This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lady Gaga This template is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga Pop music This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music

LoveGame is the 4th single after "Eh, Eh." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.139.115 (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are two very real releases from Gaga. I hardly see why people feel the need to delete them everytime someone puts them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people like me feel the need to keep Wikipedia as accurate as possible since there is no confirmation for release of Chillin and AOL sessions is not even a release. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you'll find that if you check Wale's and/or Interscope's official site, Chillin' will be listed as an official single. As for AOL Sessions, I'm pretty sure that is an official release, but if not, then I don't see why you can't just put it in the 'Related articles' category rather than deleting it entirely. Tikkuy (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because if the AOL sessions are not a release then its in no way related to Gaga. Also Chillin' needs to assert notability to warranty a place in the template. At present we have to wait for it to release and chart, else it cannot be in the table. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AOL Sessions EP doesn't even exist infact, I insist in it be nominated for deletion. It is obviously fancruft. Look at the cover. It is the same image used for an "Eh, Eh" remixes release. The fan has replaced some of the text with "AOL Sessions." Also there are no reliable sources backing up the release therfore should not be incorporated into the template. We will have to wait for Chillin', although confirmed with a behind the scenes video on MTV, there is still little on the release. • вяαdcяochat 09:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I will nominate it for deletion. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering AOL Sessions stars Lady Gaga, I hardly see how it isn't related to her. It does exist, as you can clearly see on the internet. As for Chillin, it has been announced as a single, and hence should be treated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)Please stop adding this single. Read WP:CONSENSUS. If you go against it you have to be blocked. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going agains consensus, because as you can see, most people agree with me. Tikkuy (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tikutty, I am aware of her performances at the AOL sessions but there has been no notable release of the EP. It does not exist. This being, there is no need for an article. • вяαdcяochat 05:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because people seem to be continually removing Chillin from this template, I think we should put it to a vote as to whether or not the text should remain. I am voting for it to stay as it is quite clearly a released single and belongs in the template. Even if the article Chillin is deleted I believe we should keep the text there because of it's status as a single. Tikkuy (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand that nobody will take your opinion seriously if you do not explain it thoroughly. As such your vote will not be counted. Tikkuy (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Chillin has been added and kept for a while now, so I don't think this conversation is really needed any more...Tikkuy (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel that this section should be named "Other songs" with Fashion included. This is because every other artist template does so, there is nothing here that differentiates "Singles" and "Other singles" (thus leaving readers confused) and the reasoning that Fashion isn't well known enough is WP:POV. Also, Fashion looks weird alongside a discography and a list of awards; it is a song and should be listed with the other songs. Dale 15:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll agree with u for now, but I think it would be better if the section is called "other singles" - promo, featured, alternate... and not the main ones. --PlatinumFire 17:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there is nothing here that differentiates "Singles" and "Other singles". "Other songs" is the best of both worlds really. Dale 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if this is going to be an arbitrary list of songs without any criteria for inclusion, it shouldn't be included. Listing her singles make sense because those are releases, but the "other songs" section doesn't belong in a template such as this riffic (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all of them except Fashion are inclusable, as they are extremely notable releases. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

by what criteria? are they releases? riffic (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like these are releases by other artists, which happen to feature her. I don't know if that should be included in the template or not, but in any case the template should never include an arbitrary list of "Other songs" without any inclusion criteria. That would be quite unmanageable riffic (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine to include Featured performances in template. Check Template:Rihanna. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then this should clarified. rename the section to state so riffic (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fashion" doesn't belong here = not notable. And "other songs" just a too large subject. "Other singles" would suit better. --PlatinumFire 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed this to read "Guest singles", if anyone has a better description please make your case here k thx riffic (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional singles is perfect, thanks, good work! riffic (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead it is the norm to name it as Featured singles as per Billboard names them as featured artist and not guest artist. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Other songs" has to go, same reasons stated above. if anyone objects, state your case riffic (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to have other songs. Neither "Fashion" nor "Speechless" falls under Soundtrack or as a matter of fact as singles. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the songs particularly, just the section. The links to the songs can possibly be moved into the "Related articles" section. I'm expanding this discussion to Template talk:Navbox Musical artist so we'll see what other people have to say about these sorts of sections being included. riffic (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, coming in after seeing a request for help at the Navbox musical artist page. Two things are being discussed: whether 2 songs ("Fashion" and "Speechless") are "notable enough" for inclusion, and if so, what should be the name of the section they appear under.

Regarding notablility, if you want to challenge whether a song is notable enough to have an article, that should be done at the article's talk page. I'll assume that isn't the issue here, so the issue must be whether or not they are notable enough as Lady Gaga songs. riffic said, "it looks like these are releases by other artists, which happen to feature her", but "Fashion" contains a section about LG's own version, and "Speechless" is not about another artist's version at all. It appears to me that it is valid to include links to these articles from the navbox, although perhaps "Fashion" could point to the section specifically about the LG version.

So assuming we want to include these somewhere, and now need to decide on the section heading, I disagree that "Related articles" would be appropriate. Dale opened this discussion over a concern that the original heading, "Other singles" is confusing (since another section called "Singles" exists), and if these were moved to "Related articles", "Fashion" would appear to be about the clothes LG wears, and "Spechless" could be about her having a case of laryngitis. "Guest singles" isn't right (both articles cover LG's own version), and "promotional singles" doesn't seem to work (were they actually promotional singles? I'm not getting that from either article).

PlatinumFire said "Other songs" is "too large", but I'm not sure what that means, as there are only two entries here. If there is a concern that a huge quantity of non-singles could be added here in future, consider that each would have to be an article, and the authors of the articles would need to justify their notability. If notability were successfully established, then why not include them? But I don't see that happening.

In conclusion, I'm agreeing with Dale's original suggestion. "Other songs" implies "other LG songs for which articles exist, and don't fall under the category of singles". Further explanation is not required. Navboxes exist to point to articles related to the main subject, and I don't see anything inappropriate about this proposal. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

today nov 12 2009, lady gaga has confirmed on Myspace and official website that THE FAME MONSTER will become a new 8 song album (or EP) and will be released as both by itself or as a deluxe edition with THE FAME album as an extra. someone should make a whole new page for THE FAME MONSTER instead of clumping it with THE FAME page, and add this to the discography, as it is of now a new album/EP... and someone should include BOTH fame monster pictures, as it has two different album covers. i tried to change it, but couldn't

http://cache.umusic.com/web_assets/ladygaga/site/badromance/default2.html

http://www.myspace.com/ladygaga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feed me a star (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some users appear to be taking a stance that the following 2 songs are not notable. Here are the reasons why they are incorrect-

• Fashion is notable as it is a cover version of a notable song and has appeared in both a soundtrack album for a popular film and in a highly-rated TV series.
• Christmas Tree is notable as it has charted in Canada (just as Beautiful, Dirty, Rich is notable because it charted in Britain).
• Also, if a user thinks that an article is not-notable then they should not remove all links to the article and ignore it, they should nominate the page for deletion. It is not up to one user to decide what is notable, it is up to the Wikipedia community to decide at AfD.

Thanks for your understanding, Dale 07:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my objection to these songs being included isn't the question of whether or not the songs are notable, but rather the lack of meeting any inclusion criteria for this particular template. I would rather there to be minimal information on a template than too much (coatrack). I mean, "Soundtrack songs"? what's next, "Songs with the letters C, T, and R"? enough! riffic (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed to "Soundtrack songs" per Template:Beyoncé Knowles singles. There is no "inclusion criteria" for said templates; they are used as a navigational tool and, therefore, all relevant articles should be included. Also, do not revert or remove content from Wikipedia just because you don't like it. Please remember that this is not your article and you could be blocked from the website for vandalism if this continues. Dale 18:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beyoncé Knowles singles doesn't directly correspond with this particular template, as this one covers the artist in general and not a specific domain such as single releases. Assume good faith and be careful with what you say, I do not claim to own this article and I am willing to concede to consensus, when it appears. riffic (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale: Please read WP:WAX before adding your comments. "Christmas Tree" grossly fails WP:NSONGS as an utter lack of third party notability, which is the primary criteria for inclusion. "Fashion" the article is generally is notable for Heidi Montag but not for Gaga. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the consensus decided otherwise. SunCreator (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} i would like to make a simple edit to the Template of Lady Gaga i would like make a section called "Short Films"

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The template is not used to request permission to edit; it is used to insert changes using one of your fellow editors as a proxy/filter. You can capture your new section here and someone will insert it in the article, unless there is a good reason not to. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: basically in the short films section it should have "The Fame: Part One", "Paparazzi" & "Bad Romance"

There is now room for "Short Films" on Lady Gaga videography which would be an article like Beyoncé Knowles videography. SunCreator (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the discussion on Red and Blue? SunCreator (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted a number of times in Afd. Each and every time this will be created, doesnot mean that the template should be changed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the AFD discssion then? AFD's don't get deleted and the previous AFD's should be linked in the current AFD. SunCreator (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd archives obviously. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Search shows nothing. SunCreator (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could not of been a previous AFD, as the AFD page would of already existed, forcing a new page with the name with (2nd_nomination) on the end. Like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Die_Antwoord_(2nd_nomination) does. So no previous discussion. Seems you make things up as you go along. SunCreator (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives at Lady Gaga talk shows the consensus. Sorry, the article was redirected, not Afd'd which should have been done in the first place. Anyways, there's no point in adding this in the template, this will deleted at the end.What the hell wth the personal attack? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be personal, quite the reverse and my apology if it seems that way. You just make a lot of errors. Poorly or don't explain yourself which compounds the issue. Hopefully things will improve. SunCreator (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The talk from Talk:Lady Gaga doesn't seem relevant(could be wrong but can't see anything at the moment) to whether to add the link in the template, especially as it took place prior to the Red and Blue (EP) and it is now in Afd for the first time. SunCreator (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)Mistakes can happen, where in we should place our good faith. The reason I am against adding this one in the template is, previous consensus strongly suggests its removal from the template, article space, as well as from the Gaga page. That is not the same case as Alejandro. That article at least has some notability and may or may not pass. I donot make errors, however, sometimes I forget things as I go along. These articles are not very easy to keep coupled with my watchlist of 345. I appreciate what you are doing, but sometimes we need to cut the slack. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to that "previous consensus strongly suggests its removal from the template" then. SunCreator (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. Also see Red and Blue (Lady Gaga ep).--Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)LOL. So what is the link? Do you refer to the search, no template discussion in any of that. SunCreator (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion (not even a talk page) in Red and Blue (Lady Gaga ep) either. SunCreator (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the template history for the number of times this has been added and removed. So many editors can't be wrong and you can't be right. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts are not discussion as you previous claim. Also the only person removing a link to Red and Blue appears to be you. SunCreator (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. I maybe the maximum, but there are other users who are against adding this to teh template, not even as a redirect. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More claims, but no evidence. Diffs please. And wrong again? And what do you refer to before? SunCreator (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "previous consensus strongly suggests its removal from the template" . This is not resolved yet. Not good. SunCreator (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

It's not exactly clear what the issue is but if its over something that has already been dealt with and somebody is bringing it back up, that is unnecessary. You guys should better state what the issue is. I also don't think the article Red and Blue should be deleted since that is an important part of Gagas history. If the problem is with it being added to the template, well it shouldn't be since it never had an official release. But upon further review of the template and discussion i feel it should stay, Legolas you aren't backing up what you are saying. Where is the consensus? Where is this discussion? Also you are the only one against it as far as i can tell. No one else has taken the time to comment on this page. It obviously isn't extremely important. I will put it at this. If there are albums with equal importance on the template that it to should go on. SoCal L.A. (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)—SoCal L.A. (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion should be under the category "other songs", not "featured singles". Gaga is not just featured in this song; it is her song that she wrote and recorded, and this version has been released on a movie soundtrack, so it's legit. Just because Heidi Montag covered it doesn't make it any less Gaga's song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.142.121 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should add Streamline Records to the list of her labels on the template, as it is one of her four current labels. I know there isn't a wiki article that links to Streamline at the moment, but it does comprise a fourth of her record label deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.142.121 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albums: I saw that The Fame Monster is now under the section EPs, but Gaga herself said that she sees it as a whole new album. Isn't it better to put The Fame Monster also under the section Studio Albums, but in the same corner as The Fame. So for example: The Fame / The Fame Monster. In this case we can also change the peak position into the highest. For example: US Peak position of The Fame #4 and peak of The Fame Monster #2 -> so the position must be #2.

Singles: Isn;t it better to divide this section into: 1) International Singles (Just Dance, Poker Face, LoveGame, Paparazzi, Bad Romance, Telephone and Alejandro) 2) Selected erea's only (Eh Eh and Dance in the Dark) 3) Collaborations (e.g. Video Phone and Chillin')

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.85.159.197 (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the category American pop singers templates instead? Xwomanizerx (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it added under artist's categories normally? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Greyson Chance be added to related articles? Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have been writing Nicola Formichetti and think that both he and Laurieann Gibson should be included in a new group in this template titled "Principal collaborators" or something like it. Nick Knight is a possible addition if we choose "Frequent". In any case Gibson and Formichetti need to be written into the main article, which is really not very good at present, but this template is far more manageable and secure.

