Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 12

Entire article uses wrong name

The name is Germanotta, but throughout the article it is misspelled as "Gaga." There is no reason to refer to her by a fake name in an article about the real person. This article is about Stefani Germanotta. "Gaga" is not her legal name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.22.236 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The aticle is called Lady Gaga if you didn't notice it. She is best known per her stage name. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 19:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Gaga" isn't a fake name... it's the name she (Stefani) chooses to be called. It's the name she (Stefani) wants the public to call her. Gaga may be considered, by some, as a persona - but that is how she is known very widely.

Stephenjamesx (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

New Single

http://gagadaily.com/2010/12/lady-gaga-talks-about-new-single/#more-13526 (Twitter screen cap included) points out that a new single is being released between her show on the 21st of December and the show succeeding it. Does it, at this point, meet Wiki guidlines to be added to the page? 92.235.224.50 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gagadaily is not a reliable source, either way in which sense this is relevant to her life? Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 21:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that while a fan site might not be a reliable source, what the actual artist says very well may be, perhaps a link to her Twitter or Facebook would be more substantial? Either way, while it doens't relate largly to her life, it does give a time frame for her next single and thus relates to her "2010–present: Born This Way" section, which I felt could perhaps be noteworthy. I'm not saying it definitely should be I just wanted peoples opinions as I know I feel that the announcement of a new single should be mentioned, but others, such as yourself, may have different opinions. 92.235.224.50 (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Both Facebook and Twitter are unreliable. Can't you wait a little more time? 2011 is just days away and I am sure within a few days we will get a surplus of reliable sources reporting about the new single. Then we are ready to roll babes! :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: New Photo

On the edit page, it says there must be permission to have a photo change. Instead of Lady Gaga in the cheetah print, could we please switch it to a photo of her from Lollapolooza 2010. The purple jacket and her hair look very good. I believe it gives her a better impression among people who do not know much about her. Please look over this photo change request and really consider it!

Thanks so much!

Griggj12 (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Griggj12

Offending the public is not a consideration in selecting an image. The most representative image and best picture of her is. Did you have a free picture taken at Lollapalooza in mind? —C.Fred (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The image would need to be copyright free to meet WP:NFCC for an infobox image. It would also need to show Lady Gaga's face clearly, which is sometimes a problem. It's unlikely that a real cheetah or leopard died to make the costume in the infobox, it is just animal print.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, per WP:NOTCENSORED, offending people is not a problem. (Furthermore, it's kind of obvious that she doesn't care about offending those opposed to wearing animals after the meat dress fiasco...) But a new image isn't totally out of the question, it just has to be of high quality, show her face, and other editors have to agree to its use. Possible replacements: File:Lady Gaga Glitter and Grease2.jpg, File:Gaga at monster booth2.jpg (but this could possibly cause an issue as her hat covers a part of her face). –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Both the pictures you posted, donot show the artist's face properly, and is hidden behind the shades. I would propose a different one, like this, although people would complain that it shows blood. A crop would do the job though. Frankly, I don't see any reason to replace the image we have at present. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The requirements are that the subject's face is shown clearly, which it is in both pictures (or at least the Monster Ball one, but I still think the CES shows enough of her face that it would be permissible). WP:IQR#Ability to recognize does not prohibit sunglasses and they certainly don't distract from the fact that it is undoubtedly Lady Gaga in the pictures (see the FA Michael Jackson as well), not to mention that they're probably two of the highest quality Gaga pictures on Commons. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know very well about IQR, however that is not a case when a perfectly taken, full frontal picture of the subjectr is present. A clear face pic is always preferable over an image wearing shades. And all images in Monster Ball category are high resoolution only. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between high resolution and high quality. And both of the images I posted, especially the CES one, are perfectly taken and of very high quality, definitely of higher quality than the current infobox image. I would like to see which policy or guideline says we can't use pictures where the subject is wearing sunglasses. There are plenty of images of Michael Jackson in the Commons where he isn't wearing them and his main infobox image is one where he does, and that article is a FA. The goal is to get the highest quality picture possible where the subject is easily identifiable. Both of those images meet the criteria, and arguably moreso than the current. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Legolas2186, the current picture of her looks manly, to a point. Plus, it's not one of her best photos out there. Why not make Gaga look her best on a site that so many people visit? Sunglasses really do not matter. It actually is apart of her and it represents Gaga and her fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griggj12 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Better plan. The person from who we got that G&G image, has exceptional high quality images from the your. She is willing to release it under the SA domain if requested. I think I will write up to her to release one of the better images, other than the G&G one. The one which shows her face clearly. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

