platinum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.66.165 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album – Record Label

The Fame was released solely on the Interscope Records label, and NOT as has been suggested on “all 4 of these labels at the same time”.

Kon Live Distribution, Cherrytree Records and Streamline Records are all sub-labels of Interscope Records, and although their logos are displayed on ’’The Fame’’: every copy I have seen states “(p)2008 Interscope Records (c)2008 Interscope Records, a division of UMG Recordings Inc.", or words to that effect. I’m sure The Fame has complex licensing issues, but this information should be detailed in the article text, not in Template:Infobox album.

As stated in Template:Infobox album “Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified.” memphisto 10:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is she's signed to all four labels. And while smaller labels do exist for marketing and record production, they are usually liscensed to a larger label. E.g. Streamline Records, Cherry Tree records are both labels in their own right but Interscope distributes them. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The album belongs to, and was generated by, all four labels, this is indisputable and sourced. The term 'released' has many different possible meanings (after all Gaga is 'released' all over the world). It's generally well understood and practised on Wikipedia that the infobox carry the original labels that the material was on, just as stipulated by wp:albums. Interscope Records is the main label to several imprints, including Cherrytree and Streamline, but not to Kon Live (Kon Live is actually on Geffen, which in turn forms part of the Interscope-Geffen-A&M umbrella). In any case, this album is a joint venture between all those imprints by virtue of Gaga's signings to each of those labels. Furthermore, phonographic copyright information is irrelevant to the argument you're making. Yes, the release in its entirety is copyrighted to Interscope, most likely because Interscope is mandated to handle most copyright functions for its imprints. But Wikipedia, and more-so the infobox, is not concerned about legalities, but about the pure labels under which the material is marked under, in which case it's undeniable and well established that it's all four labels. Again, the copyright notice itself is baseless for your argument. Imperatore (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Starstruck

I think it should have an article, because it is very notable, like Monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.109.63 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated Digital Sales

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/74338/chart-watch-extra-eminem-bumps-off-gaga/ The Fame is now the second-most dowloaded album of all time with 919,000 legal downloads, behind Eminem's Recovery. MusicMonster96 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Length

The infobox says 50:42, but none of the listed three track listing supports that number: they're 42:15, 57:46, and 57:05. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Use of Formula"

I'm noticing a trend of negative comments being added to the album's reception in the "General" category that are completely unfounded. As in "The Fame Monster", there is no example of a critic claiming that formula was used on the album in the "Reception" section. I propose that the sentence "However, it was criticized for its use of formula" be removed. This is unfounded and false.

96.226.28.182 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reece Leonard

Sales

Can we update the sales for this album? The first source for 12,000,000 is over a year old. This source claims 15 million in sales, and please don't even tell me that's unreasonable, because it isn't. Sales for The Fame include sales of the deluxe edition of The Fame Monster because The Fame constitutes the majority of the music on that product, effectively making it a deluxe version of The Fame instead. That means there were 7 major hit singles promoting these sales, along with a massively successful tour. Plus, various sources, even those used by her own article here, stated her total album sales as surpassing 23 million before Born This Way was released. So, could we please change the sales to 15 million now? -- 99.128.196.86 (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This wikipedia article talks about just The Fame, not the deluxe version. So, I don't think your source is applicable /: However, as of now, The Fame itself has definitely sold more then 12 million copies. Also, can you show me the "various sources" that state her total album sales have surpassed 23 million before Born This Way was released? Thanks --Christianrxx (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Christianrxx

I do believe the deluxe version applies here; in all countries where it was released, sales (and shipments for certifications) are attributed to The Fame rather than The Fame Monster. Besides, the source itself mentions only sales for The Fame, and says nothing about the deluxe edition. I suppose it indirectly does, through the association of Bad Romance with The Fame, but I brought up the deluxe just to point out all the promotion going into the sales of the album to stop anyone claiming that 15,000,000 is unreasonable. As for the sources; here are two sources from 7 and 5 days before Born This Way's release, respectively, and two sources from a week or less after the release, before any sales were reported, claiming 23 million album sales for her total. 50.83.82.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC).