Talk:Lady Gaga#Poor image

Gaga has referred to the album several times as her seventh studio album. Referring to it as her eighth alongside articles that repeatedly call it "LG7" aka her seventh is confusing for readers. Her albums with Tony Bennett are collaborative albums consisting of covers of classic jazz tunes. Her next album will be her seventh studio album. It is unclear how her albums are labelled in her recording contract or internally so the point of reference should be the artist themselves in my opinion. Sweetcheeks123 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:Genre doesn't negate overall count and neither does containing covers. The albums with Tony still count and I refuse to pretend otherwise. As for the informal "LG7" thing, see what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga&diff=prev&oldid=1237100660 I wrote in a previous thread]. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

::I guess it will become clearer when the album is released and the artist and both the media refer to it as her seventh studio album... Sweetcheeks123 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Bold of you to assume all journalists would use the same number. I've seen many instances of articles giving wrong album counts for other artists, so this wouldn't be the first case where anybody does that, but we can't say for certain how many will later get it right. Regardless, don't treat informal descriptions as surefire indications. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:I'll add my edit summary here in case we need to refer to it in the future. 'Gaga released five solo studio album (TFM is classified as EP) and two with Bennett, making this her eighth studio album despite Gaga referring to it as 'LG7', we're not saying we know better than Gaga which album this is, but rather that she follows a different system of classifying her albums, please respect the system we use here on Wikipedia and don't change it to 'her seventh studio album.' To add to it, I believe that contractually this is Gaga's seventh release with Interscope in terms of records she's obligated to make for them which includes TFM, and that would explain why she refers to the upcoming album as LG7, but that does not mean we should discount her records with Tony Bennett. ArturSik (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

::Why not just remove the numeric label on the upcoming work for now? 2605:A601:5582:9400:7911:4049:26D1:F005 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

::Gaga's saying is most important thing. if Gaga said this album is not seventh then it's not. Arismauve (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::Why should we respect the Wikipedia system if it is affecting the clarity of the article? Shes clearly referred to it as her 7th album. Instead of confusingly calling it her 8th album why don’t we give reference to why she (and most everyone) numbers them that way? And in that explanation, we can mention her jazz albums as not to “discount” Tony. 2603:8001:6A00:B462:2DA9:82FD:9E29:70D1 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don’t really understand why this is so difficult. Gaga can call it whatever she wants. She can call it her 69th studio album if she pleases. On this site though, we should do our best to go with the same strategy that we use for other artists. Though I will say I’m not really sure why the jazz albums are considered part of her and Tony’s discography here. I can find at least one other collaborative album that isn’t currently considered part of either artists’ solo discography, that being Watch the Throne. Not sure if the consensus on this site is that collab albums count as part of each artists’ solo discography or not, but there does seem to be some inconsistency there. 2601:48:8100:6920:64B5:F9F0:88B9:88D2 (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1741849270}}

Should we list the upcoming Mayhem album as number 7 or number 8 in Gaga's album numbering scheme, should we refrain from mentioning the number, or should we tell the reader how both numbers have been supported? In any case, should we add an explicit note about the contradictions in the numbering labels given by the media?

Please answer 7, 8, refrain or both, with the optional add note. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Agree. We should put a note describing that both the seventh and the eighth are valid. Platinum Passion (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• 7, add note. Despite past sources counting the albums differently, the majority of more recent sources agree that the album is Gaga's seventh solo album. The previous numbering system we used is in conflict with the new sources. [https://www.elle.com/culture/music/a60917291/lady-gaga-lg7-album-news-release-lyrics/ Elle magazine noted three days ago that] Mayhem is the seventh because Harlequin is not counted as a full solo album, and Chromatica was the sixth album, making Mayhem the seventh. They don't count Cheek to Cheek or Love for Sale as Gaga solo albums because they are collaborations between Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga. They count Monster as album number 2. Elle gives a complete album numbering series: "This would be Lady Gaga’s seventh album after The Fame (2008), The Fame Monster (2009), Born This Way (2011), Artpop (2013), Joanne (2016), and Chromatica (2020)." [https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/lady-gaga-new-album-mayhem-release-date-1235884573/ Billboard magazine agrees] that Mayhem is the seventh, following Chromatica. Eight months ago, [https://uproxx.com/pop/lady-gaga-confirmed-her-seventh-studio-album-video/ Uproxx wrote that] Gaga's unnamed next album, dubbed LG7, would be her "seventh studio album", following 2020's Chromatica. [https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/lady-gaga-chromatica-ball-concert-film-ending-lg7-album-tease-1235693505/ Billboard made the same connection] at the same time. [https://screenrant.com/lady-gaga-new-album-release-updates-explained/ Screenrant explained the sequencing a week ago], saying that none of Gaga's releases after Chromatica counted as a solo pop album, which means Love for Sale is not in the official Gaga solo album timeline. Screenrant wrote, "Although Gaga has created more than seven album-length projects, they have been collaborations or projects that she does not consider to be an official Lady Gaga album. This is why the project was originally referred to as LG7 and not LG8. The albums included in Gaga's current six album count are: The Fame, The Fame Monster, Born This Way, ARTPOP, Joanne, and Chromatica." I say we should go with Elle magazine and Screen Rant as the main sources for our numbering scheme, and then tell the reader about contradictory sources for each of the other albums. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The problem with this statement, particularly: "she does not consider to be an official Lady Gaga album", is that just because she does not consider them her official albums doesn't mean they stop being ones, in which case why should we not include them in the count? Many artists don't acknowledge certain albums for artistic reasons, namely Selena Gomez and her Stars Dance, but that does not mean they don't exist and should be omitted. She too uses the 'initials and a number' pattern of labeling her albums, and labels her second album Revival as 'SG1'. How can we then take these labels seriously if artists go by different (artistic) standards as opposed to Wikipedia which should follow cold hard facts. ArturSik (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, Wikipedia topics are determined by WP:SECONDARY sources, not "cold hard facts." The numbering of Gaga's albums is an artificial cultural creation, starting from Monster which some sources counted as number two while others did not. Several of Gaga's albums are a perplexing enigma, difficult to pigeonhole. The Fame Monster had a bunch of new tracks plus old ones: some kind of hybrid. Harlequin was somewhere between a soundtrack album and a concept album. The two vocal jazz albums with Bennett have been counted by some and not by others. Gaga's album count is a fucking mess, to put it plainly. The suggestion is laughable that Wikipedia can ignore the media and make its own in-house determination. Our topics are always defined by WP:SECONDARY sources, and in this case, we can tell the reader that the majority of recent secondary sources are saying Mayhem is number seven. We can also tell the reader that Chromatica has been called number seven, and Love for Sale has been called number seven. All of these are found in the sources. Wikipedia's job is to tell the reader what the sources say, and explain the conflicting claims. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• 8 overall / 6 solo. It is such a complex matter that it's really difficult to simply vote 7 or 8. I can get behind distinguishing her solo albums from her albums with Bennett by implementing the word ‘solo’ next to her solo releases. If you check her albums pages they do just that. However, there’s also the matter of whether ‘TFM’ is an EP/reissue or a studio album. Currently, it is classified as an EP/reissue on WP and it’s really difficult to argue otherwise as for example in the UK (and some other markets) it was only released as a reissue of ‘The Fame’, and does not exist as a separate entity there. If ‘TFM’ is not a studio album, ‘Mayhem’ can’t be her seventh solo studio album, it would be her 6 and 8 overall. We also have to consider how much weight we give to these informal labels ‘LG-XYZ’. Do they explicitly state that they are synonymous with a studio album? They don’t have to be. They could refer to any release of her original solo material. As for the secondary research, many media outlets go along with the label ‘LG7’ when referring to the album as her seventh, but could it again be a matter of misinterpretation? ArturSik (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• 8 overall, no objection to note or adding 6 solo bit even though starting an RFC wasn't needed here as we would've been better off sticking to a prior thread that was already 2 months old and it's hard to say exactly how long this would stretch out the matter for, I will say that we shouldn't engage in album erasure by ignoring Cheek to Cheek or Love for Sale per what I wrote above. Accuracy DOES matter, and to not use any count at all would be a disservice to our readers. Screen Rant is a questionable source I would take with a grain of salt. Additionally, a numerical majority of citations doesn't always mean something is the correct answer when they can neglect to factor in important bits. One should not pretend solo albums are the only type that count or blindly assume that informal labels are a surefire indication of album totals. For any fans who wish to downplay certain releases by spreading certain dubs around prior to formal titles being announced, their cherry-picking shouldn't be reinforced or rewarded. We could potentially see more pieces give a count of eight as the release date gets closer and either way the ones already rightfully using that total shouldn't be dismissed altogether. Furthermore, it's not logical to count The Fame Monster as a whole separate album when largely containing tracks from The Fame, plus there's the point of not every territory releasing the two as distinct things. Whether something is or isn't an album also doesn't retroactively change over time (particularly not in sudden manners), so it would be misleading to try to retcon the numbers with how many albums Ms. Germanotta has made whether solo or collaborative. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• 8 overall, no objection to note or adding 6 solo bit. If not studio album, then what is the classification Cheek to Cheek and Love for Sale? Mixtape, soundtrack, compilation? Sorry, there is no such thing as "unofficial studio albums by Lady Gaga", these two are NOT bootlegs, they are newly recorded material released by Interscope Records, Gaga's label. Artists' self-count has been proven innacurate some times, as I pointed out on the above thread, with the case such as Christina Aguilera and Katy Perry, and media simply report what these artists claim. Nevertheless, some other media such as [https://www.billboard.com/music/awards/lady-gaga-tony-bennett-album-eligible-2022-grammys-9638836/ this article] by Billboard doing a proper counting of her studio albums. "LG7" does not literally translate as her "7th studio album". LG7 is just an informal label, indicating which albums she considers her "main projects". These collaborative albums are her "side projects", but they are still "studio albums" credited to her name. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• eight overall, no objection to note or adding six solo bit — per the above-made arguments. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• 7. Even though Cheek to Cheek and Love for Sale are studio, the artist herself and the secondary sources don't regard these albums should be included on Gaga's chronology. Yes, even though they are studio, if A LOT OF medias don't include them on Gaga's chronology, then I suggest that Wikipedia follow this way for not confuses between normal users. Even though there FEW articles saying Love for Sale is Gaga's seventh, Billboard, but as we know, they changed their statement; they refer Mayhem as seventh in these days. CTC and LFS should be added on Gaga's chronology? It's just their hopes and subjective thoughts that CTC and LFS should be added on Gaga's chronology, even they don't have clear standard of studio album . Wikipedia should follow secondary sources, not Wikipedia users'.

Camilasdandelions (talk!) 17:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• 8 overall, with notes explaining the LG*** monikers - There's no way we can ignore C2C and LFS from her overall count of studio albums. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• 8 overall - Lady Gaga’s numbering (LG5, LG6, etc.) doesn’t include her collaborations with Tony Bennett, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t considered studio albums of hers. Many journalists and fans tend to take her informal numbering more seriously than necessary. --Sricsi (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• 7 w/ note - it's not that hard to use 'solo' in the language and/or add a footnote for clarity, but WP:RS ([https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/lady-gaga-mayhem-tracklist-song-titles-1235904451/ Billboard], [https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lady-gaga-saturday-night-live-host-musical-guest-mayhem-1235271433/ Rolling Stone], [https://www.elle.com/culture/music/a63324386/lady-gaga-mayhem-interview-2025/ Elle], etc) typically call it her seventh album. Other numbering systems would lean towards WP:OR.

:It also gives clarity and fits with stylistic norms -- e.g. listing solo and collaborative works separately in a discography page or in a separate sentence of (e.g. Jay-Z's lead. I'd lean towards 6 over 8, as WP otherwise refers to Fame Monster as a re-release rather than an album in its own right. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 02:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• 8 overall / 6 solo - The fact of the matter is that there are 8 studio albums which Lady Gaga is credited as a lead artist. To say Mayhem is her 6th would deny the existence of the other two. Us being able to perform simple counting is not original research. RachelTensions (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::The guideline at WP:CALC allows simple counting if the results are "a meaningful reflection of the sources". In this case, the sources are in conflict, and the counting doesn't work in a simple manner. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• 7 with note - This is clearly the 7th Gaga album era/rollout, with singles, visuals and content for all the albums. CTC and LFS were seperate collab albums that were not assosciated with the main Gaga popstar experience. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Refrain in lead, 7 with note thereafter - I think we've got to give a lot of credence to the artist here when she says it's #7. The ordering of these things is subjective once an artist has a sufficiently large oeuvre, and what we shouldn't do is ignore author intent. It's more of a judgement call, less of a routine calculation. However, we don't have to introduce unnecessary complexity in the lead, nothing's stopping us from introducing the numbering a bit later in the article with a note. What we absolutely should not do is use a number that directly conflicts with what the artist says, if only to save us the trouble of declining the many, many, extended-confirmed edit requests that'll no doubt appear. TheSavageNorwegian 00:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Agree with @Thesavagenorwegian. I also think we should not ignore artist's decision. Someone told me Gaga's decision is nothing about to care, but I don't agree on this; because most medias follow Gaga's decisions. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Agree with this, WP:VNT Formyparty (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

So far we've only been voting, and this discussion is not really amounting to anything. How does everyone feel about adding the following note next to all her solo offerings, and referring to them specifically as her 'solo studio albums' (excluding 'TFM' but still adding the note next to it). So, Joanne would be her fourth solo studio album, Chromatica her fifth solo studio album and Mayhem her sixth solo studio album, with a note that reads: "While The Fame Monster was released as a reissue of The Fame (or an EP in some markets), Gaga considers it a separate body of work and her second album, referring to it as "LG2". Consequently, she considers Born This Way her third album (LG3), Artpop as her fourth (LG4), Joanne fifth (LG5), Chromatica sixth (LG6), and Mayhem seventh (LG7). She does not consider her albums with Tony Bennett to be part of this sequence, treating them as a separate project." We just need to collect appropriate citations.

Note: Please don't take this as me changing my vote but rather an offer of compromise open to discussion. I'm still not sure how we deal with this going forward, because I know this is going to be an issue again in the future. Say Gaga releases a solo jazz album. How do we classify it then? She already kind of did with 'Harlequin' but it fell under a soundtrack of sorts to 'Joker: Folie á Deux'. She called it "LG6.5". What the hell does that mean and how do we interpret it? Half an album? That's physically impossible. What if she releases a solo jazz album next and calls it "7.5". What do we do then? I'm just trying to be rational here.

