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 12.40.50.3 (talk) at 23:39, 6 August 2011. 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

change the main picture

The main picture of lady gaga is obviously unflattering. Are there any other royalty free photos of her that are more flattering?

Oh, and can someone else run the page besides legolas because it seems this person does not have gaga's best interest in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.139.211 (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see why this sentence is in here - "Early in her career she had difficulty getting radio airplay" - under the LGBT advocasy section. Is this subliminal vandalism? It seems to be worded in a way to make it look like she needed her gay fans in order to get radio airplay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.139.211 (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can yao about me for all I care, as for your second question, it is sourced by reliable sources like MTV. Yes, she needed popularity with the LGB^T community to make an initial stand. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say about this picture? It's from Wikimedia Commons, okay quality and is more up-to-date.[1]
--Theologiae (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you put it in high-resolution you can see, her eyes are half-closed. Not really a great picture for identification. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree, the main picture is kinda old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.5.154 (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another pitcture from the commons, it shows her face pretty well good quality and is a recent photo. [2] Will that do? 92.235.224.50 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking I hope? Have you seen the image in high-resolution? Its blurry, full of pixelated lines and noise. No way, that can be a main profile pic. Personally I love the image though. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the picture to remove as much noise as possible without making the picture a blurred mess. I don't know much about permissions and uploading to wikimedia at the moment, plus I'm not sure if it's any use so I've just put it on tinypic for now, but will [3] do? Or is this image a lost cause? ɧαεςαתɖɾσϻᴇ 22:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haecandrome (talk • contribs)
What about this image? Seeing as it's on an international Wikipedia, I'm not sure how/if we can use it. Stephenjamesx (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing since the Nicki Minaj article can have a "pink wig picture", I'm fine with this one too. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN (♫♫) 13:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a free image. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one? [4] - if it's cropped to remove the signature at the bottom, it'd be fine. It's fairly recent, of pretty good quality and from Wikimedia Commons. Also, I rather like this photo. Or this one? [5] - again from Commons. The lights in the background are too much, but if it's edited it'd be alright. --Effluvium (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an opinion, but I honestly don't like that Fame era style wig Gaga's got on. I'd prefer an image of her with her normal longer hair. Just an opinion. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussed on that wig either, but the photos are pretty good. Are we allowed to use Flickr as a source for photos? I've found a couple of good ones over at Flickr. How about: [6], [7] or [8]? --Effluvium (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check the copyright status on those links. All rights reserved → non-free → not allowed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I think this one should be used - [9] - does it matter that the signature is at the bottom of the picture? Does it need to be removed? --Effluvium (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly high-resolution I'm afraid. :( — Legolas (talk2me) 05:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga going bald from blonde dying