These two are probably the best choices. Very high quality, very clear shots of the face. The first image is more flattering but the second image has an excellent shot of the face. Ask her if she can license both of these so we can see which works better. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, you are right, the second image will probably stir up more controversy amongst users. I was wondering, what do you think of this one? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a little too grainy and bright. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just gimme a list of images she can SA. She won't release all of them I'm afraid. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The two images I posted above, and anything you might want licensed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chase (for the first one), despite i'd prefer to put this one or this because it shows more about the personality of Gaga (her extravagance). Lxhizy! (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So did you guys get any photos licensed and what not? 71.115.176.58 (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I found this one in the wikimedia commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_GaGa_cropped.jpg

Sorry IP, too old. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, there's no policy/guideline that says we must use the most recent images available. An image from 2008 is perfectly acceptable to use, especially since Gaga does not look much different now. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, why the hell would we want to use that when there are much more recent images? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I got copyright and licensing permission from the author of this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LadyGaga2010.jpg -- I think I will just go ahead and switch the main photograph to this? Yeah. Griggj12 (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And the winner is ...

As a result of her campaign for gay rights, notably against don't ask, don't tell, she was awarded first place at the Top 20 Celebs Gone Good List. May you add it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.241.244.179 (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a self-published source, so it is not really notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

But even MTV reported it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a WP:NOTNEWS issue here. The MTV coverage is useful, but there needs to be some long term notability which goes beyond the news story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Image Consensus

Gaga's current photo is boring and it doesn't really show much of her fashion, style, or character. I think with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LadyGaga2010.jpg, everyone can see her in a younger look, more eccentric style, and a more colorful personality. It's not a bad photo at all, neither of them are. But I think the newer one is better and more edgy in a way. Some of you will say "no" because of the sunglasses but it's all a part of her. She represents fashion in so many ways and this is one of her ways. The glasses are wonderful. The resolution of the photo is good. I did get copyright and licensing permission from the author and I did forward that email to "permissions..." on wikimedia. Hopefully you guys will like it more than the other one? Lastly, please don't butcher me because I'm requesting a change. Thank you! -- Griggj12 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fails copyright. There is no ticket for the image available in OTRS. It will be deleted. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No problems with the costume, but the view of her face is too obscure for an infobox image. By the way, is the watermark of © PAIGE K PARSONS compatible with the CC 3.0 license?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, blatant copyright violation. I can see no ticket for the image on that date in OTRS. And Ian, for this reason, dont link the image in the talkpage in the thumb format. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? I swear I got the permission and I forwarded it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Do you want me to forward it to you!? I'm sort of new to this wikipedia thing but I know I did that right. I did not make any copyright violation whatsoever. And the face is not too obscure. I think it's just right. The lighting in her performances are raw and that's how the photo should be seen. -- Griggj12 (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lighting or not, Ian is right that the face does look obscure, firstly with the glasses, and secondly with the flyaway hair. And lastly, you are supposed to send the permission to permission-commons@wikimedia.org. Untill then the image can't be added anyways. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"permission-commons@wikimedia.org" failed to send because it's not real. Seriously, the photo is FINE. The public that visits the page will not care about the lighting and obscurities! This is for the world public. It's an unreliable source. Professionals aren't the type who will be viewing these pages. Who cares? You people just don't want to use that photo. -- Griggj12 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, we don't want to use that photo because "It doesnot have a copyright". Now quit yapping and blaming. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 19:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the © watermark is that it would effectively override the OTRS ticket. Claiming any copyright on an image usually makes it fail WP:NFCC#1 (no fair use when a free alternative is available). Also, the person in the image could be Debbie Harry and people would be none the wiser. With the hair and sunglasses covering most of her face, it is far from ideal for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Geeeeez. It's not worth it! You people are crazy. You know you have no life when you know EVERYTHING about wikipedia and it's functions. Keep the photo the same as it is now. I don't care anymore! :) -- Griggj12 (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, WP:BITE. Grigg, it's a nice image, and you haven't been treated well here. I've been around for a year and a half and don't understand any of this. Here you are a newcomer in red trying to make a nice contribution and they're telling you to get lost. Now you want nothing to do with Wikipedia and they don't care. I'm sorry this has happened. And I see you've been threatened on your talk page, which is unfortunate. DinDraithou (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If I were to take a screenshot of a video of a live performance from her tour shot by one of her fans that is posted on YouTube, then upload it to my Flickr account, then license it for free use, would Wikipedia accept it under those conditions? Cause I can make it happen, and all the whining from the OP would perhaps stop (besides, it's not like the picture is THAT old. She changes her look every five minutes, so what are you gonna do, change the main picture every day?). 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So which regular here are you? DinDraithou (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no account here, but since I know that hinders me from being able to upload anything on Wiki, I could instead upload it on my Flickr account, license it for free use, then you guys could use it. Of course, that is largely assuming that it would be in accordance with Wikipedia's rules on copyrighted images. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No you cannot as you do not legally own the video. Claiming it under a license means that you own the image from the video, which you cannot do unless its your video. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, then... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, DinDraithou. I got permission from the author. Can you provide an email address so I can send the proof to wikimedia or whatever? Legolas knows he gave me the wrong address but he continues to not help at all. Thank-you! -- Griggj12 (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't know how all this works. But Legolas appears to have just missed one letter: it should be permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for which follow this link.[1] I'm not familiar with the WP:NFCC and so on because I work with different material. Would it be possible to do it all over and upload the image without the watermark? See also [2] I wish I could be of more help. It would be fun to have somewhere in the article. Could someone offer to help Griggj12 make this work somehow? DinDraithou (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah actually, I can crop the image and re-upload it and resend the email as well. I'll do that. I'll just be happy if it can be in the commons! :D -- Griggj12 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck! I hope this works out. DinDraithou (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Movie and television by Lady Gaga

• As actress:
  • The Gospel of Mark for Little Children 2009: role as Madja Look
  • The Sopranos (Television Series 1999–2007): Girl at Swimming Pool #2 in "The Telltale Moozadell" (#3.9) 2001 (GaGa's Sop-rise appearance)
• As play sountrack

Newone (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Credited as S. Germanotta. Not as Lady Gaga. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't matter as they're still acting credits by her. Not sure how notable the Gospel of Mark film is but the Sopranos appearance is definitely notable and is worth adding. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we add a table?

Year	Title	Role	Notes
2001	The Sopranos	Girl at Swimming Pool #2	Uncredited extra "The Telltale Moozadell" (Season 3, episode 9)
2005	Boiling Points	Herself	Credited as Stefani Germanotta

Stephenjamesx (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel its unnecessary to add a table. And I don't find the Boiling Point appearance also as notable. I will work a way to include The Sopranos appearance. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Boiling Points was somewhat notable. It shouldn't be omitted. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Might I add that her very first television appearance and performance (AS Lady Gaga) was on the NewNowNext Awards in 2008. Is that relevant? You can Youtube it for proof. -- Griggj12 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also The Hills appearance. Stephenjamesx (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And then there's Gossip Girl. There are quite a lot of TV appearances that could be worked into this article. Stephenjamesx (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Years of Gaga

2009-2010 is considered the Years of Gaga because Lady Gaga topped #1 with a song in 2009 and went #2 with Bad Romance in 2010. I got this from WNCI's Top 40.--70.62.142.66 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Occupation "performance artist"

The infobox states many occupations without citation, yet "performance artist" has a citation. Is it really necessary? I'm certain it's already established globally. Stephenjamesx (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Check if it mentions with a source in the text/body of the article. If so, then remove the unnecessary citation. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cher as inspiration

I think it's fair enough to say Cher was and still remains an inspiration to Gaga. Just do a quick Google Image search. A source isn't really needed. She's definitely been inspired by Cher. Stephenjamesx (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! --Cprice1000talk2me 18:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh, what you guys are saying I can understand, but then Cher wasnt sourced anywhere in the article. WP goes for verfiability, not the truth. Remember this always!!! — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way Information

Sources such as Popeater.com are reporting that the black and white picture Lady Gaga tweeted is the album cover for Born This Way. Should this be added? Musicguru96522 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)musicguru96522

Obviously no, this irrelevant for her life and the cover is not official. Tbhotch^{™ ©} Happy New Year 05:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New image required? I don't have copyright though...

Yes, the current image is fabulous and yes, it's recent and shows what Gaga is and what she's about.
But what about these?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

These depict even more about the true Gaga and how she expresses herself - and how that expression has an effect on the public. I don't have the copyright for any of these... but Gaga's facing the camera in these images; she's not in the current one - and you get a much fuller depiction of her face and body.
Just a suggestion... perhaps it's because I LOVE these images and what she's wearing and as a Little Monster myself, this image reinforces how the fans view her: different, "the odd one out" - because they relate to that - and she relates to her fans.
Kind regards. Stephenjamesx (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got a hunch that the copyright holder (who might or might not be contactmusic.com, based on the watermark in the last image) isn't going to donate the images to the Wikimedia Commons, so none of them are usable. Sorry. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. She is entering a new era in her music and I think these photos suit her very well. They show her in a new way than in her "Monster" era. She's starting to evolve and these photos show that. They also have a nice clear picture of her face and her body, like you said. Don't listen to C.Fred. You don't know if they're unusable until you get denied permission from the actual copyright holder. Within these next couple days, I will try to help you get some copyright and licensing permission to upload these and hopefully change her photo! -- Griggj12 (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use one of those photos, they were published by PacificCoastNews. You can go to their website, pacificcoastnews.com and click on their contact tab. It gives you directions for licensing permissions! -- Griggj12 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The signature

Why is there no her signature here? - 111.251.197.31 (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would there be? This is an encyclopaedia article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Katy Perry's article has her signature as does Rihanna. I think what this user was questioning was why Gaga didn't have one as well. In all truth the reason an image of her signature isn't on the article is probably because no one has made one. It can't be just a photo of her signature, it seems to have to be a .svg file with a transparent background and in plain black. 92.235.224.50 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For example: Beyoncé Knowles, Rihanna, Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama etc. - 111.251.197.31 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made a transparent .png of her signature (link here: http://i52.tinypic.com/205tugo.png) based on her signature here: "http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100610135415/ladygaga/images/1/1b/Manifesto-of-little-monsters.png" which is from her "Book of Gaga" found in the Super Deluxe edition of The Fame Monster. It looks similar to the "http://www.ladygaga.com/sldn/" signature too, in case the reliability of the Super Deluxe Book of Gaga comes into question. If all is well with the file, could it be converted to .svg and put in the article? Or, if the image is fine, is there a factor that determs the input of a signature which Lady Gaga doesn't qualify? 82.33.108.63 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

2010-present

I more or less made the point of why I reverted the recent name of this section to 2011-present in my edit summary, but I'm bringing it here for discussion. Most of the information in this section is referring to events which have already happened, in 2010. 2010-present will soon include 2011, when the album is due for release. Since most of the events being discussed surrounding the album have taken place in late 2010, it makes most sense, imo, to leave it as 2010-present, and when 2011 rolls around, that'll include all of the discussion of the new album in both 2010 and 2011. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a gut feeling that most of this we need to move it to the 2008-10 secftion for the sake of maintaining consistency and timeline as other FA articles. Its sad that the info for Born This Way came so soon that the split was needed, but at present there is just too much even for a studio album. The Fame is still much more important. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was considering that option as well, but it seems a bit illogical to split information about the album into two sections simply because some of the information was from the year before (and with only weeks or months between, as well. I think it'd be best to avoid splitting it like this; whether that means combining it into the previous section or allowing the date overlap in the sections to discuss the 2010 info about the album is open to debate, though I given the names of the albums in the headings, I think it should be fairly clear to readers what each section covers, despite that they both discuss some events from 2010. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually anything is fine by me as to what consensus regarding this decides. Lets see what other editors have to say about it. Nice job by Stephenjames in improving the prose quality. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Move 2008-10 to 2008-2009. It is more consistent. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This has rattled my brain!!! I've considered The Fame and The Fame Monster being 2008-9, but some singles were released in 2010 - so that would be bad keeping. 2011-present for Born This Way would be incorrect for she recorded/wrote it in 2010. Uuuuuuuuuft! I'd hate to see Born This Way become a part of the current The Fame and The Fame Monster section in fear that it would turn out to be far too long. Plus, The Fame and The Fame Monster compliment each other well being in the same section - seeing as the latter is the extension of the former. Born This Way signifies a new era for Gaga. We need to show this somehow... Stephenjamesx (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Philanthropy of Lady Gaga

