Talk:The Fame Monster

Page name

This album is called "The Fame Monster", not "The Fame: Monster", as you can tell from the album covers. Could someone please rename the page, or tell me how to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusdw (talk • contribs) 15:35, October 10, 2009

This should remain a separate page!

As all re-releases, it should be added to The Fame page, the original page. Like Rihanna's "Good Girl Gone Bad" album that was re-released 3 times and Taylor Swift's debut album that was also re-released! No reason for a different page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefron12 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Re-issues are not studio albums. There should not be a separate page for this. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This should stay its own page because, as Lady GaGa has stated NUMEROUS times, she dislikes re-releases, and that The Fame Monster is pretty much its own album, since it contains eight new songs. Most other re-releases contain somewhere around two or three songs. Anyone who says otherwise is completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.158.89 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to stay a separate page. Most re-releases only have a couple of new songs. This album is set to have 8 new songs! Gaga has said herself that this is pretty much a whole new album. Therefore, its not just a re-release anymore. Its a new album which just happens to also come with her last album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be merged. It's a RE-RELEASE, Is that difficult to understand? It has 8 new songs, WHATEVER, It contains ALL SONGS FROM THE FAME, therefore, it's a RE-RELEASE OF THE FAME, The media, the industry, are all treating it as a re-release or calling it as a repackage, so, no reason for us to make it a separate release! And if Lady Gaga herself doesn't want to call this a re-release, she should learn what a NEW album means! If it has old songs and it's not a Greatest Hits album it's a re-releae and therefore not a NEW album! This has ALREADY been discussed since "The Fame Monster" already redirects to The Fame, and "The Fame: Monster" still has a stupid separate page. The sales of this RE-RELEASE, again, RE-RELEASE, will count towards The Fame sales, re-releases are efforts to put high numbers on a previous released album, The Fame Monster sales won't be counted separately, and the fans will love to say The Fame sold 5 million copies, counting ofcourse if the re-releases sales but won't admit that it's a re-release and not a NEW album. Gaga doesn't want to show that she's trying to make her first album to have more sales stating it's a new release therefore she's not the one who decides what's new and what's a re-release or repackage, since the music industry is referring to this as a repackage or re-release! --Zefron12 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not just a re-release though. Yes, The Fame part is the re-release. However, the "Monster" half is brand new. Its an entirely new album that just happens to come with the original "Fame". Re-releases are just the same album with a couple of new songs. This album has two SEPARATE albums, the new one being Monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Not separate. Fame Monster sales will count towards The Fame sales, That's A FACT! It's a RE-PACKAGE, Not an entirely new album, it's a double-disc, so an extension of the original The Fame and therefore STILL The Fame. --Zefron12 (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Monster side is going to be released seperatly as the standard edition. If Billboard counts the sales of the 'The Fame Monster EP' to the regular album The Fame, wouldn't that be very confusing? Just because these 8 Tracks are not on The Fame. --It's Flo (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been solved. If you would like to further comment on the issue, please start a new discussion for this one was based on the facts available a month ago before consensus to make the new page was reached. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Fame Monster

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Fame Monster's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "guardian":

• From The Fame: Petridis, Alexis (January 9, 2009). "Lady Gaga: The Fame". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2009-04-28.
• From Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song): Petridis, Alex (2009-01-09). "Lady Gaga: The Fame". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2009-04-30.
• From Just Dance: Petridis, Alex (January 9, 2009). "Lady Gaga: The Fame". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2009-04-28.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing Redirect

Since The Fame Monster now has its own page, should we change the redirect from The Fame to The Fame Monster? --A.z888?z.a (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

EP?

Why is it considered an EP? With 8 tracks it might as well be an album. For example, Madonna is an eight-track album. And was a cosensus reached in order for this to have its own page? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes consensus was reached that is how it became unprotected and EP was just the choice of one editor. I wouldn't object to it being an album since that is what the sources say. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT an EP. First it was considered a re-release, but then Gaga herself said shes ripping this and the original "Fame" apart. Therefore, The Fame Monster will in fact be sold as a single album.

According to her website, The Fame Monster is still a studio album, for it is not marked as an EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Besides, I would MUCH rather have this page be a part of the original "Fame" page, instead of having it sit here as an EP (because that is completely false information). This page needs to be fixed right away. My suggestion, let the fame monster have its own page as a studio album (because thats what gaga says it is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, new information has surfaced, so you must be behind. In an interview, Gaga stated "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." [1] Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Explicit found an MTV source where Gaga says it's an EP. Therefore, unless more current references (such as AllMusic) say otherwise, it's an EP. CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On her official website, ladygaga.com, it says on the front page in large letters "the new album" so i'd say it's an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.242.82 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then here is what to do. Since MTV quotes Gaga's own comment that it is an EP, we'll leave it alone for now. AllMusic will eventually clue in and get around to adding this, we'll be linking to it in any case. When they do, I for one will carefully look to see if they list it under albums or EPs. Whatever THEY list it as...I will recommend WE list it as that. Further, the album comes out in a week and a half; let's just wait before jumping to conclusions, all right? No need to get into an edit war over this. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that same interview, she also calls it her "Sophomore album": "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".

SOURCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.85 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WOW!... some of you wikipedia people are really stupid.. The definition of an EP is a CD containing 7 songs or less. OBVIOUSLY the tracklist in 8 songs, so it has to be considered an album - If this is an EP, than Madonna's first album was an EP. --YourBadRomance (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

86.96.229.85 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not the number of tracks which determines whether it is or not an EP, but the length. For example, Animals has 5 tracks, but it is an album because it is 40 minutes long. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I cant belive you wikipedia people.....now your taking her words literally......before when she said that its her sophmore album in numerous interviewws you were like "a third party source has to confirm its her sophmore album like billbord"............and now just because in one intervirew she sliped the word EP, then ur considering it an EP.........lol....i dont see any site condierding it an EP...including billboard....she said its her SOPHMORE ALBUM....you better change it to SOPHOMORE ALBUM......NOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.91 (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

--Agreed, I think this should be considered an album.

THE Fame (CD2) TRACKLIST

According to [2], which is being posted as an only reference for the tracklist, the tracklist is NOT like the standard Japanese edition, it is the UK/Irish Edition + "Retro, Dance, Freak" as a Japan bonus.

01. Just Dance

02. LoveGame

03. Paparazzi

04. Poker Face

05. I like It Rough

06. Eh, Eh

07. Starstruck

08. Beautiful, Dirty, Rich

09. The Fame

10. Money Honey

11. Boys Boys boys

12. Paper Gangsta

13. Brown Eyes

14. Summerboy

15. Disco Heaven

16. Again Again

17. Retro, Dance, Freak (Japan)

Should I change that?? --PlatinumFire 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Changed!... --PlatinumFire 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This will be confirmed in due time. For now, we're speculating that this is the correct listing. I think we can safely presume that tracks 1-14 are correct. CycloneGU (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Telephone

Leaked. Listen here http://www.hall-musique.net/2009/11/en-exclusivite-decouvrez-le-duo-beyonce.html

There are many sources on the net which say this is the next single —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.96.81.144 (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Are any of these sources NOT a blog or personal fansite with an unbiased report saying such? If not, none of them can be considered a valid reference and the article cannot contain this information.

I've personally contacted TheAdmin at Lady Gaga's official site and asked myself whether this information is true. Hopefully we'll get some kind of answer in the coming days. Usually, however, the first single rides until a little while after the album is out (Beyonce made an exception posing as Sasha Fierce and put out a single from both discs), then the second single is later made official. Right now, Telephone has not been confirmed by the label and even Gaga herself hasn't said anything. If the next single is anything BUT "Telephone", a lot of blogsites are going to be eating crow. CycloneGU (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Release Dates

Are we sure these are still accurate? After all, the album design was changed I think after Oct. 30, which is the source for the Nov. 18 Japanese release...so far, sources only quote November 23 since then. CycloneGU (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Cover

I don't think the alternate cover is a specific deluxe edition cover. I think they both are standard and deluxe covers. I think the consumer can choose which cover they want for any edition. http://www.popatemyheart.com/2009/11/popatemyheart-exclusive-fame-monster.html If you go down a little and watch the YouTube video, it shows the thought to be standard cover and flipped over it shows The Fame cover. So I don't think the editions are cover specific. So change the alternate cover's title to Alternate Cover instead of Deluxe Cover. Sdoo493 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2009

I read in an article (it was a reliable source that we used somewhere) that the covers are random. Like if you order online, it may have one cover or it may have the other. I assume that in stores you would be able to chose assuming they have a few copies in stock. Then again, MTV is specific here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's online store through ladygaga.com also links to the various types of editions and how the cover appears with each. With online orders, it says that the Standard Edition cover is random. Therefore, "Alternate Cover" would be a better term. CycloneGU (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Telephone (Again)

I'm going to say something aloud here that seems to get unread by users before thinking they are editing new information into the article.

"TELEPHONE" HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED BY LADY GAGA, HER LABEL, OR ANY LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION TO BE THE SECOND SINGLE!

"GAGADAILY.COM" IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION!

ANY BLOG SOURCING GAGADAILY AS A SOURCE FOR INFORMATION IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION!

If this continues, I'll recommend we protect this article again. Thank you. CycloneGU (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already semi-protected, so the next step would be full protection which would mean no one (well besides admins I guess) would be able to edit. With the album going out soon and information changing so quickly, this might be more of a hindrance than helping the situation. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust you'll keep an eye this way until something official does come out, then. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GaGa has said herself she would release atleast 4 more singles from the album and it has obviously been told in her trailer video for the album here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQzYFKWBSbA&feature=sub that the next one will be "Telephone" ft. Beyonce, then "Alejandro", and after that "Monster". --Ifuseektylerr (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A video with songs in it is by no means confirmation of singles. --Shadow (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were confirmed but usually the trailer features the lead single plus future singles. --Ifuseektylerr (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Using "like" and "etc"

I'm new here and I'm not sure if this is against the rules but I've never seen the words "like" or "etc" in wiki before, atleast not in the way its shown here. I'm referring to "It topped the Canadian chart while reaching the top ten in countries like the USA, Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden etc." Why the like? why the etc? Why not just specify which countries or remove the sentence? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jford123 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns. That is way too informal. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this is a public formal site, the use of like and etc makes it look less professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

EP or Sophomore album?

Since after all the discussion, It ended up on a new page, but following Lady Gaga's own statement, it's not an EP, but a sophomore album, so we should put it in the article, instead of saying it's an EP... --Zefron12 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Lady Gaga's own statement it is an EP [3]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gaga called it both her second album and an EP, so we need further sources such as Interscope. --Shadow (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm waiting on AllMusic to clarify this. Whatever they do, I'll do. Problem is right now, they still seem to think it's a re-release and haven't published the track listing yet. [4] CycloneGU (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait for Billboard for this. I'm more inclined to think of this as an LP rather than EP, since the EP criteria by OCC denotes no more than 4 songs and 20 mins of track length, hence waiting for BB to clarify again. Allmusic will take it frm BB though. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

4 tracks for an EP? I've seen more than one Tori Amos EP that has five tracks on it. CycloneGU (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Either of it. 4 tracks or 25 mins track length. That is how OCC decides an EP, but Billboard might have some other rule. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It has 8 tracks and 32 minutes length, So I think it will be considered an album.... Hope BB/AllMusic clarify us very soon! --201.19.226.158 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"The New Album" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvQWcBPEs4 - official commercial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.227.40 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an album.. like the first Madonna album(Madonna (album)), with 8 tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.254.62 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IT IS NOT AN EP. The confirmation has been made through various radio shows and through a German television programme. Please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.226 (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed to album

I've changed the page to an "album" for the meantime as that appears to be what consensus has decreed. Please discuss any changes here before making them. Dale 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, the official record label article cited at no.23 confirms this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.242.82 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

125.238.242.82, I have indented your comment. Also, feel free to reg. an account if possible. =)

I was one of the ones who originally settled on the EP thing, but since there appear to be many sources stating "album", I will agree. CycloneGU (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gaga stated in an interview that she is releasing the album like Jay-Z released The Blueprint 3 (which is a studio album) so I think it's an album, let's stop wondering over something already confirmed! + The trailer says it's an album so it's an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfarhat (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On the release dates can someone change the format for the UK edition as the UK is only receiving the deluxe edition, the standalone album will not get released here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cherrytree Sessions

I'm not familiar with this work. Was this an album or EP on its own, or was it always part of a The Fame rerelease? If it WAS a separate EP, we need to factor that in. CycloneGU (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it is available as a digital download EP on iTunes. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And it was never notable enough. Wonder why that user re-created the deleted article again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed every deletion discussion or mention of it and they all stated lack of third part sources was the reason for deletion. Those third party sources are available now. --Shadow (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and what third party sources do i see? Amazon and amazon. A complete unreliable, bad source. I have a feeling you might want to take a deep look at WP:Reliable sources before re-creating the article again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk about a split personality. Amazon is used as a source plenty of times on this site and no one removes the links or throws a fuss about them. --Shadow (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you might want to check on WP:WAX please. If you feel like this article is worthy of a namespace, then pelase develop it likewise adding notable third party sources, critical reception, background etc. I would advice you to work on it in the user page sandbox and promote it after consultation with the deleting admin whether it passes WP:NOTABILITY.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Since semi-protection expired today, I started looking through today's history and found at minimum two separate instances of singles being added without sources again. I see the information has since been reverted or simply changed again, but I have taken the time to add a comment at the top of the page discouraging addition of singles for the time being, and clarifying our position on sites like gagadaily.com right at the top of the article itself. In the future, we can remove that comment, but until information is confirmed, it might be useful to keep that there so anyone who does try adding wrong information anyway will be literally doing the very thing we ask them not to do, and then it's a matter of teaching them how to read. =)

That isn't meant to be negative, either...I just think the comment is necessary. Is there any additional comments we should mention at the top? CycloneGU (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Digital Spy

The digital spy review was removed, why?