Thoughts? ArturSik (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:As long as the overall totals aren't downplayed (and hopefully nobody tries misusing your idea as an excuse to do so), giving solo counts for such pages might be manageable. "Half an album" is definitely an impossible thing to have, which is partially why I would avoid implementing "LG____" dubs as much as possible within Wikipedia articles, even within notes. Another reason is the oversimplified assumption many make that it's inherently synonymous with full chronology. I'm not going to pretend they're always meaningful. They're not even formal titles for albums and shouldn't be treated as such. A note for TFM would be better off ending with how Ms. Germanotta "considers it a separate body of work" without the needless "LG2" bit. It's definitely good to aim for rationality here and not simply disregard proven facts that good references have established before (including the existence of the Bennett albums and how they do count). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::I completely agree. Like I said I’m trying to find the middle ground here. As it stands today, all of her album pages specify that an album is her X studio album overall and Y solo studio album. Her discography has her albums with Bennett separated from the rest. Her main page also refers to them as collaborative albums, so in all fairness we wouldn’t be changing that much, just adding the note acknowledging Gaga’s POV. However, it would be unwise to completely compromise simple math in favour of Gaga’s artistic vision. Otherwise, we’ll back here in no time when she decides to release another album as LGx.5 that is a studio album only she says it’s not. Let’s see what the others say. I’m happy to go along with this revised note per your comment: While The Fame Monster was released as a reissue of The Fame (or an EP in some markets), Gaga considers it a separate body of work. Consequently, she considers Born This Way her third album, Artpop as her fourth, Joanne fifth, Chromatica sixth, and Mayhem seventh. She does not consider her albums with Tony Bennett to be part of this sequence, treating them as a separate project. ArturSik (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The "middle ground" at Wikipedia is always to follow the sources, explaining any inconsistencies to the reader. That means we should not be attempting to force a sequencing of our own. We should be telling the reader that Mayhem has been called her seventh album by most recent sources, and that previous sequencing has been different. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Let's not turn a blind eye to how there actually are links already provided (and I could add others) giving eight as a count for Mayhem. Using that sequence therefore would certainly not be "attempting to force" one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::What you are doing is turning a blind eye to the sources that say Mayhem is seventh. How do you justify that? The sequencing of Gaga's albums is anything but settled, and we must relay this fact to the reader, telling them that Mayhem has been sequenced as number 7 by these sources and as number 8 by those sources. And that album number 7 has been ascribed to at least two previous Gaga albums. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::On the contrary, I already knew there are sources that give seven as a count, and me contesting that total isn't the same thing as ignoring how they exist. At no point did I pretend there weren't sources to support that conclusion. I thought my acknowledgement of their existence was quite clear from what I wrote earlier, particularly my remarks on sheer number/percentages not always being a firm way to determine right vs. wrong. Regardless, when Chromatica was previously established to be sixth and quality references later came along that designated Love for Sale as seventh, it seemed obvious to me that her follow-up would be eighth even before the title of Mayhem was announced. This is what makes me inclined to follow the citations that give eight as a count instead of seven. Not sure what anybody counted as seventh that wasn't Love for Sale or Mayhem, but regardless I oppose engaging in album erasure by trying to retcon the former's album status. When you spoke of attempts to force sequences, it gave a misleading impression that no citations at all had even been presented to support a designation of eighth. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I commented this in another conversation and figured I’d comment it here as well, why exactly are we counting the jazz albums with Tony as part of her solo discography? Do we usually do that with other artists on this site? For instance, the Jay-Z and Kanye West album Watch the Throne isn’t considered part of either of their solo discography. So this is simply inconsistent. I’m saying this because the only apparent reason that Mayhem is currently listed here as her 8th album is because we’re counting the jazz albums as her 4th and 7th, but it doesn’t seem like we should be doing that. 2601:48:8100:6920:64B5:F9F0:88B9:88D2 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}} Genre has no bearing on overall totals. As for Jay-Z and Kanye, a technicality that often gets overlooked is how they were billed as a duo called "The Throne" for their joint album, which is different from having each artist named individually. Nuances for counts are not exclusively a matter of whether something is a solo release. Because of that, The Carters (with Beyoncé) is also separate from Jay-Z's other billings and same goes for ¥$ that Kanye has with Ty Dolla Sign. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:Idk, the fact that I can’t find any other collab albums that counted as part of their respective artists’ solo discographies, plus Gaga recently confirming with the Mayhem countdown that TFM is her 2nd studio album while not including either of the jazz albums as part of the countdown, plus nearly every news outlet referring to Mayhem as her 7th studio album just makes it seem to me that we should maybe reconsider just not counting the jazz albums as part of her of Tony’s solo discographies. Just my opinion. 2601:48:8100:6920:64B5:F9F0:88B9:88D2 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::The notion of TFM being its own album is hard to take at face value when largely consisting of tracks previously contained The Fame. Album status (or lack thereof) also doesn't retroactively change over time. I wasn't suggesting that collaborative album equates to being solo, just that they shouldn't be glossed over when counting cumulative totals, and that whether someone gets jointly billed as an act with someone else makes a difference. As far as I can tell, she and Tony never got billing as a duo in the way some other folks have. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean, do we have even one other example of a collab album that was counted as part of both artists’ solo discographies? Just so we can say that there’s precedence for this? Because otherwise the justification for this is pretty weak imo. It kinda just seems to be your opinion that it should be counted as her 4th and 7th albums, when basically the entire rest of the world disagrees with you. Do you really think Wikipedia should go off of one person’s opinion when everyone else disagrees? 2601:48:8100:6920:64B5:F9F0:88B9:88D2 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Just for the record, it's not only me who supports counting those albums for chronology; other users have given similar stances on the talk page. It thus is a blatant exaggeration to say "basically the entire rest of the world" has an opposing stance. You appear to be conflating solo discography with overall totals for an artist. Treating them as inherently synonymous is an oversimplification. When it comes to the cumulative amount of albums someone has made, that's not always a matter of how many were solo projects. FYI, Tony himself is someone else whose totals include both. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I just want to say that I’ve looked over this talk page as well as the talk page for Mayhem, and can’t find a single person other than you arguing that it’s her 8th album. Not saying I know for sure this is the case, but you’re the only one currently passionately defending this stance, and it just doesn’t make much sense. Clearly the majority of people agree it should be considered her 7th album. Why are you not content letting the majority decide? 2601:48:8100:6920:7527:E34D:6E7D:8365 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::You obviously didn't account for what Bluesatellite, IndianBio, Livelikemusic, and Sricsi, and ArturSik wrote in the "discussion" subheading before any of your comments were left. So far it looks like the lattermost of those five has been the most emphatic against using 7, especially when later providing an article from Vulture talking about why that count doesn't make sense regardless of whether only solo efforts are counted. Either way, RachelTensions also endorsed 8 after you joined the thread, and the comments overall aren't as slanted towards 7 as you're suggesting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}I looked for contemporary sources for Cheek to Cheek describing it as number whatever in the Gaga oeuvre, and I came up with nothing. Not [https://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/blog/tony-bennett-lady-gagas-cheek-cheek-number-1-billboard-200/ PBS], not [https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/74136/Tony-Bennett-and-Lady-Gaga-Cheek-to-Cheek/ Sputnik], not [https://www.slantmagazine.com/music/tony-bennett-lady-gaga-cheek-to-cheek/ Slant], not [https://www.treblezine.com/18857-tony-bennett-lady-gaga-cheek-to-cheek-review/ Treblezine], not [https://www.universalmusic.ca/press-releases/tony-bennett-lady-gaga-cheek-to-cheek-album-of-classic-jazz-standards-to-be-released-september-23/ Universal Music's own press release], not [https://web.archive.org/web/20211118201709/https://www.billboard.com/pro/tony-bennett-lady-gagas-cheek-to-cheek-debuts-at-no-1/ Billboard] [https://www.billboard.com/music/reviews/tony-bennett-lady-gaga-cheek-to-cheek-track-by-track-album-review-6259180/ (again)], not [https://playbill.com/article/track-list-for-lady-gaga-and-tony-bennetts-cheek-to-cheek-revealed-listen-to-i-cant-give-you-anything-but-love-duet-com-326933 Playbill], and not [https://jazztimes.com/reviews/albums/tony-bennett-lady-gaga-cheek-to-cheek/ Jazz Times]. For seven years, the Wikipedia article about Cheek to Cheek did not try to sequence the album for Bennett or Gaga, but in March 2020, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheek_to_Cheek_%28album%29&diff=944197349&oldid=934861746 the sequencing was added without a supporting reference.] This was a violation of WP:Verifiability, a hard policy.

Clearly, the folks who say that Mayhem is Gaga's eighth album are counting both of the Bennett collabs, and not counting Monster. Such a sequencing is not supported by all the sources. After the first Bennett collab came Gaga's 2016 album Joanne, and the media was split about sequencing. [https://www.jezebel.com/ga-ga-ooh-la-la-joanne-is-lady-gagas-fourth-number-1-a-1788390266 Jezebel], [https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/who-is-joanna-on-lady-gagas-album-1554917 NME] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20161021155435/http://www.vanityfair.com:80/style/2016/10/lady-gaga-joanne-end-of-zany-pop-star Vanity Fair] called it her fourth album. A bunch of others called it Gaga's fifth album: [https://web.archive.org/web/20160810203314/http://www.mtv.com/news/2725982/lady-gaga-new-album-2016/ MTV] and [https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2016/10/31/lady-gaga-notches-fourth-no-1-album-joanne-billboard-charts/93059088/ USA Today], for instance. Others did not give Joanne a number, such as [https://www.allmusic.com/album/joanne-mw0002982993 AllMusic] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20180212005240/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/arts/music/lady-gaga-joanne-billboard-chart.html The New York Times which said it was "her first solo album in three years"], ignoring the Bennett collab. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160817223040/http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/6836499/lady-gaga-hints-2016-album-release Billboard] avoided the issue by saying Joanne was Gaga's "first since the Tony Bennett collab Cheek to Cheek from September 2014, and her first set of original recordings since 2013’s Artpop". They could have said that Joanne was number whatever, but the sequencing was not clear to them after the Bennett collab. They split the difference. [https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/lady-gaga-joanne-certified-platinum-8007071/ Billboard also wrote that The Fame Monster reached Platinum status while The Fame reached multi-Platinum], clearly depicting them as separate albums. So the idea that The Fame Monster doesn't count, and that the Bennett duets do count, is not universal. We should be telling our readers about these discrepancies. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:Gaga herself announced Born This Way as third, Artpop as fourth, Joanne as fifth, Chromatica as sixth, Mayhem as seventh in her website. (But she didn't say The Fame Monster as her second studio album.)

