Jump to content

Talk:Lady Gaga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.185.163.99 (talk) at 21:40, 22 October 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleLady Gaga has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
May 2, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 23, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 4, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

The Fame Monster

Why isn't The Fame Monster listed under "Discography"? There was a standalone CD too, so it's considered a full album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.203.216 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it is an EP and that column is for studio albums, only. Futhermore, the album is mentioned throughout the article, so for what is necessary? TbhotchTalk C. 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EPs are normally omitted from the short discographies in articles. That's why Fame Monster is excluded. —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an exception should ever be made it include an EP, shouldn't it be for "Fame Monster" i think it would be difficult to think of many more successful or important EPsBlackballoon222 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. –Chase (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fame monster went platinum, spawnned 3 top 10 singles, was heavily promoted,and called by lady gaga herself her "sophomore project" ep or album it derserves a spot in her discography68.171.231.80 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC),[reply]
Agreed; if she'd released five or ten studio albums, it would be sensible to exclude The Fame Monster from the discography on this page on grounds of length; but as she has only released two significant collections of work (The Fame and The Fame Monster), it makes sense to list both of them in the discography here.VoluntarySlave (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable album = yes, for the section = no. Just because Greatest Hits (Queen album) has sold 25 million copies it is not being added to Queen's biography. TbhotchTalk C. 06:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen released lots of records, so it makes sense to limit the discography to studio albums. Lady Gaga has not released lots of records, so it does not make sense to limit the discography to studio albums.VoluntarySlave (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "less" successful ABBA with ABBA Gold: Greatest Hits. The problem is not that "Gaga has only a few albums2 the real problem is that fans never are satisfied with anything. TbhotchTalk C. 06:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an argument, though. Why should we not mention Lady Gaga's two most prominent releases in this discography on this page? Other things being equal, it is more useful to the reader to include more information than to include less information. So, then, what is the disadvantage of adding The Fame Monster here?VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We follow rules, you like it or not, her damn album is mentioned throughout the article, so why YOU need to add it??? TbhotchTalk C. 00:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we don't follow rules without thinking about the specific circumstances. Anyway, there's no rule that says a discography on a musician's page must only include albums. The guidelines for musician articles say "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a basic summary of the musician's work. In most cases this can done using a simple list of their albums." So the main thing to do is to summarize their work. Lady GaGa has so far released only one album, but has also released a significant EP. A simple list of her albums is not as good a summary of her work as a list of these two notable records would be.VoluntarySlave (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Read WP:ignore again, improve and maintain are the only two conditions, and this is not the case. You can ignore WP:ROLLBACK because you are maintaining the order on the encyclopedia, you can ignore WP:NSONGS, when a single has no charted, but there's enough information for improve the song to GA status, now I hope that understand the short but complex rule. Also what will happen when Stefani release her third or four studio album, we'll keep The Fame Monster on a studio only section?. TbhotchTalk C. 03:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And "basic summary" is generally studio albums only. If we were to include The Fame Monster, we'd have to include the other two EPs, and then people would go and add her compilations, singles, videos, etc. We use the main template for a reason - TFM is listed at the Lady Gaga discography article. –Chase (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's generally studio albums only, but its primary function is to summarize the artist's career. "Records that have been certified platinum," say, is a better criterion to use to summarize the career of an artist who has only released one album, than "studio albums" is. That criterion also provides a straightforward way to exclude the other two EPs; when she releases more records, we can easily change the criteria, and it may well make sense to remove The Fame Monster then. The only argument that seems to have been put forward so far against including The Fame Monster is that other articles exclude EPs. That's not a good argument.VoluntarySlave (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Miley Cyrus, the same as Queen and Abba. She released an EP as notable as the Fame Monster, and no one is requesting for add it. So I would recompend you to drop the stick and move to another article. TbhotchTalk C. 04:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time of our lives is not as significant as fame monster... Fame monster has sold mor copies then time of our lives, spawnned 3 top ten singles, and was supported by an international tour, the growth of her popularity due to the fame monster is far greater then any other artist's due to an EP and for that matter even for a studio album, it has been established that it is an EP, but it is still a major accomplishment in her career, no one can argue that

68.171.231.80 (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it IS notable and you don't decide which album is most notable than the other. As I said before, if you are logged out or are other user drop the stick TbhotchTalk C. 05:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not even an EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.210.157 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:The Fame Monster for further information. TbhotchTalk C. 23:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady gaga synthpop??/

Isn't gaga considered a synthpop artist?? all of her songs fall under that category. Can someone add that to her genre part please.?? --70.173.230.88 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant since we already have pop listed. –Chase (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but she is though, cause they wont leave her on the synthpop list. they say she isnt synthpop. they said unless it is on her wiki page that she is synthpop they wont leave her even though on the instruments it still says synthesizer --70.173.230.88 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is redundant. Pop is already listed, so we don't need to list off subgenres such as synthpop along with it. –Chase (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added a cite calling her synthpop to the List of synthpop artists article, so there shouldn't be any more problems. Regards, –Chase (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 94.173.96.149, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Here, "An avid thespian in high school musicals" please change thespian to "actor" or "performer". It's a pretentious word.

94.173.96.149 (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Thespian" is a perfectly fine alternative to "actor" or "performer" and conveys the same meaning. Yves (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Seems to be objections by other editors. Please gain consensus first. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pictures

I have recently said in the Discussion for the Britney Spears article, that the main photo should be what the person usually looks like. I want to say the same thing for the main Lady Gaga photo, if you take my meaning. Also, the second picture (Lady Gaga with Lady Starlight, I believe it was) is slightly inappropriate to some younger viewers. I didn't read/see the rest of the article after that, but if there are any other inappropriate pictures, please change them. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zm17930 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I would like to let you know that Wikipedia is not censored, and thus has no obligation to remove or replace "inappropriate pictures", which, in my opinion, are not that "inappropriate" in this article. Yves (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Zm, how is the main photo not what Gaga normally looks like? –Chase (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I don't think one can define "what Gaga normally looks like". Yves (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing album

The fame monster is missing from her discography list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conradhcatm42 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See #The Fame Monster above. It's not an album, only an EP, and EPs are not included in summary discographies. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should technically be seen as a new album. It's not just an Extended Play. Gaga said herself that it was an entirely different piece of work. 71.1.93.149 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaga said it was an EP - which can be entirely different pieces of work. –Chase (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING THROUGH THIS??? ANYTHING OVER 30 MINUTES IN LENGTH IS OFFICIALLY AN LP! END OF DISCUSSION!!! How many times has this been discussed? --Cprice1000talk2me 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:YOUREWRONG. Yves (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not apply to me as this refers to not being open minded and listening to others. I just joined this conversation.
Anyway, this is a ridiculous discussion. See album. --Cprice1000talk2me 21:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything on that page that contributes to this discussion. Yves (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bisexual?

Lady Gaga claims that she's bisexual but just like Madonna she's only claiming this just for attention.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga&oldid=392292257"