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... "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]

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]