I put a few sentences about this issue which has been around for the past four months now and it was reversed by another user who claimed I was attacking Lady Gaga: see here. I'm not attacking Lady Gaga in the slightest. She's a natural brunette whose hair has been falling out because of the dye. KN→ talk • contribs 07:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I notice from the above conversation Legolas has been notified as someone who doesn't have the best interests of the article in mind KN→ talk • contribs 07:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a tabloid noted it, doesn't make it a notable theory that Gaga is going bald. This is violation of WP:BLP and WP:DIGNITY. How would you like if I say that you are going bald, being written about you? This is not a paper encyclopedia. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Gaga said herself that she is going bald in a a recent interview. I have sources, I cited at least three, one of them being from a tabloid but I'll get some more for you if you like. You aren't using WP:DIGNITY correctly as I am not harrassing anyone. This is not a personal attack, just reporting on what has been in the media for the past four months. See WP:V and WP:ENC. KN→ talk • contribs 08:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC) There's so many sources I'm just going to link to what the google search shows: see here, so you cannot disagree that this is not verifiable or relelvant or notable KN→ talk • contribs 08:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to ask yourself, why is it important? How is the fact that Gaga going bald is a notable info in an encyclopedia? This is not a case of WP:V or sourcing. Dignity talks about not only harassing someone, but adding content which defames somebody without any context, which this info does. I am completley disagreeing that this is notable in any damn way. This is not a case where Gaga is suffering from a disease (Lupus) or the intersex rumors, which have context in a biography. Who doesn't go bald at some point or another? You haven't answered why is this notable and neither you can prove that it has context. Remeber, WP:V =/= WP:N. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Lady Gag losing her hair is notable as it means it will result in a different look and affect performances in the future. She is 24 years old. I don't need to explain why this is notable. The sheer number of source materials speaks for itself. KN→ talk • contribs 08:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "sheer number of source materials" =/= "notability of the subject in consideration". You are basing your opinion on something that hasn't even happened. This is again violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Please back up your claims with a more steady debate, else this discussion is over I'm afraid. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you have a chip on your shoulder here. This subject is both verifiable and notable. Lady Gaga's hair falling out is a notable subject. Two or three sentences covering this is completely encyclopedic. If you don't want to budge on this, I'll just take it to the boards. You see this as an attack on Lady Gaga. I'm just trying to cover a verifiable and notable turning point in Lady Gaga's career, one that has already affected her in going bald and wearing wigs. I have included this in the public image section and I don't see where you are coming from at all. You're clutching at straws here to prevent any mention of Lady Gaga's severe hair loss as result of dying on Wikipedia. KN→ talk • contribs 09:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind you not to make personal attacks here. You are basing on pure bullshit and tabloid fodder. And yes, I do see this now as an attack on the biography of a living person, because you are turning blind to a BLP issue, in face of tabloid reports and nonsense. And notable turning point? She has been wearing wigs from a long time, how the hell is this s turning point? Which goddamn singer/actor/entertainer, who frequently color their hair, doesn't have hair fall? You are still not explaining the notability of this inclusion. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there even any reliable sources claiming this? I still see none.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None, LA Times, MTV etc all reported this, but as a joke. LA times even said, but what's the big deal. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The internet is bursting to overflowing with reliable sources on this. KN→ talk • contribs 09:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even important. --108.83.204.14 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I agree with the said opinion that Legolas does not have Gaga's best interest in mind, we must maintain a neutral point of view, and Lady Gaga's hair falling out because of the blonde hair dye is irrelevant and is not notable enough to be mentioned in her article, and it will never be, until it is on national news. --QuickEditor (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you think information can only be added to this article is USA national news reports it. GaGa is known in many more countries so a very BIG LOL ... I'd advice you not to say tabloid fodder because the sheer amount of sources that report on gaga on a daily - I could easily apply it to many of the said things in the article. You should discuss this with an open mind. Or else a debate should be started - where only sources in which GaGa talks herself and only American sources count. WP does not censor - so bare that in mind too. Notable is notable. The notable part may be that she wears wigs because she dyed it so many times previously - way before this. So you should look at all sources previous and make a big choice... don't just say tabloid fodder because someone in the know just might challenge you on what that means and ask you for real examples.RaintheOne BAM 02:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you telling me this? Please be sure to make note of who your argument is directed towards before you add your two cents. Anyway, this section should be deleted by now. --QuickEditor (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick editor, the part about national news sources would be for you. Also, why should it be "deleted"? If other editors would like it included, then it continues until an agreement is made. It looks to me like only praise is added to this article and critisism is kept minimal. I love Lady GaGa, but in parts of this article I feel like it is a fansite shoveling out bias. I've noticed quite a few times that whenever something bad is brought up - everyone says no.RaintheOne BAM 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Raintheone, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability. Even so, it does not matter, it is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article. --QuickEditor (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rain, how would you like if I say that you are losing pubic hair? Would you love that fact in an article about you and have a detailed description of how you are losing it? As I said countless times, this is not a case of WP:NPOV, WP:N or WP:RS. This is a case of WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY. We do not add content that just defamates a person for the sake of it. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't believe this is an attack to her dignity (it's like stating if someone's gay that's wrong), I don't believe this is important enough to be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.155.85 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to pronounce "Gaga"?

This article could use a mention of how "Gaga" is pronounced. Believe it or not, a lot of people, like me, only encounter the name in the print media. I've heard it pronounced at newsstands "Gah-gah" and "Gah-gay." Since it's a made-up name and her thing is weirdness, who knows (you I hope)? 5Q5 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gah-gah. No clue where you got Gah-gay. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN (♫♫) 15:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you can find a source that shows that Lady Gaga prefers it pronounced a certain way, it can be mentioned. As of right now, the pronounciation Gah/Gah is only notable through majority. --QuickEditor (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That being true, if only one/very few person(s)/organization(s) pronounce(s) it any other way, I honestly don't feel it deserves a mention. And if it, in any way, is pronounced as offense, then definitely not, per policy. That's unlawful. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Remixes

Why doesn't this article include "The Remixes"? This is what I'm talking about, http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/detail.aspx?pid=2719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.149.188 (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit request from 12.40.50.3 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

add to Category 2011 deaths because she was found dead

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga&oldid=443425582"