:Due to this, a lot of articles will follow this way. At least, we have to tell readers that Gaga and a lot of sources regard like this. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::She did in fact list TFM as her second, if you’re referring to the countdown. It was posted on the 2nd day of the countdown. 2601:48:8100:6920:7527:E34D:6E7D:8365 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::LG2 doesn't mean it's her studio album. She didn't indicate TFM as her "second studio album". Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::?? How can you on one hand say that Gaga including albums like BTW, ARTPOP, and Chromatica on her website indicates they are her X studio album, but including TFM doesn’t indicate that it’s her 2nd? Do you hear yourself? You’re literally contradicting yourself. 2601:48:8100:6920:58A:7019:589B:184B (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I know we can't use [https://gagadaily.com/forums/topic/327141-gagas-recording-contract/ Gaga Daily] as a source, but I think it would be interesting to note that leaked documents from Interscope consider The Fame Monster to be her second album. Additionally, they did not count Cheek to Cheek, most likely due to its collaborative nature.

:* October 2009: The Fame Monster was established to not count towards her commitment albums. This was changed with the December 2009 amendment.

:* December 2009: The Fame Monster does count towards her commitment albums.

:* June 2014: Cheek to Cheek will not count towards Gaga's album count.

:I don't really have an opinion formed on this debate, just trying to bring more information. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:A review of Mayhem from The Telegraph referring to the album as her ‘sixth solo studio album’: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/lady-gaga-mayhem-review/. ArturSik (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::That's an argument for Wikipedia to abandon the effort to force an artificial numbering sequence on Gaga's albums. If we can point to a variety of sources saying saying that Gaga's sixth album is one of three or four different albums, then there is conflict and contradiction in the media. We should relay this information to the reader without trying to establish an artificial "official" sequence. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, and how do we go about it? Do you have an actual solution? In Gaga's bio there's a sentence about the album: 'Gaga's album titled Mayhem was released...' How do we implement the different numbers? 'Gaga's sixth/seventh/eighth album ...'? because that won't confuse the readers at all. ArturSik (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Whatever might get used, I'd like to point out that there actually is no such thing as "artificial" sequences, regardless of whether any particular choice would be misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::[https://www.vulture.com/article/lady-gaga-mayhem-lg7.html Vulture]'s take on it. ArturSik (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::ArturSik, if there are contradictory sources I would avoid a hard label in the lead section regarding the sequencing of the album. But I would discuss the sequencing down in the article body, perhaps in the background or the release section, but certainly by the reception section we could say which of the media called it which number. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I just read Vulture{{'s}} article and I think we should follow the actual order and add a note where necessary. Here's an example of how I would do it:

::::::{{tq|Despite being a re-issue, Gaga refers to The Fame Monster (2010) as her second album, making Chromatica her fifth solo studio album and sixth solo era.}}

:::::GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Gaga said Chromatica is her sixth studio album. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Because she considers The Fame Monster an album, but its technically an extended play or re-issue depending of the country. The note I proposed addresses exactly that. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, I'm really sorry and can't understand why Gaga considers TFM as her second studio album. (maybe she was obscure too because she didnt say TFM as second studio album, she said it as "LG2")

::::::::I once agreed to indicate Mayhem as eighth, but now Mayhem is being promoted as "seventh studio album" by people (who are insensitive to informations). But anyway, if we mark Mayhem as "eighth", other readers can be easily confused, and their controversial will be incessant. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If I remember correctly, Gaga considers The Fame Monster an album/era of its own because of the conceptual difference with The Fame. She also described them as yin and yang. It all comes down to artistry really. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::This really comes down to how we define what an album is vs an EP or re-issue. EP’s are generally seen as shorter albums. If albums are generally 40-60 minutes long, EP’s are generally 15-25 minutes long. Going by this though, TFM is almost 40 minutes long, making it fit more closely into the album box. It would be Gaga’s shortest album in terms of amount of tracks, but I don’t see why that matters. Plus, several artists in recent times have been releasing shorter albums that really should be considered EPs. Off the top of my head I immediately think of The Veronica’s’ Gothic Summer, which is 22 minutes long and is classified as an album by both the artists and this site. So I really don’t understand why TFM can’t be classified as Gaga’s 2nd studio album on this site. 2601:48:8100:6920:58A:7019:589B:184B (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The part about how people referring to it as her 7th album being insensitive to information is confusing, as they are more likely just going off of what Gaga herself has said. They may very well be aware that there is no clear answer on what # album it is, but with that being the case, it’s all the more reason to just go along with whatever Gaga says. 2601:48:8100:6920:58A:7019:589B:184B (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Still, there's no clear standard about EP and studio album. It's "generally", so its standard is obscure. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That’s exactly my point. I’m saying TFM should be considered Gaga’s 2nd studio album since that’s what she considers it to be. It’s currently listed as an EP/reissue on this site.

