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 75.156.132.101 (talk) at 18:31, 26 January 2011 (→‎mash-up: new section). 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 Music 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
October 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I forgot why we cut that stuff out --Cprice1000talk2me 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, can you make a possible draft and show it? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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,[1] 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.[2]

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.[3] 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."[4]

[GAY ICON STUFF HERE]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

mash-up

The first song she produced with RedOne was "Boys Boys Boys",[5] a mash-up inspired by Mötley Crüe's "Girls, Girls, Girls" and AC/DC's "T.N.T."[6]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ Vena, Jocelyn (2010-02-05). "Lady Gaga Explains Her Absence From 'We Are The World' Recording". ‘‘MTV’’. MTV Networks. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
  2. ^ Kaufman, Gil (2010-01-27). "Lady Gaga Says She Raised $500,000 For Haiti Relief". MTV. MTV Networks. Retrieved 2011-01-06. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  3. ^ Wilson, Benji (2010-04-10). "Lady Gaga gets lippy: The pop star teams with Mac to raise Aids awareness". Daily Mail. London. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
  4. ^ Chao, Ning (Undated). "Going Gaga". Marie Claire. Retrieved 2011-01-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference hitquarters.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Contactmusic.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga&oldid=410210384"