A possible addition?
What do you guys think?
She's helped Haiti; she gives her support to the LGBT community; she's supported HIV and aids.
The French and Spanish versions of this page include it (see here and here). I could translate and make my own additions. Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot why we cut that stuff out --Cprice1000talk2me 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, can you make a possible draft and show it? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's my draft - what do you think? :) I also think that her status as a gay icon should be included into this section, therefore, I have located where I believe it should go:

Besides her career in music, Gaga has enhanced her repertoire as a philanthropist who has contributed to various charities and humanitarianism works.

Although declining an invitation to record a benefit song, Gaga held a concert of The Monster Ball Tour following the 2010 Haiti earthquake and dedicated it to the country’s reconstruction relief fund. This concert, held at the Radio City Music Hall, New York, on January 24, 2010, donated any received revenue to the relief fund while, in addition, all profits from sales of products on Gaga’s official online store on that same day were donated. Gaga announced that an estimated total of $500,000 was collected for the fund.

Gaga also contributes in the fight against HIV and AIDS with the focus upon educating young women about the risks of the disease. In collaboration with Cyndi Lauper, Gaga joined forces with MAC Cosmetics to launch a line of lipstick under their supplementary cosmetic line, Viva Glam. Titled Viva Glam Gaga and Viva Glam Cyndi for each contributor respectively, all net proceeds of the lipstick line were donated to the cosmetic company’s campaign to prevent HIV and AIDS worldwide. In a press release, Gaga declared, "I don't want Viva Glam to be just a lipstick you buy to help a cause. I want it to be a reminder when you go out at night to put a condom in your purse right next to your lipstick."

[GAY ICON STUFF HERE]

Stephenjamesx (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow Stephen, you really outdo yourself don'tcha? This is just perfect! Please include it in the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

*Blushes* Thank yooooooooooou! Hahaha: love the edit summary. :') Stephenjamesx (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Some bits in the wrong section?

The last paragraph in the section 2008–10: The Fame and The Fame Monster (which is in Life and career) contains information about the intersex rumours; her influential ranking in TIME magazine and denied lupus confirmation. Shouldn't these issues be addressed in the section titled Public image? I think a mention to her Twitter followers, Facebook fans, any influential rating and the simultaneous release of waxworks deserve a mention in the Public image section.

I'm currently try to work in more information into the 2008-10 section - more focused on her life and career. I'm trying to take inspiration from the Madonna FA article. :) Stephenjamesx (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The lupus is not a part of public image. Lupus is a disease she has, something for which she can die also. It is definitely a part of her main bio. As for the ranking and waxworks, they can definitely be in the public image section. Twitter and Facebook info were decided previously as not important for inclusion in encyclopedia. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Diegocastro2705, 14 January 2011

{{subst:edit semi-protected}} In the section called "musical style and influences" the quote about her goal being to revolutionize pop music, revolutionize is put with s (revolutionise), when it should be with z. Diegocastro2705 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The quote is from the Daily Record, a Scottish newspaper. Since we're quoting the paper directly, the spelling remains intact, even though the quote is in a different national variety of English. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

mash-up

The first song she produced with RedOne was "Boys Boys Boys", a mash-up inspired by Mötley Crüe's "Girls, Girls, Girls" and AC/DC's "T.N.T."

The Wikipedia disambig page for mash-up contains the following:

Mashup (music), the musical genre encompassing songs which consist entirely of parts of other songs

The use of the term is a direct quote from the article sourced, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall under that definition. It's inspired by those two songs, and I'm sure if I listened to all 3 songs in question I'd note the similarities, but inspiration and borrowed riffs do not a mash-up make. I don't feel strongly enough about this to try to figure out how to edit it appropriately (my editorial skills are minimal anyway), I just wanted to point this out in case someone wants to tackle it. - 75.156.132.101 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs

Some of the paragraphs in the article are way too big. Its hard to read. Portillo (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way lyrics