If you can include Maria Aragon, bless her heart, we can include these two. DinDraithou (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Formi and Gibson, but not with Knight. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I agree, but just wanted to suggest Knight. He has stated in a 2010 interview that he considers Gaga his new muse, and has been doing shoots and film with her since The Monster Ball started in 2009, most recently the video for "Born This Way", but his degree of involvement is not like Gibson or Formichetti's. DinDraithou (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It annoys me how it currently is. Maybe I'm being pedantic but this looks neater:

(: xoxo - Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No, not yet. I think after a fourth album we could look at that. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the split now that there's three albums with several singles from each. Imperatore (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Widely considered distinct eras. DinDraithou (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think section justifies any further divisions yet. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose When she became Madonna, Presley, Knowles or either artist with enough singles to warrant a split, do it. Tbhotch* ^{۩ >۞} 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose At present. Consider the number of singles released from BTW, if > 3, then split from the next major release

. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If Katy Perry can have one (and she only released three albums), then Lady Gaga can have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.13.153 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's with people getting waxy with Katy Perry's articles/templates? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video Phone should be a featured single. She was featured on the remix version which was released as a single/video. It's not just an "other song". 75.104.128.54 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you said "on the remix version", not in the original single release. Tbhotch* ^{۩ >۞} 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is no different, and actually a better instance of a remix issued as a single because of the video. If this should not be a featured/other single, then why is S&M one for Brit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Britney_Spears_singles 75.105.14.84 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spears' business to Spears' template. Tbhotch* ^{۩ >۞} 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't Video Phone be added under "Other songs" then? 189.31.25.42 (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when/why it was removed. Readded. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 days ago I put 3-Way (The Golden Rule) in the Template's Featured Section but someone deleted it. I don't get why. The Lonely Island are a band and the song was released as a single. comment added by PlainoldIsak 21:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication anywhere that the song was released as a single, no source in the article nothing. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That can be for any single, including a promotional release. iTunes cannot be fully trusted in this case. The article says that it was released as an official single, which it lacks to authenticate with a valid source, either from the recording company or any reliable third party. If this was stated as a promotional release, this problem wouldn't have come. Let's wait for this week's chart. Since it has high chance of charting, Billboard will make it clear whether it was a promotional or an official single release, like they did for "Hair". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were a promo single, wouldn't it still be appropriate in the template? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's no confirmation as to either. We have to wait for this week's chart for BB to clear it up. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Fair enough! comment added by PlainoldIsak 21:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christ. If she's featured as an artist on the track, then that should go into the "Featured singles" section.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. If and only the song is released as a "single", to which there is no confirmation for "3-Way". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to treat it like a single on Wikipedia. So the only reason why you claim it cannot be listed under the "featured" setting is because it hasn't been released to radio stations or it's never going to get a CD release? She was featured as an artist on the track and it has been released digitally as a single and we treat it as a single on Wikipedia. I don't understand why you, Legolas2186, must be the non-existant rule enforcer for everything and anything concerning American pop music.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, releasing a song to iTunes does not make any song an official single. I'm not talking in terms of Gaga's featured credit or anything, I'm talking in terms of The Lonely Islands singles. And over all consensus is clear in music articles that songs not released physically or no radio adds are not real "singles". That's why "Video Phone (remix)" is not a Gaga single, that's why "TTWE" is not credited as a single to Kesha, Minaj or "S&M" to Britney. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Fernando Garibay to the template because it has been revealed she has chosen him as her official musical director and it is evidently full time, for which see the sources I have added to his article. He has been on tour with her everywhere. Will this continue for her next tour?