::::::::::::Then we have the issue of whether or not the jazz albums with Tony count as part of her solo discography, which it seems like most people agree they should not. She referred to Chromatica as LG6 before it was announced, and Mayhem as LG7, making it clear that Love for Sale is NOT part of her solo discography, as it was released between the two. Yet we still have people like Snuggums that insist it does count just because some articles have said so. Because apparently journalists determine what counts as part of an artists’ discography, not the artist themselves. This whole thing is beyond ridiculous imo. I’m truly baffled as to why we’re catering to journalists over the artist when it comes to how we label the artists’ work. 2601:48:8100:6920:38CE:C876:700E:F2C4 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}} First off, it isn't simply a matter of "catering to journalists over the artist"; the stance of 8 is also based on technicalities like packaging, reuse of past content, and chart combination. You can see pieces like [https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/lady-gaga-mayhem-uk-number-1-album/ this] indicating TFM is a reissue of The Fame (based on combined charting for the UK) plus it unambiguously says Mayhem is "Gaga's sixth solo studio album – and eighth overall including her collaborations with the late Tony Bennett". Sometimes other journalists get things wrong with careless omissions (whether it's mere negligence on their part or a deliberate attempt to downplay the existence of something). Secondly, I'm not sure why Gaga would refer to TFM as second after previously acknowledging the new songs (for the nations where they're not packaged with tracks previously included on The Fame) as an EP release, but whether something is or isn't a whole separate album doesn't truly go through retroactive changes no matter how much one might wish otherwise. It also makes no sense to say something is a whole album when largely containing things from a prior release. Third, we shouldn't blindly presume that the "LG__" informal dubs that fanbases use are inherently synonymous with chronology totals, even when she sometimes goes along with such uses prior to giving official titles of albums. Such thinking is oversimplified and it's best to avoid those dubs within article prose. Fourth, don't conflate solo discography with overall totals; they're not always the same numbers. I was saying earlier that the latter should be accounted for. On another note, while EPs and reissues can certainly have their own sales and certifications, that doesn't affect album status or lack thereof. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I guess I look at it like this: we have people making cases for why Mayhem should be seen as her sixth, seventh, eighth, and even in some cases ninth if you count Harlequin, studio album. With that in mind, would it not make the most sense to just call it what Gaga calls it, that being her 7th studio album? I get not wanting to have misinformation on this site, but at this point things with her discography have gotten so muddled and complicated that we’ve been forced to refer to Mayhem as simply “a studio album”, despite all of her other albums having a number on this site.

:I propose that we simply go with the following: “Mayhem is Gaga’s 7th studio album, and 8th overall album”. Does this sound reasonable? 2601:48:8100:6920:38CE:C876:700E:F2C4 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's confusing and self-contradictory to say "7th studio album, and 8th overall album". As for Harlequin, I thought that being a companion soundtrack was obvious when made for the Joker 2 movie alongside its primary soundtrack. Either way, I could understand an argument for six when that would focus on solo releases, but seven remains illogical no matter what reasons she may have had for using it (which remain unclear). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Pretty sure she made it clear when she did the countdown for Mayhem. She listed the following on her site on each day leading up to the announcement:

:::Day 1: The Fame

:::Day 2: TFM

:::Day 3: BTW

:::Day 4: Artpop

:::Day 5: Joanne

:::Day 6: Chromatica

:::And then Mayhem was announced on the 7th day. Either way, you seriously think my proposal is any more confusing than keeping it as “Mayhem is a studio album by Lady Gaga”? So it just has no # placement in her discography? Do we keep this for any future albums she does? Just referring to all of them as “a studio album”? To my knowledge, this has never been done for any other artist on this site. And you’re telling me that isn’t confusing, but my proposal is?