Not sure if it's relevant to the article, but Gaga just posted the lyrics to the title track "Born This Way" via her official twitter. It probably won't be considered encyclopedic this time next year, but since there's so much anticipation about the upcoming album, it seems a relevant part of the timeline of the bits and pieces she's leaking. [3] - ♥ harutake ♫ | talk 23:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant for Gaga's life. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not only about her life, this is not Wikibios, the article is also about her creative works and other noteworthy activities and endeavors. - ♥ harutake ♫ | talk 23:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this article talks about Poker Face lyrics? Bad Romance lyrics? or any song? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously missing the point. The lyrics themselves aren't extraordinarily significant, but the official posting of them is another step in the series of hints and announcements leading up the release of the album, such as the buzz created when she announced release dates, or when she posted a remix of "Scheiße" for free release (both of which were also done on her twitter). - ♥ harutake ♫ | talk 23:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why this article will post the stuff she leaks via twitter?. Remember that this is a biography, and exist much more relevant information about her real-life and not her social network-life. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, the biography is part of the article. If the article was just a biography, about 75% of the information currently in the article wouldn't be here. By your criteria there's no reason to talk about when she announced the release dates. Please feel free to delete that information as irrelevant if you wish, but I wouldn't count on it staying deleted. - ♥ harutake ♫ | talk 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As Tbhotch said, its irrelevant. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

lady gaga pop singer...

--91.154.97.81 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC) in the article it said tha lady gaga is an american pop singer-songwriter, thats wrong, first of all she has co written all of her song, and she has produced some songs, and she doesnt sing just pop, electropop, synthpop, dance, pop. she should be refered as an recording artist and to a pop singer-songwriter..

Her produced albums are under the genre of pop, and she was a songwriter before she was a singer. She has written songs for many artists, including the Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, and New Kids on the Block. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Twitter

Lady Gaga is the most popular Twitter user in the world (source: http://twittercounter.com/pages/100) which is pretty amazing and noteworthy. Should be including in her page here, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisVeldhuijzenvanZanten (talk • contribs) 09:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before in the talk page archive (also her popularity on Facebook), and the consensus seems to be against it. Other thoughts welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to go on record and say that's absolutely ridiculous, considering that Twitter has confirmed that it is either a)Lady Gaga herself tweeting or b) someone directly involved with Lady Gaga, hence the little blue check mark. She said the song is coming Friday, so it's coming Friday. [4] Tommy! 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First Reviews for Born This Way

• Peter Robinson of NME "...it’s brand new ground for Gaga, with soaring vocals, rock solid melodies and an addictive, subtle momentum."

• nymag.com: Lady Gaga Keeps it Simple on Born This Way -- and That's Clever.

I thought I'd give some references here to help improve the article in terms of reviews of the long anticipated song. Cheers, Tommy! 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way (song)

Gaga has released the song! The article is still saying that she "Will" release it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.187.217 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Where? The one sentence I see talks about the album being released at a future date, not the single. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Its arrival will follow the release of its lead single on February 11, 2011.[84] The previous date for the single release of February 13, 2011, was tweeted by Gaga at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Day, 2011". It's already released! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.36.111 (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "Its arrival follows the release of its lead single…" makes that big of a difference in the text. Remember, the album has not been released yet. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Filmography? You know you want to!

See Gwen Stefani's filmography on her article here.
Gwen's article is an FA... we could go by such an example on this page?
xo - Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jayjoanz, 14 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following information to the "Public Image" section of Lady Gaga's page:

Lady Gaga's public perception is always amongst the most controversial of topics in popular culture. Debate about her style and influence on youth stems from her unceasing desire to walk the thin line between daring and inappropriate. The pop stars ability to command the attention of her fans and critics is unmatched and with a growing list of hit records she has solidified herself as a marketable brand. Her 2.8 million Twitter followers and 5.2 million Facebook fans represent evidence of her ability to move product (Hampp, 2010). With opposing ideals about the negative or positive impact of her music, fashion, and public statements there is little question that the benefits of her talent outweigh the detriments. Her fan base and customer base are similar in nature because they are both drawn to her outspoken and outrageous personality (Hampp, 2010).

Works Cited Hampp, Andrew. "GAGA, OOOH LA LA: WHY THE LADY IS THE ULTIMATE SOCIAL CLIMBER." Advertising Age 81.8 (2010): 42. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 13 Feb. 2011.