I don't know what was the case with RedOne. Should he be added? It doesn't seem like it was his fault but some people gave him too much credit for her earlier work, so you know what happened. He did and still does bring something really great. Nora lives (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no indication that RedOne is a principal collaborator with Gaga now. Recent sources suggest a parting of the ways. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have a lot of history together though, he was the producer on the majority of her best known songs as well as numerous album tracks--David (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not indicate that he is a principal collaborator. RedOne has produced some songs on The Fame. He was neither the principal collaborator on The Fame Monster, nor on Born This Way. He was not involved in any of Gaga's tours, performances, appearances etc. Hence he is in no way a principal collaborator, compared to Garibay, Gibson or Formichetti. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The media often portrays Gaga and RedOne as a team/close collaborators. [1][2] Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to rename "Featured singles" to "Collaborations" so that we could fit "Video Phone" and "3-Way (The Golden Rule)" into it? I think it would look more organized. I'm not sure if this question was asked already. Thanks. WIKIPEDIAN Penguin ^(♫♫) 13:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I was thinking the same thing, may be lets see what others think too. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes the most sense. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So when can we make that move? —WIKIPEDIAN Penguin ^(♫♫) 16:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, I just got which one you are proposing to change. Sorry, I say a big no now. "Video Phone" and "3-Way" are not Gaga's singles as the former wasn't released as a single (the remix) and the latter's single status is debatable. At present only "Chillin" is a single. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I didn't say it had to be a single. It's like Template:Eminem singles, where any song which Eminem is featured in with its own article goes into Collabs. I am aware that the VP Remix and 3-Way aren't singles. Or we could move "Chillin" to "Other songs", a songwhich I think doesn't deserve its own section right now just to itself. WIKIPEDIAN Penguin ^(♫♫) 15:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Chillin" is definetly not "Other Songs" material (which are generally reserved for album tracks). Yes I get the point that you are making, I just want a consensus on this, before I make the change. Let other editors also make their point. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. "Chillin" looks lonely on its own, and having two separate sections is just making this template even bigger! Think we should call it Collaborations and include all three songs. The French template has a Collaborations section. Stephenjamesx (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The related articles section is a bit mishy-mashy. I'm thinking maybe we structure it more? Perhaps something like this? Don't think the Glee episodes should come under "Television" - Gaga, herself, did not appear in the episodes.

Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There just isn't enough links. And the point of Related articles is things that have nothing to do with what's above. So dividing it into subcategories is just pointless. This is unrelated, but what is the point of Interscope Records on the template? Other than being her distribution label (and the label for numerous others), it has no significant relation to Gaga. And shouldn't Haus of Gaga be in principal collabs? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Remix is not a compilation; the article, at GA status, presents it as a remix album while Hitmixes, although labeled an EP, I think is false. It should be classed as a remix album. What do you think? Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remix albums are compilations of remixes, and reliable sources refer to Hitmixes as an EP. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing just the singles by album but having all the other songs together in one list seems a bit too arbitrary and confusing. I suggest that all the songs be divided by album and then having an "Other songs" flat list for collaborations and singles that are not part of any album. I particularly favor this type of organization. Please share your thoughts, thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are far too many "Other songs" for the current situation to be practicable. Adabow (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was just done by some user, only to get reverted by Minblonde (talk · contribs) right now. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The list of songs (whether the header is "songs" or "singles", I don't personally care) should reflect the significance of the songs and therefore the official singles should be listed in a chronological order, after the album header, and then the other songs, promos and others, should be under different headers, e.g. "promotional singles" and "other songs". Lumping all possible songs (official singles, promotional singles and other songs that just happen to have passed the notalibity threshold to have a WP aticle) into lists after their album simply just confuses the reader. -- Puisque (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Glee episodes do not contain any physical, vocal, or digital appearance from Gaga and did not affect her career, and neither does the Weird Al parody "Perform This Way". Because of this, it would be better not to include them in this navbox. One thing I can say for certain is that the episode "A Katy or a Gaga" definitely had more impact on the careers of people such as Demi Lovato and Adam Lambert since those two actually appeared in the episode (unlike Katy and Gaga themselves). If the two did actually appear in the episodes (be it cameo or longer), then it would be more suitable to include in their navboxes. The series also hasn't boosted either of their popularity ratings or anything. I would strongly recommend putting it instead in navboxes for people such as Demi and Adam. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion in one place shall we? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but I am at least removing the Weird Al parody. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: Would it be more appropriate to list episodes about Gaga in the Related section instead of the TV section? ----Another Believer _(Talk) 00:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the episodes simply about her out of the navbox entirely; Gaga herself is never seen or heard, and has no connection to her personal life or career. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, shouldn't The Simpsons episode "Lisa Goes Gaga" be added to the template? --GouramiWatcher^Talk 20:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check two sections above you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]