:::Also though, since when did we start making decisions based on whether or not it’s “confusing”, which is a subjective term? You might as well say “I don’t like this, therefore it’s wrong.” Who cares if it’s confusing? As I’ve already stated, her discography has already become confused at this point, so why not simply reflect that in the most straightforward way possible? Would you really prefer sticking with something that’s never been done for any other artist on this site? As if that’s somehow less confusing? 2601:48:8100:6920:74B0:FED1:C1C0:4A11 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I really don’t understand why we can’t just say (starting with Joanne since it was the first album after one of her jazz albums with Tony) the following: “Joanne is the 5th solo studio album by Lady Gaga.” Or even the 4th if you don’t want to count TFM. Either way, keeping it as just “X is a studio album by Lady Gaga” just makes things more confusing for readers imo. 2601:48:8100:6920:74B0:FED1:C1C0:4A11 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::No, what I meant that it was confusing to give two different totals for studio albums without specifying one is solo numbers, also using sixth would make more sense than seventh when excluding collaborative efforts. The phrasing you proposed before made it sound like there was some other unspecified way one other album got counted for a total of seven while another didn't. A lack of chronology numbers on album pages comes off as a misguided attempt to avoid faulty claims due to discrepancies for counting, and regardless it wasn't me who removed them nor do I endorse having no totals there. We in theory could simultaneously mention Joanne is her 4th solo and 5th overall album, which would be accurate as would saying Chromatica is 5th solo and 6th overall. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with this notion. Anyone else? 2601:48:8100:6920:74B0:FED1:C1C0:4A11 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::How long should we give this before we make the necessary changes to the album pages? 2601:48:8100:6920:5113:EF97:D977:42D7 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::So no one’s responding to this. Can a verified user make the changes on each album page? This would be covering Joanne, Chromatica, and Mayhem. Joanne would be 4th solo and 5th overall, with Chromatica and Mayhem following suit. 50.174.202.210 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The process here is that the discussion will be closed by an uninvolved registered user. A conclusion will be stated. That conclusion can be implemented by anyone, across multiple articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::So unless some as-of-yet uninvolved user takes a stance, this will just remain unresolved despite at least two of us reaching a consensus? 2601:48:8100:6920:849F:1312:A724:9D00 (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Note: In [https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/lady-gaga-mayhem-debuts-number-one-billboard-200-chart-1235923158/ Billboard's coverage] of MAYHEM refers to it as her "seventh studio album". AG202 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I think her legacy is big enough for just one topic in this main article. ArionStar (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose it's too soon for that; the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Cultural_impact_of_Lady_Gaga&oldid=1274874185 draft you've started up] matches what this article uses, and I don't see what else could be added without it coming off as bloated. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• :What do you mean, too soon? The amount of credible references pertaining to Lady Gaga's influences in various fields inclusive and exclusive of the entertainment industry and as cited in Lady Gaga's main Wikipedia article is too high for her not to objectively merit a separate official article on this same website tackling her wider sociopolitical and cultural impact at this point of her lifetime. Youaretheoneinmymind (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::*You're throwing the word "objectively" around too loosely here, and it comes off as an attempt to present your own stance as irrefutably correct. Five or six paragraphs nevertheless isn't exactly enough for a separate page, especially when it already fits reasonably well here. It doesn't solely come down to a sheer number of references as we also have to factor in due weight while avoiding fancruft as much as possible within the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose As above. So far you've just copied what's in the article and didn't offer anything new. It's a relatively short section and its content doesn't warrant an article of its own. It probably would have been better to open a discussion once you had a final draft. ArturSik (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• :You did not objectively respond to the main point raised in this discourse or even raised any substantial counter-example on this matter, possibly implying a copy-paste of similar previous responses under this same thread. Youaretheoneinmymind (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I didn't have much to go by. I mean, sure I could say Gaga as an artist made enough of an impact for it to have its own page. But based on what? My personal belief? We don't make these kinds of decisions based on artistic merit but on the amount of content written about it, and all we have are six short paragraphs of her 'Legacy', which certainly does not grant a separate article. In order to support this decision I would at least need an idea of what that page would look like and what it would consist of and the user who started this discussion hasn't offered anything new. Everything should have been compiled into that draft that was linked in her 'Legacy'. But there's no new research, no new content, so what exactly are we supposed to support? ArturSik (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as has already been noted, this does not appear to warrant an article of its own, certainly not at the moment. Taking a look at the draft you've created as well, there is a hell of a lot of bloat. For example, there is a list of 35 artists (each one with a reference, at least) who apparently were influenced by Lady Gaga but this doesn't really add anything for the reader? Perhaps if there was some discussion of how Lady Gaga had influenced each artist but at the moment it just seems like a lot of fluff. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 23:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Your response suggests that you did not properly reassess the multiple credible references pertaining to Lady Gaga's sociocultural and political impact that are cited in her main Wikipedia article as well as articles on this same platform interlinked to her works in music, fashion, and even major motion picture projects and television performances. Youaretheoneinmymind (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Comment @Youaretheoneinmymind I don't think anyone is arguing against including her cultural impact at all, because you're right. There are plenty of secondary references about it (and it already has a section here on her page). The question is, does it need its whole own page? And I think the answer could be maybe! What it sounds like to me from reading this discussion is that if you actually want to convince people it needs its own page (as opposed to a section within her page), you probably have to work on the page to make it much more full of information, and maybe include some headings and subheadings, etc.
• ::I don't think anyone is arguing against your sources. It's just that, as @Adam Black mentioned, for instance, there's a long list of people who've been influenced by Lady Gaga, but it's just a list with references. If you care enough to go through and expand on them - (for instance, I just watched the Rachel Zegler interview that's the referenced next to her name in that list, and it's full of meaningful tidbits about Gaga's influence on her (and culture in general)! It could make for a very interesting and well-sourced article if you went to the references and pulled out specifics to add to the article.
• ::(Side note: additionally, when looking for her cover of shallow, I ran across this https://www.glamour.com/story/shallow-a-star-is-born-covers that you also might be able to use as a reference and expand upon to talk more about Gaga's cultural influence, and people covering her song.
• ::I don't think this is an open-and-shut case that a second page is definitively not warranted. I just think if you want to prove that it is, then it sounds like wikipedia editors want more specifics and more refinement of what would be the new article. (And hopefully/maybe if someone has time/interest, they can help you (if you want it)? Good luck! Wikipedian339 (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Parts of the Legacy section are pretty fancrufty. For example, this sentence: Gaga and her work have influenced various artists including Miley Cyrus,[462] Nicki Minaj,[463] Ellie Goulding,[464] Halsey,[465] Jennifer Lopez,[466] Beyoncé,[467] Nick Jonas,[468] Sam Smith,[469] Noah Cyrus,[470] Katherine Langford,[471] MGMT,[472] Allie X,[473] Greyson Chance,[474] Cardi B,[475] Rina Sawayama,[476] Blackpink,[477] Madison Beer,[478] Ren of NU'EST,[479] Slayyyter,[480] Bebe Rexha,[481] Bree Runway,[482] Celeste,[483] Kim Petras,[484] JoJo Siwa,[485] Pabllo Vittar,[486] Ava Max,[487] Doja Cat,[488] Chaeyoung of Twice,[489] Kanye West,[490] Rachel Zegler,[491] SZA,[492] Raye,[493] Grace Gaustad,[494] Laufey,[495] and Chappell Roan.[496] It might be worth having a separate sub-article on cultural influence just so that this sort of material could be moved there and taken out of the main FA article, where it reduces the encyclopedic quality of the main article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:*Listing people someone has influenced isn't by itself fancruft, so you'll need to give something else as a better example. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:*:Kindly refer to interlinked articles about Lady Gaga's various works on her main Wikipedia articles to settle your insight on this matter. Youaretheoneinmymind (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This article needs a personal life section. I don't have all day to read through the entire article. Spreetz (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:That idea has already been brought up and rejected multiple times. Having relationships interspersed throughout "Life and career" instead helps avoid bloating and redundant mentions of working professionally with partners, also "needs" is a stretch as such sections aren't compulsory. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::As far as I'm concerned it needs it. But what do I know, I'm only a surfer dude. Spreetz (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::Isn't a "Personal Life" section pretty standard for a pubic figure, in case a reader is just curious about the person's romantic relationships or other basic biographical details, without wanting to read a full biography? 198.232.63.110 (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I edited the box at the bottom that has all of the information relating to Lady Gaga's albums etc. I thought the collaborative albums of Cheek to Cheek and Love for Sale needed to be on a separate line so I did that. RyanPLB (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The new format of counting her albums (for example Joanne: Joanne is the fifth studio album and fourth solo album by American singer Lady Gaga) is very confusing. I think the best solution in counting her albums

as The Fame her debut of course. The Fame Monster as her second album (Which is according to her LG2, her fans AND her label also counts it as her second album) Born This Way her third album (as mentioned on her site). ARTPOP her fourth. Joanne her fifth. Chromatica her sixth and MAYHEM her seventh. For Cheek to Cheek to write as the first collaborative album by Gaga and Tony Bennet. Love for Sale as the second collaborative album by Gaga and Tony. I think this is the best way to avoid any further confusion and it’s very up to date for Gaga and the fanbase. 2A02:14F:174:14FA:5D3C:79BA:330C:9AD1 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:See the request for comment above on this talk page -- you are welcome to weigh in on the appropriate numbering there. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 01:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It could be added to the Mayhem section that they will be performing in Brazil on May 3, 2025:

• Gaga confirmed through her social media that she will perform a free-entry concert on May 3 on Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro, which she called "Mayhem on the Beach".{{Cite web |last=Dailey |first=Hannah |date=2025-02-21 |title=Lady Gaga Announces ‘Mayhem on the Beach’ Concert in Rio de Janeiro|url=https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/lady-gaga-mayhem-on-the-beach-concert-rio-de-janeiro-announcement-1235907390/ |access-date=2025-02-21 |website=Billboard |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2025-02-21|title=Lady Gaga confirmó oficialmente su concierto gratuito en Río de Janeiro |url=https://www.ambito.com/espectaculos/lady-gaga-confirmo-oficialmente-su-concierto-gratuito-rio-janeiro-n6116101 |access-date=2025-02-21 |website=Ambito |language=es-ES}}" CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Hi, sorry, is it possible to reduce the level of protection for this page? Thanks. AnonimatoNick (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:That would be a bad idea when IP addresses, new accounts, and even some auto-confirmed accounts have previously disrupted the page with bad edits. ECP was implemented to prevent that from continuing when semi-protection was inadequate. If you wish for any changes to be made, then you'd be better off submitting edit requests here or perhaps making more edits until you reach the required 500 for extended confirmed status (which would allow you to freely edit the article). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Lady Gaga|answered=yes}}

Can i/someone add Lady Gaga and The Muppet Thanksgiving too in documentaries and special concert section? because it part of artpop official promotion just like A Very Gaga Thanksgiving (born this way) Weli04s (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} (it's apparently called "Lady Gaga and the Muppets Holiday Spectacular") ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 07:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Lady Gaga|answered=yes}}

Can someone please add this to the bottom of the philanthropy section:

In January 2025, Gaga was the final performer at the FireAid benefit concert in the Intuit Dome in Inglewood, CA. She performed "Shallow", "Always Remember Us This Way", and the original song "Time is a Healer (All I Need is Time)", written with fiancé Michael Polansky.

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Update the portrait in the info chunk Theflashofbedford (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

New related article: Michael Polansky

Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Well, is he famous or notable enough to warrant his own article? His main claim to fame is being Gaga's fiancee. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::He's received sufficient secondary coverage and he's co-written quite a few notable songs. I think a list/table of songs (w/ chart positions?) should be added to his bio. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::How many of said sources center mainly on him and aren't more focused on Gaga, though? I'm not yet fully sure whether he should be merged into this page when simply having a romance with her and writing songs together don't automatically entitle the guy to a separate page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to make a WP:BOLD edit and change the lead image to this one from 2023. It's more recent but notably, her face is looking at the camera and not turned to the side, her skin and hair is vibrant and it's a copyright-free image from her visit with Biden. Thank you. Please feel free to discuss here further on the talk page. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Please refer to comments here. ArturSik (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I support the proposed image. Facing the camera is important for an ibox image, and the recentness is a bonus. — Goszei (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

So myself and another user have agreed that it would be best, starting with Joanne, to refer to Gaga’s albums as the following:

-Joanne: 4th studio and 5th overall album.

-Chromatica: 5th studio and 6th overall album.

-Mayhem: 6th studio and 7th overall album.

We need at least one third-party user to agree on this for the changes to be implemented on her album pages, otherwise all of her albums on this site will remain referred to as “a studio album”, meaning we will have numbers for every artists’ albums except Gaga, which is just pure inconsistency. 50.174.202.210 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:That's not exactly it; the idea was actually to use 4th solo and 5th overall for Joanne, 5th solo and 6th overall for Chromatica, and lastly 6th solo and 8th overall for Mayhem. The way you phrased this also incorrectly implied that there's some other non-studio type of album being counted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

So, there's the 2023 picture with Joe Biden at the White House. I was previously opposed to using it for the infobox but I couldn't help think it was a waste as it is a professionally taken HQ picture of Gaga looking directly into the camera. No funny or akward facial expressions. Ideal candidate. My only issue with it was that she's standing so close to Biden that it's hard to completely crop him out and I'm not a fan of very close close ups as they are overwhelming imo. Nevertheless, I played around with it a bit and ended up with this, which I think is actually quite alright. What do you guys think? Do you think we could use it as the new infobox pic?File:Lady Gaga at the White House in 2023 (1).jpg ArturSik (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think it would be a good photo for the infobox, especially since in this one she's facing the camera. I don't think Biden's arm is much of an issue, or at least not as significant as the benefit of having a photo facing the camera. wiglett (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The Michael Polansky article is ridiculous. I can see the value in it if it is merged with Lady Gaga, but this individual falls incredibly short of satisfying WP:GNG separate from his relationship with Lady Gaga. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I wanted to give the courtesy of having a discussion about merging rather than immediately nominating this article for deletion. The subject’s company that he started doesn’t even have its own article yet. How is it that this person is notable for starting a company that isn’t notable for its own article yet?Brickto (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Since you quickly opened up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Polansky anyway after starting this thread, it's better to keep discussion on that page instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I certainly don't agree with your assessment, nor do I find the current biography "ridiculous", but I agree with SNUGGUMS that discussion belongs at AfD, not here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::Another Believer the template for the proposed merge linked to this talk page for the discussion, which I found odd. I agree with you that the article is probably best deleted. It was nominated earlier this morning. Kindly, Brickto (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, I don't think the article should be deleted, but comments can go to the AfD discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Lady Gaga|answered=yes}}

On the lead: it’s important to add “and six of her songs have topped the Billboard Hot 100” right after stating the amount of number-one albums on the Billboard 200. TheHipHopRapping (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Lova Falk (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Gaga's record sales are reported at 170 million. The 124 million figure is years old and barely covers Gaga's digital single sales, let along her other record sales. Why was this reverted?

Sources:

• The White House: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/13/president-biden-announces-key-appointments-to-boards-and-commissions-23/
• The Times: https://www.thetimes.com/culture/music/article/lady-gaga-new-album-mayhem-interview-l6ncqxvtn
• V Magazine: https://vmagazine.com/article/v-celebrates-the-15th-anniversary-of-lady-gagas-debut-album-the-fame/
• NMW: https://newmusicweekly.com/lady-gaga-experimenting-with-sounds/
• Complex: https://www.complex.com/music/a/jaelaniturnerwilliams/akon-remembers-pre-fame-lady-gaga-straight-from-80s

Please update this to make this article more accurate. SpearsRR (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)