Jayjoanz (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that section already basically says that. Also, we don't list how many Twitter followers and Facebook followers a person has because there's no way to really verify that information -- are those real people? Are there any sockpuppet accounts? Anyway, the article basically says all that already. Banaticus (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cvachov, 18 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

1986–2004: Early life

Lady Gaga was born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, to an Italian American family, in New York City on March 28, 1986,[11]

...in Yonkers. NY...

Yonkers is it's own city and not part of New York City, it is located in Westchester County, not one of the five boroughs. Cvachov (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Per the cited source, "Birth Place: New York, NY."[5] It does not state Yonkers. If you check the talk page history, you'll also see that this issue has been researched and discussed at end, and established consensus is that she was not born in Yonkers. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Drug-taking?

Shouldn't something be said about her drug taking. She admitted it on her CBS 60 Minutes interview that she smokes A LOT of pot while writing music, while drinking whiskey. It's mentioned on other musician's articles, so why not here? --90.193.141.136 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised her former cocaine habit isn't mentioned here as well, seeing as she's talked about it in multiple places now (60 Minutes, Vanity Fair). 128.163.242.6 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Early Management requested addition

Frank Fredericks, a fellow freshman at NYU, recognized Stefani's talent when they competed against each other in a campus talent show. Fredericks began managing Stefani in the Spring of 2005, booking her shows at the nearby club the Bitter End. They worked together for over year, until she began working with producer Rob Fusari.

sources: http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/65127/index3.html

Mollygreening (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wax Statue

Why No Mention of it? 121.207.110.24 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for it? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga had eight wax statues unveiled in December 2010[6] but I'm not sure whether the article needs to mention this on WP:NOTNEWS grounds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Section heading Gay Icon should be Gay icon. Read WP:Section caps. 74.231.46.68 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Jewish

{{edit semi-protected}}

I dont have a link, but she is Jewish. --91.115.58.243 (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• OK, please come back when you have a link that meets WP:BLP:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No she is not. She is of Italian descent and was raised Roman Catholic, and she also attended a Catholic school. She is not Jewish. She is Catholic, and the article already has sources stating so. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Billboard top 40 money makers

[7] think its important. YZJay talktome 11:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Launch Your Line

She appeared on 'Launch Your Line', a TV series produced by Bravo TV. 1.52.24.49 (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Do you have a reliable source for this? Yves (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way: The Remixes

It has been confirmed on Lady Gaga's official website that 'Born This Way - The Remixes' will be released on the 15th of March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.114.163 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, can we add it or not?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.2.42 (talk • contribs)

Hello?????!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.2.42 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a disc of remixes warrants mention here. It might at the discography article. Either way, have you got a direct link to the press release on the remixes? —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No; the release is not notable enough to warrant a mention on the artist's page. Unless I'm mistaken, every Lady Gaga single had a remix package released with it. It would be better on the song article. Yves (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Psychiatric issues

Is someone joking here? Can we even call these sources? The "Judiciary" report? An anti-kabbalah site dedicated to slamming Madonna claiming she is affecting Gaga in a bad way and dragging her towards darkness? A non-autobiographical book? Huffington post mentioned she had a "mental breakdown" and was hospitalized, but does that mean she's a psycho? Please remove this section or else find some reliable sources.We also should have discussed this before someone randomly adding it. Thank You. --GagaLittleMonster (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Previous to the release of the album, the singer had bought her own music in October 2010[99] and in February 2011 was accused of being self-promotional." First of all, the source says "unreleased music", and I can't find anything accusing her of being "Self-promotional"... Please someone fix the article.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Runway Model

Someone should add Runway model to her occupations. And someone should consider removing "psychiatric issues" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.182.29 (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... I'm trying but no one seems to respond.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While classified as a "good article" what Wikipedia offers on her is mostly garbage. This article is one of the more spectacular pieces of trash in the project claiming to be informative. But it's pretty hopeless because the devoted contributors don't get it and there's no way to rewrite the whole thing with them around. Because she's so accomplished it's really a shame. DinDraithou (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Same thing here. Hardcore fan aside, even if it's not true we have to at least mention what the media says about her music, that she's launching the newest pop revolution, how she's accomplished in influencing pop culture, more detailed philanthropy about her new MAC AIDS campaign, what other artists say about her such as Elton John, Akon, Usher... etc. And the sources are PLENTY, there's also her runway debut, musical director for Thierry Mugler. Not to mention the article picture which looks like a painting gone wrong (too much effects). And that's not personal opinon, that's reported, the article is still far from neutral.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

To respond to the request in question, "runway model" is hardly an occupation of hers; it was only a one-time occurrence. Yves (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why no Little Monsters and Mother Monster???

Someone should add that she is refereed to as Mother Monster and her fans are known as Little Monsters and that they are very loyal to her... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unotwotiga (talk • contribs) 09:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source (for the first part and not the "loyal" part)? Yves (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Gossip Girl

There is no mention of her cameo appearance on Gossip Girl in the episode The Last Days of Disco Stick. Is it not significant enough to add (which it should be) or is it just that has no one gotten around to adding it? Ryanlively (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was only a special performance, and she had no spoken lines; just a performance of "Bad Romance". It is covered in detail in the song's article, but I don't think a small appearance like this is notable enough to warrant a mention on her main page. Yves (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

New Picture

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_Gaga_-_Polaroid.jpg#filelinks I think we should use this picture instead of the current one. This one is much newer and kinda explains the part of her that isn't music related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ij197 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Newer is not always better. The Polaroid image is not particularly good and does not show Lady Gaga's face clearly, which has been identified as one of the requirements for the infobox image. Also, the current infobox image shows her in a live performance, which is more suitable for illustration purposes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this photo should be used http://i52.tinypic.com/4r5kx0.png as it's from March 2011, which is a lot newer than the current photo and it's to a lot higher quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardDeehan (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, that page doesn't indicate who the photographer is or how they've licensed the photo. Without that information, we can't use the picture. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk February 2011

my questioning about this page as a marketing tool, seems to be a very bad thing, and was "vandalism" according to John9988, the head Editior for this page. It seems a discussion page does not mean discussion.

The talk page is just that talk!!!, suggestions , ideas and question????. It was is NOT the main article. John9988 is trying to control questions and public speech. There is a reason why there is a discussion page was implemented.

"Why is he John9988 deleting questions, and ideas on a "DISCUSSION PAGE". Its just that...discussion. The question was that the page could easily be a marketing page, as it most of the the contributors seems to be the same people going when you look at the history contributions. The page seem to have more references that anything on Wikipedia, and the general public is generally lazy to to that extent. My question pertained to marketing...as marketers are insipid and are using anything and everything on the internet." "

Yes I could be less antagonistic in what I wrote. I still stand by with my questions on marketing "This is another example of articles that are used as a vehicle for the marketing of people and services. Unlike...or how Wikipedia used to be...this seems to be written by just a handful of people!!!! How does one individual get such a huge article after being in the entertainment industry for just a soooo few years. It has 150 references to where the material came from.

Lady GAGa has been in the industry for just 5 years, yet she probably has more references than anyone other person.

I've studied film/ media and photography for 6 years. When entertainers, get to level of filling stadiums, very few of their ideas is still their own. Today the ideas that come from big stars and their music, and visual production output, is part of marketing and the people who work with them could be considered part of their "marketing team"

Another question...As something that can be seen as marketing...the targeting of gay men in her production...not that it's anything new Madonna(where most of here ideas come from) but kilted up, Chere, others.*

So little talk for a page with some many references, and one that is so extensive....we really should be worried. Someone is controlling the talk on this DISCUSSION page.

John9988 Are you part of the marketing team of Lady Gaga? Is that why you removed a relevant questions on a discussion page??

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

""Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Lady Gaga. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed."~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of quick notes. First, bear in mind that there are 12 pages of archived discussion in addition to the threads visible on this page. Archiving takes the older content and moves it off of this page. With only active discussions on this page, it's easier to follow.

Part of the reason there are so many references is because of the volume of discussion and involvement of a large number of editors. For instance, her place of birth was a topic of discussion for a while. To address the concerns raised by editors and to meet the verifiability concerns, there were multiple references at one point. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE GET RID OF THIS GARBAGE..... Gaga's influence on modern culture and society has provoked the University of South Carolina into offering a full-time course titled "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame"[142] in the objective of unravelling "the sociologically relevant dimensions of the fame of Lady Gaga with respect to her music, videos, fashion, and other artistic endeavors".[143]lady gaga loves her fans very much and would do anything for them just like they would do anything for her.she is 100% women and anybody who doesn't beleive that are just jealous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)